User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1284 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. JohnJ
    Mar 2, 2008
    2
    The only movie I have seen in my long, mostly pointless life, that had a worse ending than this was Gone Baby Gone. The Casey Affleck character should have been shot for ratting out that wonderful couple who were going to give that little girl a beautiful, loving upbringing. Instead he all but sealed her fate by giving her back to that lowlife, alcoholic, drug addicted slut of a mother The only movie I have seen in my long, mostly pointless life, that had a worse ending than this was Gone Baby Gone. The Casey Affleck character should have been shot for ratting out that wonderful couple who were going to give that little girl a beautiful, loving upbringing. Instead he all but sealed her fate by giving her back to that lowlife, alcoholic, drug addicted slut of a mother who in the final scene was going out to get high and herpes without a second thought for her daughter. But I digress. The ending of ncfom was not even an ending. You just have to hope that that bone sticking out of Anton's elbow might have given him some discomfort before killing another dozen or so people. Expand
  2. RMB.
    Mar 20, 2008
    3
    I don't understand why this show got such rave reviews. The plot line had all sorts of holes: Why was everyone walking or riding horses to the crime scene in the desert? There were five vehicles at the scene so there was obviously a road there. You would think locals and the sheriff would know their territory. Why was an experienced hunter walking in the desert with no water? If he I don't understand why this show got such rave reviews. The plot line had all sorts of holes: Why was everyone walking or riding horses to the crime scene in the desert? There were five vehicles at the scene so there was obviously a road there. You would think locals and the sheriff would know their territory. Why was an experienced hunter walking in the desert with no water? If he gives water to the guy in the truck, he doesn't return later and would avoid all the other problems. Why did he suddenly get a conscience and have to go back to the crime scene in the middle of the night? Again, if he stays home, there is no plot. In addition to the numerous plot problems, the ending was incomprehensible. A Simple Plan had the same basic plot and was a much better show. No Country does not come close to Fargo. Expand
  3. SeanA.
    Mar 27, 2008
    1
    The only reason I'm giving this movie a 1 is because the last 30 minutes is so confusing and then the movie just ends. You don't know what happened to the the hero or the villian. The first hour in a half are some of the best film making I've seen. Too bad it has no ending.
  4. ArmondA.
    Apr 10, 2008
    0
    Does anyone remember "Barton Fink" ? The Coen Brothers are heartless masters of style, and even when I like one of their films I wish I didn't. In the case of the critically acclaimed but audience-detested "Barton Fink" I faced no internal conflict--my heart and my head were in perfect agreement. And so it is with "No Country". It's a nasty film with nothing to say and an ugly Does anyone remember "Barton Fink" ? The Coen Brothers are heartless masters of style, and even when I like one of their films I wish I didn't. In the case of the critically acclaimed but audience-detested "Barton Fink" I faced no internal conflict--my heart and my head were in perfect agreement. And so it is with "No Country". It's a nasty film with nothing to say and an ugly way of saying it. Expand
  5. MiKE
    Apr 10, 2008
    0
    Wow! What a disappointment this turned out to be! Pointless, unreal, boring, and a terrible ending!
  6. Dr.Wayne
    Apr 14, 2008
    2
    One of the worst movies I've seen. You can talk about all the 'hidden' meaning all you want. It was not interesting, was very simple, just a simple double cross ... big deal. It's worth a 2 only because Tommy Lee was in it. Don't try to build up some idiotic intrigue ... there was none.
  7. JP
    Apr 4, 2008
    3
    Violent & nihilist, beautifully done but ultimately pointless.
  8. JamieL.
    Jun 12, 2008
    4
    This film had an abrupt ending that left many loose ends and frayed edges. The violence was mindless and not tasteful. There were many moments I was just completely confused. Although the film was extremely well-filmed and well-created, it was just not very good.
