Those of you who aren’t familiar with the Coen Brothers by name might be more familiar with their work (Fargo, Barton Fink, Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, O Brother Where Art Thou?). If I had to pinpoint what makes a Coen film different, it would probably ride on their ability to humanize the villain. Violence is prevalent in their films, but I wouldn’t say that it’s glorified – rather, each depiction seems to reveal the absurd and futile nature of the act, and – in turn, the absurdity and futility of the character carrying out the violence (Fargo probably illustrated this best).

This ideal takes a sharp turn in “No Country for Old Men,” and not having read the novel, I’m guessing that this is due more to McCarthy’s influence than a change in the Coen brothers. The violence, while absurd – doesn’t reveal the futility of the villain, but the futility of the fight against evil. In their other movies, justice has a voice. In this movie, it’s the silence of justice that has one of the larger roles.

I, myself, believe that evil should be fought, and that that fight isn’t futile – so the film didn’t sit all that well with me. That’s not to say that the movie isn’t good for many other reasons, but this was not the indefinite feeling I was hoping for in attending a Coen film.

I watched “Pan’s Labryinth” today, and I have to wonder how many people are going to bring it home from Blockbuster not realizing that they’ll be reading subtitles. Then I wonder how many people will think that it will be appropriate for kids, not realizing that it’s more like “Willow” meets “Schindler’s List.” Good show though. Good in the same way that “Willow” was creepy, and good in the way that “Schindler’s List” was depressing.

The end