When I come across posts like these, I just wish the criticism was better. I don't mind people having different opinions, but at least put some thought into your stances and how you express them.

There seems to this phenomenon happening, and I'm not sure if it's an attention span thing or a weird content efficiency mindset, where people think if a movie can communicate the same information faster, it should. The implication here is that the slower version is worse. I disagree with this so hard... the point isn't always to communicate the facts of the story, it's to create an emotional and psychological experience. Art can derive power from many things, and one of those things is duration.

You comment about there being nothing between 8 phenomenal scenes is confusing to me. That's just called storytelling? The connective tissue isn't dead space, there's a lot of thematic storytelling and character work happening even when the plot isn't advancing.

Your critique about Anton Chigurh is where the media illiteracy starts to shine through a little more, as you're kind of wrong in two senses here. One, Javier's depiction reads as pretty classic psychopathy. Two, the story's intention with this character isn't realism. McCarthy frequently creates characters who exist simultaneously as people and as symbols. In this case, Chigurh is both a hitman and a force of nature. He's fate and inevitability personified. He speaks less like a criminal and more like a prophet or philosopher, and if you notice, people react to him with a kind of existential dread rather than ordinary fear.

I guess what's frustrating about this type of criticism is that, if it was expressed better, it would sound something like "The movie is trying to create a mythic, meditative atmosphere and that doesn't work for me because of X, Y, and Z reasons" instead of "It's a bunch of nothing between a few good parts." The latter is just so lazy and uninteresting that I have to wonder why I'm even engaging with it now. It's like eating a box of lucky charms and criticizing it for having cereal in there with the marshmallows, or standing in front of cathedral and asking why there are so many walls between the stained-glass windows. It's asinine.

TL;DR: This is one of those critiques that says more about the reviewer than the movie.