  9. JackZ.
    Jun 30, 2008
    0
    The acting is perfect, the camera work excellent, but unfortunately the source material is so diabolically terrible there was little chance of this film being any good, unless some major reworking was done. An abysmal movie which seems intent on mocking and insulting the viewer, promising closure but then ripping it away like some kind of failed orgasm. The main character is killed The acting is perfect, the camera work excellent, but unfortunately the source material is so diabolically terrible there was little chance of this film being any good, unless some major reworking was done. An abysmal movie which seems intent on mocking and insulting the viewer, promising closure but then ripping it away like some kind of failed orgasm. The main character is killed half-way through, and the last ten minutes of film seem totally absent. Did the makers have any grasp of how to tell a story? This film is an insult to anyone with the mental faculties to understand what a story is, and the fact it has garnered so much praise shocks and disappoints me. Ignore the hype, you'd find more satisfaction from viewing spasmodically undulating pictures of winos flashed on screen in time the noise made from industrial machinery. This film is the equivalent of if halfway through Star Wars, Luke decided he wanted to become a gardener, and then for the next sixty minutes you watched as he built a shed on a grassy lawn. Out of context, ridiculous, stupid, pointless, lacking any kind of sense, and hopelessly disappointing. Why would anyone make half a film and then decide to derail it in such an indescribably idiotic fashion?! WHY?! Expand
  10. SimonB
    Aug 29, 2008
    4
    Being left out on the loop. This is what this movie is all about. You watch a movie and for some reason, it feels like it's been going on for hours already. Some dude starts killing people just because he feels like it, never seems to be found by the police... Okay, I can dig it. Lots of movies have psychotic murderers never being caught by the police. Now another guy finds a bunch Being left out on the loop. This is what this movie is all about. You watch a movie and for some reason, it feels like it's been going on for hours already. Some dude starts killing people just because he feels like it, never seems to be found by the police... Okay, I can dig it. Lots of movies have psychotic murderers never being caught by the police. Now another guy finds a bunch of bodies, is pursued by unknown assailants... Then a sheriff comes up, asking stupid questions with his assistant... Then the killer dude called SHEEGURR kills some more people... Money's being tossed about. People are being fooled in to take money, then some Mexican guys show up and seduce this girl's ma... What the fuck?! This movie doesn't make any sense. It's kind of like watching a depressing version of American Psycho, with no music, no fun catch-phrases. Just a stoic antagonist which the movie seems to root for all the way. The only character that you want to attach yourself with gets killed before the end in the most degrading fashion... Then the sheriff becomes the main protagonist and all he has to do is go retire and talk about his dreams? Total. Rip. Off. Expand
  11. gcash
    Jan 3, 2009
    1
    This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. There was pointless killing with no sense of direction of the movie plot. I will never rent or buy a coen brothers film again!!!!
  12. Sam
    Oct 4, 2009
    0
    I saw this movie because of all the hype surrounding it and needless to say i was disappointed. It was too long, violent and slow in its execution and left me puzzled and disappointed.
  13. JarekD.
    Aug 24, 2009
    0
    One of the worst movies I've ever seen.
  14. JohnH
    Aug 5, 2009
    2
    Weak film. Begins well and peters out. The central performances are laughable. I guess it was their year for the Oscar, but they've made much better.
  15. NeilK.
    Nov 18, 2007
    2
    What a pretentious and pointless movie. Yes, yes, the camera angles and acting were all fine, but it completely lacked any sense of direction or purpose as well as any surprises or twists. The only message the movie seemed to have was, "We're the Coen brothers, look how great we are." Don't waste your money.
  16. Angela
    Nov 19, 2007
    0
    Boring, slow and graphic, gory pointless scenes. Don't waste your time.
