No Country for Old Men isn't going to strike everyone the same way

OK, let me lay it out for you, film buffs and oscar enthusiasts because I'm already beginning to sense this humongous divide:

Annointing "No Country for Old Men" as the film of the year is going to come off a slap in the face to ordinary movie going Americans who don't watch movies as a hobby like you do.

Basically whenever all the critics' groups anoint the picture or pictures of the year, it's your way of telling them that if they perfer staying within the safe confines of National Treasure 2 and I Am Legend, this holiday season then they're cultural buffoons for missing the truly rich and cinematically enduring works in the form of whatever you pick, and in the case of No Country for Old Men, you're sending them to a very unconventional and sparse film that will leave them scratching their heads at the end and complaining to their spouse, "This is what you dragged me to instead of National Treasure? All because you wanted to be culturally enlightened?"

Bottom line: No Country for Old Men will have film students salivating at its masterwork, but it will have regular filmgoers scratching their heads, and if you can't anticipate that regular filmgoers might not particularly enjoy it, then you can reach two conclusions: 1) regular filmgoers are stupid and 2) you're out of touch with regular filmgoers. Both conclusions are correct, but don't just ignore conclusion #2.

I certainly wouldn't recommend people waste 10 dollars and 2 hours of their time on No Country for Old Men on non-film buff friends of mine, because it's not a particularly lifechanging or englightening experience if you're not thoroughly engrossed in the art of film.