John Wayne won his only Oscar for that role, but the general feeling is that he won it more as a lifetime achievement award than for his portrayal of Rooster Cogburn, admittedly an outsized, larger than life personality which played to his considerable strengths as an actor. Well, let's face it: the Rooster Cogburn character is a chew-the-rug, scene stealing role by any stretch of the imagination. 

In this 2010 version, Jeff Bridges portrays Rooster Cogburn as a Jeff Bridges on steroids, and he is just superb. Great character actors must love roles like this which don't come along very often. Little needs to be said about Bridges' excellent performance, since he has long been a consistently fine actor with decades of outstanding character roles on his resumé. It would be a redundancy to say he was made for this role, for he has been made for almost every other role which he has inhabited.

I didn't necessarily think of the Coen brothers as directors of Westerns, but after seeing their Oscar-winning film, "No Country for Old Men," I would never think to pigeonhole them in one sector or another. They are just too talented, and they always seem to come out with a film that is both surprisingly interesting and a cinematic work of art which has been exceptionally well crafted on all levels. Such is the case here. 

This film is both a commercial and a critical success, and the Coen brothers have been rewarded for their efforts by having it nominated for a grand total of 10 Oscars. Justifiably so, in my opinion, as the movie is nearly flawless. The casting is exceptional with Hailee Steinfeld outstanding in her portrayal of Mattie Ross, especially given the fact that she really is only fourteen years old. The minor roles are all equally well-played with Matt Damon and Josh Brolin leading the list as Texas Ranger LaBoeuf and Tom Chaney, the villainous murderer of Mattie Ross's dad.

For a film which I have piled on such accolades, you might justifiably inquire as to why I did not give it a higher grade. I would have to admit that I have agonized over my lack of enthusiasm for this film for most of the past week. The simple fact of the matter is that while this movie appealed to my mind and to my eyes, unfortunately it left my heart unmoved. There was something cold and antiseptic about it, and I can't put my finger on why I felt this way or why I couldn't relate to it and be drawn into it. 

Maybe it was because I had already seen the first movie back in 1969 when it came out. Maybe it was because westerns don't appeal to me as much as they used to. Maybe it was because I just wasn't in the right mood, or because the seats in the theater were uncomfortable (I did see it in a cramped, older theater with lousy seats because the show times were convenient). All I know is that I was always conscious of watching this movie instead of being drawn into it. 

The only bullet point, pun intended, that I can make in summary is that "No Country for Old Men" drew me deeply into that film whereas I was figuratively left standing outside this movie. Make of this what you will. 110 minutes and rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images.