  17. JamesL.
    Nov 20, 2007
    3
    The second most disappointing and over rated film of the year after "Eastern Promises". This film is simply bloody carnage scenes, one ater another, disguised as a morality tale. "Natural Born Killers" was this graphically violent but at least it had a message. The only message I received was that the Coen brothers can stage a brutal murder scene numerous times without any real plot, The second most disappointing and over rated film of the year after "Eastern Promises". This film is simply bloody carnage scenes, one ater another, disguised as a morality tale. "Natural Born Killers" was this graphically violent but at least it had a message. The only message I received was that the Coen brothers can stage a brutal murder scene numerous times without any real plot, suspense or character development. Tommy Lee Jones looked and acted as if he was embarrassed to be in this soory spectable. The critics who are lavishing the extraordinary praise should be embarrassed as well. Expand
  18. Paul
    Nov 23, 2007
    1
    This movie was one of the worst I had ever seen. It is bloody and gory and sadistic. I gave it at least one point for a little of the dialogue.
  19. JoeBlow
    Nov 24, 2007
    3
    Great acting. Great cinematography. Horribly pretentcious and self important false advertising. Teases with the promise of greatness but in the end only pees in your cornflakes. I got the point, the message, whatever. Who cares. I want to some sort of payoff or sense of satisfaction. A very skillfully executed dissapointment.
  20. BTBerry
    Nov 25, 2007
    3
    This movie is so violent it made me sick. Moviegoers in general are somewhat inured to all the violence in movies these days but this film's realism was over the top for me. The last 15 minutes of the film were horrible and people shouted and boo'd at the abrupt ending. The only reason I gave it 3 points was that the characters were interesting enough to watch to the end. The This movie is so violent it made me sick. Moviegoers in general are somewhat inured to all the violence in movies these days but this film's realism was over the top for me. The last 15 minutes of the film were horrible and people shouted and boo'd at the abrupt ending. The only reason I gave it 3 points was that the characters were interesting enough to watch to the end. The movie really never made it's point (at least to me) though when you got to the finish. Expand
  21. BucklyS.
    Nov 25, 2007
    4
    Most overrated film I've ever seen. Well made with great performances, but after an excellent first half it descends into miserable on a great train of boredom. What a disappointment.
  22. RJM.
    Nov 26, 2007
    1
    It's really quite incredible the nut-busting the critics did over this one. it's just a silly movie. I agree with the guys before me who call it a really bad version of Fargo. the movie is entertaining, but really only in the sense that you're waiting for something entertaining to happen. even the would-be entertaining moments, like the dude's escape from his motel It's really quite incredible the nut-busting the critics did over this one. it's just a silly movie. I agree with the guys before me who call it a really bad version of Fargo. the movie is entertaining, but really only in the sense that you're waiting for something entertaining to happen. even the would-be entertaining moments, like the dude's escape from his motel room onto the street, are just drug out and emasculated of all their intensity. that's what this movie is, come to think of it: a limp penis. a limp penis trying pathetically to get hard. Expand
  23. ColeM
    Dec 1, 2007
    4
    I have no idea what sort of hallucinogenic drugs the critics were using when they viewed this movie, but after this, I really have to rethink the merit of such reviews when deciding on a movie see and pay a large sum of money to do so. I expected a masterpiece of visual/auditory storytelling, but what I got was a mediocore movie at best. Sure it was suspensful, sure it got a reaction out I have no idea what sort of hallucinogenic drugs the critics were using when they viewed this movie, but after this, I really have to rethink the merit of such reviews when deciding on a movie see and pay a large sum of money to do so. I expected a masterpiece of visual/auditory storytelling, but what I got was a mediocore movie at best. Sure it was suspensful, sure it got a reaction out of me, but the movie was so full of holes, so full of pointless scenes that did nothing to advance the plot, so full of issues left unresolved, I was angry with the abrupt cut to the credits. A absolutely pathetic disappointment. Expand
