Coens' best work ostentates a keen perception of the notions of crime and punishment that reside at the core of the American fabric. This in and of itself requires an existential approach, not only on their part but on ours, too, which has unfortunately lead to various misunderstandings formulated by their dissenters. But that existentiality breeds the sort of ambiguity I think youre talking about, wpqx. The question is whether the film truly earns it or not, and Im unsure if I can answer that after a single viewing. (I havent read the titular McCarthy but Im well-aware that hes one of the great American novelists of the our time [I most recently admired The Road quite a bit].) Do the Coens provide enough to support their ideological framework? In any case, its a bold move, boy, to pretty much leave the film on the shoulders of an actor whose character is supposedly pared down from the source (the filmmakers owe him much one way or the other). Contrary to what many may still believe, the film isnt about a serial-killer (and, more remarkably, Zodiac wasnt about Zodiac), but it does feature one, who perhaps wasnt required to be as extravagant as he was, even though hes an embodiment rather than an actualization (based on where the film ends up). And this about-face which Coens pull, both in terms of approach and thematic weight, is what I want to see done again in order to glean its truthfulness. But theres no question in my mind that this is the best film theyve made since the Cannes award-winning The Man Who Wasnt There.