After attending a screening of No Country last weekend, I guess my question for Ms. Stevens is: How could that movie not leave you cold? It’s about a guy who uses a bolt gun to murder any living thing he comes across, as if that were the “natural way to end to a conversation” (as she aptly points out). Hard to take a message away from a movie that takes as its subject the annihilation of meaning.

But let’s not dwell on the actual film; Ms. Stevens is more interested in talking about whether it matters. I wouldn’t take issue with her saying that she wasn’t personally “affected” by the film – a criticism often leveled at Coen movies – but I think it’s important to make a distinction between being affected during a movie, and being affected after it. If she’s implying that No Country for Old Men doesn’t make much for water-cooler conversation, that it won’t change your life or even the way you think about the issues it presents, I’d agree. After watching it, I found myself strangely incapable of coming up with anything to say about it. I was deeply affected during the movie, but not afterward – and that seems to be what Ms. Stevens took issue with.

But I would suggest that that’s the charm of No Country – it’s a visceral experience, a movie that’s made to be, well, watched, not talked about – a film that “matters” more during its two hour playing time than afterward. And I can see how that could pose a problem for a reviewer who would rather use her 700 words to tell us how she feels about film in general (“The Coens' movies are effective…without being affecting”), instead of, well, reviewing the movie.

Then again, maybe Ms. Stevens is right. Maybe we need more “important” movies. Movies that expose politicians for what they are, that tell us what kind of world we live in, that give us something to talk about around the aforementioned water cooler. Movies like “In the Valley of Elah,” or “Rendition,” or “Lions for Lambs” (I would have listed last year’s batch of imporant films, but I guess I’ve already forgotten what they were).

For my money, though, I’ll settle for a film that entertains me as I’m watching it, in the best sense of the word – maybe even a movie that would send me back to the theatre for another $10 (or $12, or $14) ticket, so that I can try to figure out why I’m having so much trouble talking about it. Maybe the Coens make films that don’t “matter” in the sense that Ms. Stevens might be using it, but that’s never been their intention. They play around in their films – mashing genres together, writing absurdist, circular dialogue that often comments on the process of speech itself, using their extensive knowledge and appreciation of cinematic history as a bass line to riff on. (Their “cult” includes anyone who watches movies.)

All of their films have a strong satirical element, which could be part of what Ms. Stevens is responding to (satire, by definition, annihilates meaning). But I still find a degree of warmth in their movies, a sly compassion on the filmmakers’ part for even the slimiest of their characters. I agree with Ms. Stevens that the endings of their films tend to fizzle out or spin off, but in most cases I think that’s intentional. Instead of settling for an exhilarating high note, they often leave us on a curious downbeat – Marge talking to her husband in bed in “Fargo,” Hi thinking about a future in Utah in “Raising Arizona,” Sam Elliot’s character inexplicably rambling about The Dude in “The Big Lebowski.” They wait for the last wave of action to crash, and then they wait a little bit longer. You’re more likely to leave the theatre saying, “What was that about?” than praising the film.

Like any magician worth his salt, the Coens take care to reveal the artifice before the lights come up. They don’t make masterpieces, but they would probably ask the same question that I (and others on this board) would ask of Ms. Stevens. “What does that word mean?”

It's quite remarkable how dead wrong this woman is about No Country For Old Men. The notion that this film is not eligible as a piece of art or doesn't "matter" is to suggest that she knows nothing of the human psyche, nor does she care to.

It's absurd to suggest that this movie is only about but crazy dudes, cool stun guns and machismo. If Ms. Stevens had looked beyond her trite assessment that the story consists of little more than "boys being boys," she may have found that this nearly flawless film is more about the ramifications of greed, evil and what it is to be a human being; which is what the Cohen Brothers do best. The masters of putting the ordinary person into the extraordinary situation deserve nothing but applause for this truly pitch-perfect piece of film making.

I would have found it interesting to know what Ms. Stevens does consider important. From reading reviews past, apparently she feels a disjointed film (Bug) about a couple of lunatics who think they have a rampant case of fleas (that, by the way, completely falls apart in the last half hour) deserves high praise.

Or Fracture- one of the most ill-constructed and laughable movies of the year that centers around one ambiguity after another. Now that's a film that matters!

Don't give this review a second thought. Or my own assesment of Ms. Steven's review. See the film, and decide for yourself what does and does not qualify as art.

I haven't seen the movie, but I agree with your assessment of the Coen Brothers' work. They make very well-crafted, intelligent, absorbing movies that, somehow, don't seem to hold up under repeated viewings and always fall short of being essential. It's hard to put a finger on exactly what's lacking from their work, but there's definitely something missing. Take Fargo, which, unlike most of their stuff, isn't just a big cobweb of allusions to far better movies - mechanically it's great, all the regional humor is nice, everyone gives great performances... but in the end, I'm just left cold by the whole thing. Perhaps it's because they take a very serious subject and keep too much of an ironic, fey distance from the material.

Am I the only one who thought that there was a twist to the ending of this movie or am I crazy? How did the other drug dealers know where the main character's wife was? I thought that Tommy Lee Jones was in on the deal and that's what his speech was about at the end or am I just stretching it??

Um. No twist ending. You're not crazy either. The mother told the unusually dressed Mexican (in a suit, no less!) where they were staying when they were at the bus station.