No Country for Old Men

My wife and I watched "No Country for Old Men" the other day. I approached this movie with some serious apprehension for two reasons: a) word on the street was that the ending was very problematic for some people, and b) I've always found the Coen Brothers' movies to be very hit-or-miss...and for me, usually a miss.

But it's hard to ignore a movie that many are proclaiming to be the best of the year as well as one of the crowning achievements of American filmmaking. A week after watching it, I still find myself with mixed feelings on it.

I won't spoil anything, but read no further if you don't want to know ANYTHING about this movie. I absolutely LOVED the first 3/4 of this movie. Javier Bardem is unbelievably good as the assassin Chigurn. The way the directors built up the suspense and created feelings of absolute terror and dread were fantastic. I was totally on board with this possibly being the masterpiece everyone was making it out to be. Then for the last 1/4 of the movie, things fell apart for me. And the ending was completely unsatisfying.

Let's get one thing straight--I don't care that the movie doesn't have a conventional, everything-wrapped-up-neatly ending. But with the way the movie ended, the events of the final 30 minutes seem pretty pointless. The side-story involving Woody Harrelson's character also seems unnecessary. As does Chigurn's weapon of choice.

I've since discussed this with some other people who have offered some interesting theories on what these final scenes mean. To be honest, I really like that I've had to think about this movie for such a long time, but I'm still not satisfied with everything.

Anyone else out there see this movie? Love it or hate it? Any thoughts on how the movie ended? I'd love to have a spoiler-filled conversation in the Comments section.