After more than 20 years of film-making, Joel and Ethan Coen finally struck Oscar gold with 2007’s No Country for Old Men. Among other awards, it nabbed the much coveted Best Picture prize. Did they have to compromise their quirky and dark sides to gain this honor? Nope – for good or for bad, Men feels distinctly like a Coen Brothers product, though it clearly favors the dark over the quirky; think more “bodies in the wood chipper” than “deadpan, pregnant, heavily accented Midwest cop”.

Set in desolate west Texas circa 1980, Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) stumbles across a drug deal gone wrong. Among the corpses, he discovers lots of dope as well as a suitcase that contains a couple million bucks. Like most people would, he snags the cash and goes on his merry way.

This doesn’t leave him free and clear, though. Hired assassin Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) goes after the money and doesn’t plan to simply ask nicely for its return. If he catches Moss, he clearly will shoot first and ask questions later – a plan that applies to anyone else he encounters as well. While Moss tries to keep ahead of Chigurh, local sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) tracks both of them. The film follows these threads and some other complications.

And gets darned bloody while it’s at it, though Men isn’t the only violent Best Picture winner in recent years. Heck, 2006’s The Departed featured a lot of that kind of material, and both 2000’s Gladiator and 1995’s Braveheart boasted much bloodshed got pretty graphic at times. (1997’s Titanic probably boasts the highest death toll in the last few decades, but it didn’t feature graphic violence, of course.)

I guess I can’t call Men the only dark film to take home the Best Picture Oscar recently either. Departed was pretty grim at times, and both 2005’s Crash and 2004’s Million Dollar Baby veered into “downer” territory. The most recent non-violent and uplifting film among recent BP winners would be 2001’s A Beautiful Mind, I suppose. 2003’s Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King had an inspirational side but was violent, while 2002’s Chicago was a sparkly musical that contained murder and other sins.

Although we’ve seen some gritty Best Picture winners, Men stands out as something else to me. As violent and dark as some of them could be, they focused on the heroic side of things too much to be as grim as Men. For instance, Departed mostly focused on the perspective of an undercover cop who infiltrates a criminal organization. It features ethical complexities but maintains a clear sense of good and bad, and we’re largely exposed to a character who maintains – or tries to maintain, at least – the moral high ground.

No such nuances exist in Men. Sure, it offers the investigation by Sheriff Bell, but it doesn’t concentrate on his side of things over the other facets. In fact, Sheriff Bell really plays a minor role through much of the film. We see much more of Chigurh and Moss than we do anyone else, probably because the Coens relish the bad guys more than they do the heroes. Granted, Moss doesn’t fit the mold of a true villain – he’s the besieged rodent in the cat and mouse chase to Chigurh’s relentless feline – but Moss sure isn’t anyone we’d view as a positive model.

This makes Men a dark ride, probably the grimmest since 1991’s Silence of the Lambs. That one went for uglier subject matter and contained more evil at its core – no one here skins women and wears them as a suit – but at least it compensated with an actual heroic lead character who dominates the proceedings. For it to work the same as Men, we’d have needed to spend most of our time with Lecter and Gumb while Clarice makes only sporadic appearances that the filmmakers embrace in a half-hearted manner.

You can tell the Coens don’t care much about the Sheriff Bell side of things, at least during three-fourths of the film. They muster little interest in the white knight who tries to do the right thing. They’d rather indulge in the psychopathic assassin who uses a bolt gun to slay his prey. After all, who’s more interesting: the vaguely John Wayne-style small town lawman or the amoral hitman with the moptop?

I must admit I’ve never considered myself to be a fan of the Coen Brothers. They possess a certain self-conscious side to their film-making, as their quirkiness feels pretentious and over the top to me. I get the feeling they impress themselves too much with their fabricated eccentricities.

But maybe that’s just me, as the Coens certainly boast an extensive fam base. I don’t claim they lack talent, of course, and I’ve liked some of their films. I thought highly of Miller’s Crossing - one of their “straighter” films – and I maintain reasonable affection for Fargo, although believe it’s overrated. I don’t fully recall how I felt about Barton Fink, but I’ve been pretty ambivalent or negative about most of the rest of their filmography. Cult faves like Raising Arizona and The Big Lebowski don’t just leave me cold; I actively dislike them.

It should seem like no coincidence that those two efforts favor the super-quirky comedic side of the Coens – the side that so irks me. To my relief, Men largely leaves that facet of their cinematic personalities out of the equation. Oh, the flick throws out the occasional oddball moment played for dark laughs, but the emphasis stays on the dramatic side of things.

And that’s what keeps Men on the positive side of the ledger most of the time. Even when the Coens embrace the oddly comic – like when a mariachi band awakens a bloodied character – the gag stays small and underdone. The film lacks the oppressively broad strokes of something like Lebowski, so it doesn’t come across as quirky for quirky’s sake.

Does any of this make Men a great film? That’s the bigger question, and one for which I think the answer is “no”. I found Men to be an interesting movie, and it’s one that maintained my attention for its two hours despite some potential lulls. For instance, Men may well be the least chatty Best Picture winner since Wings. Dialogue scenes are few and far between in this effort, as “show” almost always trumps “tell”. It’s the polar opposite of fellow Best Picture nominee Jumo, a flick that made its bones with its eccentric lines.

The lack of dialogue means that Men comes across as something unusual, but “unusual” and “great” aren’t the same thing. This is a good, reasonably involving flick but not anything that seems particularly memorable. Actually, some of the elements that make it different can end up as flaws. While it certainly remains dark, that grimness ensures a one-note feel and an essential absence of character development.