  24. BozoR.
    Dec 1, 2007
    4
    I don't go through my day & at the end ask what was meant by that. Same thing should be said about movies. I want a movie to entertain me, not confuse me. Was the hero a man portrayed as almost the devil himself who walks away at he end. Up until the end of the movie I was totally into the story and wanting it to continue, then off a cliff it went, I've got a bald spot from I don't go through my day & at the end ask what was meant by that. Same thing should be said about movies. I want a movie to entertain me, not confuse me. Was the hero a man portrayed as almost the devil himself who walks away at he end. Up until the end of the movie I was totally into the story and wanting it to continue, then off a cliff it went, I've got a bald spot from scratching my head. That was 'No way to end a movie'. Expand
  25. DD
    Dec 2, 2007
    2
    A cacophony of horrible violence for no apparent reason. It's simply a poor cross b/t Fargo and the bounty hunting element of Raising Arizona. The main killer is not sympathetic, he's just a psychopath. I love Fargo, Raising Arizona, and Miller's Crossing. I dislike this film. Please see another one. It's dull. It doesn't have a climax. People are killed A cacophony of horrible violence for no apparent reason. It's simply a poor cross b/t Fargo and the bounty hunting element of Raising Arizona. The main killer is not sympathetic, he's just a psychopath. I love Fargo, Raising Arizona, and Miller's Crossing. I dislike this film. Please see another one. It's dull. It doesn't have a climax. People are killed needlessly. I feel like i need a shower to wash off the blood from the movie. The only redeeming quality is how it teaches one how to survive multiple injuries. It's a bit of a survivalist video. Expand
  26. TeresaTuttle
    Dec 27, 2007
    3
    Just because something is different does not mean it's good. In the beginning I thought I would enjoy this movie, but by the end I realized this was 2.5 hours of my life I will never get back. The plot had moments of complete derailment and it had no end. Sorry, but I hated it.
  27. JeffreyAnonquerin
    Dec 30, 2007
    2
    If this movie had been entitled "This Movie Is A Metaphor For The Presidency Of George W. Bush" I might have forced myself to sign on. Indeed, if there had been any point ot the movie at all. It is, undoubtedly, very precise edge-of-your-seat filmmaking. But to what end? Do we simply glorify violence? Is relentless amoral violence the essence of our civilization? Or even if it is, isIf this movie had been entitled "This Movie Is A Metaphor For The Presidency Of George W. Bush" I might have forced myself to sign on. Indeed, if there had been any point ot the movie at all. It is, undoubtedly, very precise edge-of-your-seat filmmaking. But to what end? Do we simply glorify violence? Is relentless amoral violence the essence of our civilization? Or even if it is, is it enough to simply SHOW it without comment, smirking on the sidelines? This film is over-rated by sycophantic critics who need to have above-it-all heroes of cynicism to fill in the empty foreground of their own nihilistic lives. Unfortunately, maybe they themselves are more like the dregs of society portrayed than they realize. Being so jaded is how they accomplish such a pompous feat. Films like Juno or The Great Debaters deserve much more attention than this empty intensity. Expand
  28. KeithHildebrand
    Dec 31, 2007
    2
    Very disipointing esspecially the ending. Started out very good with stong characters until all were killed off with sensless violence. Ending with evil winning and a stupid ending which left you empty. It has been a long time sense I have been in the theator where the patrons showed there dissapointment at the end.
  29. Susan
    Dec 3, 2007
    0
    I can't believe I wasted 2 plus hours on this movie. It was pointless violence and there was no ending whatsoever. I could not believe my eyes when the opening credits rolled. I wish I could have my time and money back.
  30. WillT.
    Dec 5, 2007
    2
    A sadistic, ridiculously violent and pretentious waste of time. It has no relationship to real life and no meaning.
  31. JoshS
    Dec 6, 2007
    1
    This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It started out with good promise, but got worse and worse as time went on. There is no story development and no ending.
