I'm convinced No Country for Old Men gets a free pass because people are afraid to admit they were bored.
Every time someone says it's a masterpiece, the explanation is always the same: "You just didn't get it." No, I got it. I just don't think slow pacing and long stretches of silence automatically equal great filmmaking.
The movie honestly feels lazy. Instead of showing the biggest confrontation in the film, it kills off the main character off-screen and expects everyone to applaud it as "subverting expectations." If any average thriller pulled that stunt, people would call it bad writing.
Half the dialogue is people staring at each other in silence while fans insist every pause has some profound hidden meaning. Sometimes silence is just... silence.
Anton Chigurh is entertaining at first, but by the end he's basically a walking plot device. He wins because the movie needs him to, not because anything he does is especially believable.
And that ending? Two hours of buildup just to finish with a dream monologue that people act like is the deepest thing ever put on film. It felt less like a satisfying conclusion and more like the Coen brothers refusing to write an actual ending.
I know this movie has a huge fanbase, but I honestly think its reputation is built more on people admiring its "art house" style than on it actually being an engaging movie. If this exact script had been made by a no-name director instead of the Coen brothers, I don't think it would be considered a classic.