I feel the same way, albeit not at first. I'm a big fan of Cormac McCarthy's works, and had previously read No Country and anticipated the film. I saw the film in theaters and thought it was great, but then did not see it again for a number of years. On rewatch, my opinion of it changed--while I think the story is great for a book, and the acting and directing is amazing (which is probably what wowed me in the theater)...the film as an overall work almost feels like it isn't actually a functional movie if that makes sense. It feels like a set of quasi-related scenes, masterfully shot, but not comprising a coherent whole, it's off putting in cinematic form despite being done mechanically and stylistically very well.

I was really disappointed with it after hearing so much about it. Found it much less interesting than their other films. I didn't buy their attempt at southern dialect either. Felt really hit and miss to me, unlike their work in other areas of the US. Maybe I am biased since I am from the south.

It's top tier Coen Brothers for me but should never have beaten out There will Be Blood for best Director or Best film. That film is on another level.