Sometimes, it just makes you wonder how different things look in our average everyman eyes versus those of the critic. And by critic, I mean those who make a living judging things based on their own standards of quality. One has to wonder though, if it often comes to a point for critics, where the very thing they used to enjoy becomes somewhat of a chore - that something they used to do for the pure enjoyment is now their J-O-B. Like Anton Ego from Ratatouille, who relishes in dishing the criticism more than praise. I know he's just an animated character, but he is a perfect example of why I often distrust the critics' scores, and look at the readers' score for a more "accurate" rating. Bottom line: Was the experience engaging? Was I moved? Did I enjoy the movie? Let me try to relate my average guy experience with No Country for Old Men for you.

A quick synopsis without spoilers. The movie is about a man named Llewelyn, out hunting elk, happens upon a scene of a drug deal gone bad, where all the players are dead, except one Mexican, who's dying but begging for water. Llewelyn doesn't help the guy, discovers a suitcase full of money, and decides to take it and hide it for himself. Later that night, his conscience won't let him sleep, so he decides to bring water back to help the dying man. He ends up crossing paths with Mexicans who have come to reclaim the money and drugs, and now he's got to run and hide. Meanwhile, a psycho killer Anton Chigurh, representing the cash-for-drugs side of the deal is also out to reclaim the money, and he's sniffed out Llewelyn's scent. The aging local sheriff Ed Tom starts to put the pieces together, and he realizes that he needs to get to Llewelyn first to save him.

The Coen Brothers do a good job with the direction. The choking dry, desperation of a border town in Texas is depicted quite well. The mood and tension from scene to scene are all well-balanced. Tommy Lee Jones fits the Ed Tom sheriff gait, and Javier Bardem (won Best Actor Supporting Role for this movie) is particularly interesting, given that he has a very distinct and unlikeable face. That aside, let me get into the grit of why I thought this movie was just "Ehh".

For most people, I assume the reason they watch a movie is for its entertainment value. But just as a pretty picture can be conceived as plain, No Country for Old Men is a well-filmed bore-fest. The only interesting moments were the ones where Chigurh is about to kill someone. The dialog that precedes these moments are also the only good lines in the movie. The way No Country is paced, you'd begin to anticipate some sort of finale that will somehow tie it all together, and light that bulb above your head. But it doesn't. It all crescendos to nothing. While the acting was good, it did nothing to invoke any sort of empathy with any of the characters, good or bad. The end of the movie brought no flicker of excitement or tears or any other emotion whatsoever, except a "That's it?" So what's the point of the story? There's elements about human instinct, greed, death, and luck, like if finding a suitcase loaded with money is worth it if you have to survive first before you can enjoy it. There's the bits about chance and coin-tosses. And so on. But what does this matter to us average viewers if we don't enjoy the movie?

I would relate this kind of film to a Jackson Pollack painting. Take that as a compliment if you like, but the way I see Jackson Pollack being hailed as art is like this: Critics feel the need to be different than the general public because they need to be "above" us. Therefore, they can "appreciate" the things average folks can't "understand". To me, No Country for Old Men is many beautiful individual colors of paint tossed randomly upon a dark and dirty canvas. There are still elements of those colors in there that make certain moments quite good, but in the end, there is no masterpiece. Quite a letdown, especially with all the praise it gets.

Score: 3/5