No Country for Old Men finds the Coen brothers spinning cinematic gold out of Cormac McCarthy's grim, darkly funny novel." The film also holds a rating of 91/100 on Metacritic, based on 37 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim". Upon release, the film was widely discussed as a possible candidate for several Oscars, before going on to receive eight nominations, and eventually winning four in 2008. Javier Bardem, in particular, has received considerable praise for his performance in the film. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian called it "the best of the [Coens'] career so far". Rob Mackie of The Guardian also said that "what makes this such a stand-out is hard to put your finger on – it just feels like an absorbing and tense two hours where everyone is absolutely on top of their job and a comfortable fit in their roles." Geoff Andrew of Time Out London expressed that "the film exerts a grip from start to end". Richard Corliss of Time magazine chose the film as the best of the year and said that "after two decades of being brilliant on the movie margins, the Coens are ready for their closeup, and maybe their Oscar". Paul Arendt of the BBC gave the film a full mark and said that it "doesn't require a defense: it is a magnificent return to form". A. O. Scott of The New York Times stated that "for formalists – those moviegoers sent into raptures by tight editing, nimble camera work and faultless sound design – it's pure heaven." Both Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton from the ABC show At The Movies gave the film five stars, making No Country for Old Men the only film to receive such a rating from the hosts in 2007. Both praised the film for its visual language and suspense, David commenting that "Hitchcock wouldn't have done the suspense better". Occasional disapproval was voiced, with some critics noting the absence of a "central character" and "climactic scene"; its "disappointing finish" and "dependen[ce] on an arbitrarily manipulated plot"; or a general lack of "soul" and sense of "hopelessness". Sukhdev Sandhu of The Daily Telegraph argued that "Chigurh never develops as a character ... with material as strong as this, one would think they could do better than impute to him a sprawling inscrutability, a mystery that is merely pathological." He further accused it of being full of "pseudo profundities in