  32. LeonG
    Dec 7, 2007
    3
    I have one thing to say about this movie, "The Emperor's New Clothes." True, the acting was good, the dialog was real but the substance wasn't there. Listening to someone drone on about nothing does not make a good movie. Honest people, not trying to feel superior to us less insightful and intellectual people, will freely admit that the Emperor is not wearing clothes. This movie I have one thing to say about this movie, "The Emperor's New Clothes." True, the acting was good, the dialog was real but the substance wasn't there. Listening to someone drone on about nothing does not make a good movie. Honest people, not trying to feel superior to us less insightful and intellectual people, will freely admit that the Emperor is not wearing clothes. This movie is not worth the time or the money. Expand
  33. ButteredPopcorn
    Nov 28, 2008
    2
    Nice acting that was unfortunately wasted on this film that seemed to say nothing. Agree with all the others who said this was a waste of time, and the ending could of only have been worse if i cared enough to want to figure it out.
  34. RonaldG.
    Jan 22, 2008
    1
    A psychopath who eventually kills nearly everyone in the movie doesn't do much for me.
  35. Tom
    Dec 28, 2008
    0
    Imagine an episode of "Popeye the Sailor Man" but with real actors and barrelfuls of tomato ketchup. That's "No Country for Old Men". Pathetic and shallow despite excellent photography.
  36. JGH
    Jan 26, 2008
    2
    Those who rate this movie in the 7-10 category have either got to be KIDDING! ... paid critics --- or people who spend time analyzing the deeper meaning of an abstract painting --- only to discover it was created by dipping a dog's tail in paint and allowing him to wave it against a canvas --- This middle of the movie has some good suspense held together by good actors --- but, Those who rate this movie in the 7-10 category have either got to be KIDDING! ... paid critics --- or people who spend time analyzing the deeper meaning of an abstract painting --- only to discover it was created by dipping a dog's tail in paint and allowing him to wave it against a canvas --- This middle of the movie has some good suspense held together by good actors --- but, overall, the plot and story meander pointlessly through gratuitously violence until abruptly slamming to a finish that leaves viewers wondering if the editors broke the film three-fourths of the way through ... and never bothered to splice the ending back on! Expand
  37. LV.
    Feb 24, 2008
    0
    This movie and every thing around it, is a very good example of how the American film industries has been in decay for the last few years.
  38. christian
    Feb 24, 2008
    0
    Complete pile of dookie.. The writers strike started 2/3 of the way in. Typical elitist Hollywood garbage. Just because you give this movie a 10 doesn't make you better than me.
  39. ElaineN.
    Feb 26, 2008
    0
    The only movie that I have seen that was WORST than this one was BELOVED!! You couldn't pay me to sit thru it again!! Are the Acadamy voters HIGH??????
  40. JanN.
    Mar 14, 2008
    4
    I didn't dislike this film I didn't like it either... It starts very good, and feels alright, until about 1 1/2 hours when the "hero" dies and nothing interesting happens for the next 30 mins, and at the end you feel like the movie should have been an hour longer. You sit there with a large mouth just wondering what the hell happened! The best in this film is the comments from I didn't dislike this film I didn't like it either... It starts very good, and feels alright, until about 1 1/2 hours when the "hero" dies and nothing interesting happens for the next 30 mins, and at the end you feel like the movie should have been an hour longer. You sit there with a large mouth just wondering what the hell happened! The best in this film is the comments from that crazy killer Anton was it? It just makes me laugh. And the shooting scenes is realistic not like any "Hollywood" action movie. Overall this film is for killing time not spending... Expand
  41. Gra
    Mar 18, 2008
    3
    All I saw was a film filled with unintentionally hilarious moments and awkward, confused symbolism. It seems to me like people have had the wool pulled over their eyes with this one. It's all very well to say 'you just don't get it', but i am yet to read anything describing exactly what there was 'to get'. Don't get me wrong, I like films with a message, All I saw was a film filled with unintentionally hilarious moments and awkward, confused symbolism. It seems to me like people have had the wool pulled over their eyes with this one. It's all very well to say 'you just don't get it', but i am yet to read anything describing exactly what there was 'to get'. Don't get me wrong, I like films with a message, but there's a difference between ambiguity and nonsense. Expand
