I re-read the movie review at the top, and I do not agree with it, but I dislike it less. It is like an opening salvo in what should turn out to be a dialog. But I feel it's okay to say some things I like about the movie:

I like the personality of Brolin's character, his clear mastery of long distance shooting (although he misses), with the question in my mind was he a sniper in the past? His thought process as he tracks one of the participants in the shootout, his conscience troubling him, and his ability to figure out some of the ramifications.

And I like the fact that despite his intelligence, his own toughness and the fact that he's pretty dangerous, he simply can't anticipate Chigurh. Chigurh's character makes the story and the movie different, and contributes to the body count and the incomprehensibility of it to the law enforcement people, who are mostly rural and used to standard rancher's shenanigans.

I disagree with the notion of the rise of Mexican criminality as a factor here. We're clearly close to the border, most of us should know from the news that the cost in Mexico of this trade is far far higher than in the US, but I took the 'Chigurh' name to be East European, though undefined. He's a player from another place with anothe set of standards.

Talk of the Nation on NPR recenlty had an hour devoted to movie bad guys. And of course Chigurh came up, along with a host of others. The problem from the movie-maker's point of view is how to present a memorable bad guy in an era where many moviegoers and all critics have experienced quite a few already. Clearly the Coen Brothers brought it off with that great performance by Javier Bardem (and that haircut).

"I will not tell you you can save yourself"