In the outback of Texas Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) stumbles across a drug exchange that has gone violently wrong. Amongst the dead bodies he comes across a trailer full of heroin and an unclaimed two million dollars. The opportunity to take the money is too compelling. Unfortunately on his trail is psychopathic killer, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), who relentlessly pursues his quarry and the money. Looking on is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) who struggles to comprehend the violence that ensues.

I should start out by saying that I’m a huge Coen Brothers fan. I still go around looking for an excuse to quote Tim Robbins’ character in The Hudsucker Proxy “You know, for kids”. Which is quite sad considering that movie came out over a decade ago and I now get the kind of blank looks that Norville Banes used to get.

So, it might come as a bit of surprise that I don’t think No Country for Old Men is the masterpiece that everyone seems to say it is. Now, don’t misunderstand. It’s superbly shot - the use of Texan landscapes is magnificent. The acting is brilliant from start to finish which is incredible considering the amount of dialogue there is in the movie. You would think at some point the actors would start looking sheepish at the having to portray so much without words.

It’s hard not to appreciate the struggle of hair that Javier Bardem overcame to make his character ruthlessly evil and not at all comical. Josh Brolin was excellent as the man pursued. It was also nice to see Kelly Macdonald getting a good Hollywood part. She’s probably still mainly known for Trainspotting but this should lead to some more meaty roles.

I know the whole point of the film is to look at the violence and not the crime itself but I’m not sure it works. I’ve not read the Cormac McCarthy novel but I’ve heard the Coen brothers didn’t stray far with their screenplay. The book may pull it off but I don’t think the film does. The man whose eyes we’re supposed to be looking through is a peripheral character. Although I can appreciate his shock and despair at the sheer violence he sees, it’s hard for his view to have any weight in the film. For me, he didn’t have the onscreen presence to make the incredibly abrupt ending work.

What really happens is the audience invests a lot of time with a psychopathic killer pursuing his prey but don’t get paid off with a climax. When a movie finishes there should be an overall feeling that you’ve been touched by what you’ve seen. No Country for Old Men just sort of glides off the screen and I was left feeling cheated somehow.

Technically and artistically it’s a brilliant movie up to the point where Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) pops up for a few laughs and then it seems to lose focus. By the time the end came I really didn’t care about any of the characters. Who lived, who died seemed irrelevant and Chigurh’s coin flipping was left meaningless.

It’s definitely worth a watch and I’m sure it will cause all sorts of debate. Unfortunately I just can’t get on the masterpiece bandwagon. Even though I think it’s well done, ultimately I just didn’t find it the story that engaging.