  42. MikeI.
    Apr 14, 2008
    4
    This movie is so overrated it's not even funny. The first hour was phenomenal, but the ending was so disappointing, I can hardly express it in words. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PAYOFF IN THIS MOVIE!!! I've decided that this movie is for the depressed, passive aggressive people in life. You know...the type that always has to talk about how terrible and depressing life is, and that no This movie is so overrated it's not even funny. The first hour was phenomenal, but the ending was so disappointing, I can hardly express it in words. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PAYOFF IN THIS MOVIE!!! I've decided that this movie is for the depressed, passive aggressive people in life. You know...the type that always has to talk about how terrible and depressing life is, and that no matter how hard they try, something terrible will happen to them in the end. I, for one, prefer the traditional "terrible things happen, but the human spirit will always find a way to triumph" model. Here's my gripe: The movie didn't take me anywhere! At the end, I did not feel like I had gone for an interesting journey. All I was left with were profound metaphors and boring monologues. "The Departed", which I did not find to be all that profound, TOOK ME FOR A RIDE!!! "Crash" was both profound and it took you for a ride. I'd rather be taken for a ride and feel something at the end of the movie. The credits rolled on NCFOM and I seriously said "That's it! What the f--- was that?!" I can imagine the "high brow" avant garde independent film crowd reading my review and thinking this movie "went over my head", but I will leave you with a quote from the review of Stephen Hunter of The Washington Post: "People don't go to the movies for the irony. They go for the satisfaction." That quote sums this movie up. The craft is amazing, the acting superb, the cinematography beautiful, the editing stylish, but I FELT EMPTY AND UNSATISFIED AT THE END!!! Expand
  43. JohnC.
    Apr 15, 2008
    2
    One of the worst movies we've seen. It was terrible. How the heck it was nominated for anything is beyond me.
  44. CathiM.
    Apr 19, 2008
    1
    Woody Harrelson was the best thing in the movie and that says it all.
  45. JimM.
    Apr 22, 2008
    4
    How did this win an academy award? What a horrible movie. No entertainment value whatsoever.
  46. DenizY.
    Sep 13, 2008
    4
    I'm not stupid, but this is just 120 minutes of some guy going around killing people with a bolt gun. It was boring, had the worst and most awkward ending in recent memory. Seriously, why do people like this movie? I don't think they get it either, they just believe it looks intelligent and so they play along. Retards, the lot of you!
  47. Erick
    Sep 13, 2008
    4
    The only reason I'm giving this a 5 is because I watched it after "There Will Be Blood", which was even worse.. If there isn't a sequel to this then it is pointless.
  48. ThomasW
    Nov 6, 2009
    1
    Sick, sad, and funny that nearly all critics are raving about this awkward, hurriedly composed, and absurd celebration of an evil guy who is never hampered by realism. e.g. no handcuffs behind back; able to reach top of office building carrying a long shotgun; not stopped by severe car wreck; plus Josh Brolen snuffed out - blink and you'll miss it. Riduculous script. Move overrated Sick, sad, and funny that nearly all critics are raving about this awkward, hurriedly composed, and absurd celebration of an evil guy who is never hampered by realism. e.g. no handcuffs behind back; able to reach top of office building carrying a long shotgun; not stopped by severe car wreck; plus Josh Brolen snuffed out - blink and you'll miss it. Riduculous script. Move overrated film I have ever seen. Expand
  49. ToddG.
    Nov 19, 2007
    3
    The first 2/3 of the movie are tight and very well done. The story just dies, and falls flat by the end. Such a shame. I don't understand why the critics fell all over themselves to give the "No Country" such good ratings. It is one of those things where they assume that because the Coen brothers have made good movies in the past, that they must be doing something right. NOT THE CASE here.