Some of that changes during the third act, but I’m not sure it’s for the better. The tale does take a tone shift when Bell becomes more central to the plot, and viewers are sure to debate ad infinitum whether or not this turn actually works. Maybe it’s brilliant and deep, maybe it’s pointless and inconclusive, or maybe it’s neither.

The final act does create a distinct contrast with the rest of the film, and I still really don’t know how I feel about it. On one hand, I applaud the decision not to give Men a more traditional conclusion; the movie goes in an unexpected path that allows it to stand out against its predecessors. On the other hand, I can’t say that the ending feels satisfying. Perhaps that’s the point – I don’t want to get too detailed here so I can avoid spoilers – but when the flick ends, you may be left somewhat befuddled.

Ultimately, No Country for Old Men is a good film, and one that certainly works better than the average Coen Brothers effort. I don’t think it deserves all the praise it’s received, though, as I can’t quite view it as a great piece of work. The movie has a lot going for it but falls short of excellence.

No Country for Old Men appears in an aspect ratio of approximately 2.35:1 on this single-sided, double-layered DVD; the image has been enhanced for 16X9 televisions. Though it improved as it progressed, I thought this was a less than exemplary transfer.

Most of the issues related to sharpness. I noticed moderate edge enhancement at times, and that factor affected the film’s definition. More than a few wide shots looked soft and loose, though these did get a bit tighter as the flick went along. Nonetheless, I thought delineation was only good at best and occasionally less satisfying than that.

At least the film lacked shimmering or jagged edges, and source flaws failed to appear. In terms of palette, Men went with an arid yellow tint much of the time. This meant few – if any – more dynamic hues and a generally drab appearance. I couldn’t fault the transfer, though, as the bland colors stemmed from the visual design.

Blacks were tougher to judge, though. I thought they seemed a bit inky at times, but I wasn’t able to determine how much of that came from the transfer and how much was from the cinematography. I thought the blacks weren’t terribly satisfying, though, and shadows could be a bit murky and flat. Enough of Men looked positive to enter “B-“ territory, but this remained a lackluster presentation.

On the other hand, the Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack of Men proved quite satisfying. Though the soundfield lacked the consistent dazzle factor to enter into “A” territory, it used the give channels in a positive manner. Most of the effective sequences came from those that involved fights with bullets or Chigurh’s bolt gun; during these, blasts and crashes popped up from all around the room. General atmosphere seemed involving as well, with a natural, spacious feeling about them. The elements were placed accurately and fit together in a tight, convincing manner.

Audio quality was also strong. Speech sounded concise and distinctive, with clear lines and no related issues. Effects seemed clean and dynamic. They were accurate and presented vivid imaging. I can’t comment on the music, though – outside of its closing credits, the movie featured no score. That was fine with me, since the audio was very good for the film and it didn’t need music. I really liked this powerful soundtrack.

Since it just won the Oscar, you might expect lots of extras to accompany Men. And you’d expect wrong, though the DVD was finished before the Academy Awards, a fact that might explain its lackluster supplements.

We find three separate featurettes. The Making of No Country for Old Men runs 24 minutes, 28 seconds and provides the usual mix of movie clips, shots from the set and interviews. We hear from writers/directors Joel and Ethan Coen, UPM executive producer Robert Graf, production designer Jess Gonchor, property master Keith Walters, costume designer Mary Zophres, makeup artist Christien Tinsley, stunt coordinator Jery Hewitt, special effects coordinator Peter Chesney, and actors Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Kelly Macdonald, and Javier Bardem. “Making” looks at the source novel and its adaptation, shooting in Texas, cast, characters and performances, period elements and visual design, stunts and effects, and a few other thoughts.

“Making” adds up to half promotion and half good facts. Most of the latter appear in the piece’s second segment, as the first devotes itself mostly to a general description of the story and characters. This never turns into a fascinating piece, but it includes a mix of useful details.

Working with the Coens fills eight minutes and seven seconds with comments from Bardem, Brolin, Macdonald, Graf, Jones, Zophres, Hewitt, Chesney, Gonchor, Tinsley, Walters, and actor Tess Harper. The show tells us what it’s like to interact with the Coens and their style as co-directors. Of course, much of this degenerates into basic praise for the Coens, but we get some good footage from the set and a few minor insights about the brothers.

Finally, Diary of a Country Sheriff goes for six minutes, 44 seconds and involves the Coens, Graf, Jones, Bardem, Macdonald, Harper, and Brolin. They chat a little about some characters and movie themes. We get some decent thoughts but not a whole lot of substance.

A few ads open the DVD. We get clips for Blu-ray Discs, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, and Gone Baby Gone. These also appear in the Sneak Peeks area along with a promo for Dan in Real Life. No trailer for Men appears here.

Do I like No Country For Old Men? Yeah, most of the time. It suffers from ups and downs, but it succeeds as a whole. Do I think it was the best movie of 2007? Nope. Indeed, of the four Best Picture nominees I’ve seen to date – all but Atonement - I feel it’s the weakest. There’s not a big gap between the best and the worst, as 2007 was a year deficient in cinematic greatness, but I would’ve preferred to see any of those three take home the big prize.

As a DVD, Men becomes a middling release. I liked the involving and realistic soundtrack, but transfer was lackluster and we don’t get many extras. The film deserves a rental, but if you want to buy it, I’d recommend you wait for either a substantial price cut or a potential re-release with more extras – and hopefully improved picture quality.