I've been on the outside of the circles that saw this movie.
I believe there are portions of it that deserve praise -- notably, Javier Bardem's cold and calculating brilliance of a character -- and though it was a good, well-rounded film, it really wasn't mind-blowing to me.
In comparison to award-winning films of the past, this one just felt to me like it was an art-house picture made specifically to be an art-house picture. I thought that the plot was bland and unremarkable; I thought that some of the characters were too stupid for their own good, and thus, not good protagonists; I thought it dragged on way too long.
I know that people complain about the ending... but that was one of my big complaints. As opposed to get me thinking, as I'm sure it was probably meant to do, I finished the movie feeling like the directors and producers had given me one huge, holy "F**k you, you gullible dumbshit! You can never get these two hours back!" I understood the artistic meaning. I completely understood Tommy Lee Jones' monologue at the end. I just think that either way, it's a cheap way to end a film.
So yeah, as you can see, I was never much a big fan of No Country For Old Men. It's a good movie, don't get me wrong ... but I don't necessarily think it's deserving of all of the accolades it's been provided.