  50. AlF.
    Nov 22, 2007
    2
    This film is just "Fargo", set in Texas instead of Minnesota. Unfortunately, it has the violence of "Fargo" without the humorous moments or charming characters. The plot is completely implausable. The critics like it because it is different. To me, as a casual film viewer, it's just an exercise in excess from directors that are out to shock audiences with cheap violence.
  51. JohnHolt
    Dec 22, 2007
    4
    Left me feeling like feeling like "what's the point?"
  52. AMovieCritic
    Dec 29, 2007
    4
    Once again I have to wonder why, despite my huge interest in film-making and movies in general, I leave a movie theater for a supposed "masterpiece" being completely unmoved by it. It happened with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and it happened once again here. There was a great 30 minutes or so in here, as the main character travels from hotel to hotel with stolen drug money, attemptingOnce again I have to wonder why, despite my huge interest in film-making and movies in general, I leave a movie theater for a supposed "masterpiece" being completely unmoved by it. It happened with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and it happened once again here. There was a great 30 minutes or so in here, as the main character travels from hotel to hotel with stolen drug money, attempting desperately to outwit a killer whose after him and the cash. This leads to a very intense shootout in a hotel room and a street. Before and after this great 30 minutes, though, there's really nothing entertaining about the movie. Characters go on and on and don't feel realistic at all. The entire movie lacks a soundtrack, which, rather than adding to the atmosphere, subtracts from it. The final act of the movie, (leading to easily one of the most anti-climactic and unsatisfying endings in recent memory,) turns into a string of long, boring conversations between Tommy Lee Jones's sheriff and a bunch of characters we don't know. This is where the movie tries to be meaningful and important, but I really just didn't get it. It felt aimless and tedious. The whole movie was a "statement" with no realism. A cop is choked to death in his prison, and the prisoner who committed the murder then escapes, traveling through the country killing people one after another. In the real world, we would have had an FBI manhunt for this guy, but in this movie's world, nobody seems to be after him except this one sheriff, who "urgently" chases him (he spends almost all his scenes having breakfast and "discussing life,") and at the end of the movie a character refuses to make a choice, ... for reason that just doesn't happen in anything other than movies that are going for that Oscar. The end of the movie completely lost me; I didn't get the point of the crash, I could have sworn I saw that guy in that hotel room and his reflection in the lock, guess not (?), and I didn't understand the apparently important conversation that took place before the credits rolled. I don't know...just didn't get much enjoyment out of this one. If the whole movie played like that great 30 minutes, THEN we would have had an entertaining movie. But then we wouldn't have an Oscar contender, I guess... Expand
  53. SylviaC
    Dec 25, 2009
    4
    Pointless! Jones character superfulous to whatever little story line there was. No, there doesn't need to be a happy ending, evil can truimph over good and the downtrodden, but there was so much pointlessness! Why should anyone care about Jones' dilemma? He couldn't protect or stop the evil, and so what? What was the point of the Woody Harrelson character? The Coen Brothers Pointless! Jones character superfulous to whatever little story line there was. No, there doesn't need to be a happy ending, evil can truimph over good and the downtrodden, but there was so much pointlessness! Why should anyone care about Jones' dilemma? He couldn't protect or stop the evil, and so what? What was the point of the Woody Harrelson character? The Coen Brothers pulled a fast one. I can't believe that this picture was the best picture as designated by the Academy. Because I thought I was missing something, I read the professional reviews. No additional insight to the so-called genius was given. Just a lot of mumbo-jumbo, because these critics don't want to be considered "uncool". And then these same critics make fun of Ron Howard's movie, "Angels & Demons". I don't think they "got " that one. After watching NCFOM, I'll not be taking much advice from critics or the Academy. Expand
  54. Feb 18, 2015
    4
    I'm tired of being "turned on my ear." I understand, Coens, that not every movie is going to be a happy ending, but when I realize that everyone is doomed in the first ten-twenty minutes of the movie, it's kinda tough to build up hope in anyone accomplishing anything.

