Since I saw “No Country for Old Men,” I’ve been mulling over the ending. Again, I won’t spoil it for those who haven’t seen the Academy Award winning movie. But I cannot get the movie out of my head and that may be exactly why the movie won big at the Oscars. Granted, I think part of it is that I totally loved the character Anton Chigurh’s weapon, a compressed air “gun”… unusual, difficult to carry, but so very vicious. Add in the sawed-off shutgun with the silencer and he is one scary villian. While I thought the weapons were oddly cool, Washington Post film critic Stephen Hunter didn’t agree, thinking they were big and bulky and not really realistic. Oh well…

As for the ending, I think it’s supposed to be in total contrast to the fast, dread-filled pace of the rest of the movie. Ultimately, I think the ending is just simple. The sheriff (played by Tommy Lee Jones) felt his “country” got to be too violent and too depressing for him. Rather than fight, he retired, giving up to live a retired life. But his dreams continued to haunt him. Either the sheriff will have a showdown with Anton Chigurh or his life will be just about waiting to die.

Back to critic Stephen Hunter, who says the ending is just one big let down. In many ways, I agree. He wrote in the Post: ” ‘No Country for Old Men’ then vigorously subverts the convention. It’s meant to be “ironic,” with that big capital I. Instead it’s unsatisfying, with a capital U. Nobody goes to the movies for the irony. They go for the satisfaction.”

My friend Hope had an entirely different take on the ending. She believed that Tommy Lee Jones’ character was actually killed by Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh. Everything else from then on out is a dream, including the ending about the dream. Interesting…

So who’s right? I’m still wondering, but I’m starting to think that maybe Stephen Hunter may have been right after all.