    The runner runs. The hunter hunts. The meek wife frets. And Tommy Lee Jones is too old for this ****

    I get it.
  55. Nov 30, 2014
    4
    An excellent movie until the expected showdown is denied to the viewer. I know a big, action packed finale is a cliche but we should get something as an alternative that's equally as satisfying. Instead, the viewer gets nothing. We turn up after it's all happened, Tommy Lee Jones sits down and morosely, whitters on for what seems like an eternity. Bardem gets a mildly interesting sceneAn excellent movie until the expected showdown is denied to the viewer. I know a big, action packed finale is a cliche but we should get something as an alternative that's equally as satisfying. Instead, the viewer gets nothing. We turn up after it's all happened, Tommy Lee Jones sits down and morosely, whitters on for what seems like an eternity. Bardem gets a mildly interesting scene at the end but it's little compensation. Expand
  56. Mar 31, 2012
    4
    No country for old man is the Cohen brothers weakest film. You see i need a score in a movie to help it move along, when this movie did not incorporate music it made it very boring in a lot of parts. pretty good acting with a few a good scenes though.
  57. May 26, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Nothing but a total disappointment. 2007 was a strong year for movies, so when this film won many Oscars I had very high expectations. This film failed to even somewhat meet them. This is a completely boring, pointless, unentertaining, waste of time. It started out pretty good, but with the exception of a few shootouts and great cinematography, this film is not good. The acting is good. However, Javier Bardem winning the Academy Award? Chigurh is one heck a villain, but I don't feel like any of the intensity of the character came from the acting. I feel like the character was written as a creepy guy, regardless of the performance. As for Josh Brolin's character, he had so little dialogue, it's nearly impossible to feel any interest in him whatsoever, then he dies. I did enjoy Tommy Lee Jones and Kelly Macdonald's performances though. The thing that is so unsettling about this film is the plot. It makes no sense. I get the beginning part with the money and I understand who's chasing who, but why? The plot just kind of starts without any information as to who the characters are and what their motives are for doing what they do. I'm all for movies that make you pay attention, but when it comes to the relevance of characters, it's important to back up with details. Woody Harrelson and Javier Bardem's characters almost seem irrelevant to the plot because so little is known about them. I'm sure it was done this way to create an element of surprise for intensity, but all it did was make this film make no sense. With all this being said, I feel this is a brilliantly made film. The cinematography is great. Certain scenes and the way they were shot really stand out. But, I strongly dislike this film! It did win Best Picture so you should see it for that, I guess. But for a true brilliant film of 2007, check out There Will Be Blood or Juno instead. Don't waste your time on this overrated mess! Expand
  58. May 19, 2013
    2
    the one thing i learned from this movie is that you can still get disappoint even if you are already disappoint which is exactly what happened to me before and after watching this movie.
    the only reason i watched it in the first place because of the Oscar for best picture in which the movie didn't deserve and here's why.
    the script was corny the screen play was silly the characters
    the one thing i learned from this movie is that you can still get disappoint even if you are already disappoint which is exactly what happened to me before and after watching this movie.
    the only reason i watched it in the first place because of the Oscar for best picture in which the movie didn't deserve and here's why.
    the script was corny the screen play was silly the characters were stupid and the directing was normal and there isn't a music and a moral afterward.
    some how the producer/directer was able be lazy in terms of screen play and people weren't able to recognize that but if you do you will notice that there isn't a dialog which might be the laziest way to produce a movie with only few good scene and a huge gap between them.
    in terms of Javier Bardem performance anyone would be able to do that cause there isn't a default standard way to play his role anyone could fill that role and play it his own way and you won't complain about it trust me.
    Expand
  59. Dec 9, 2014
    0
    Truly awful - unwatchable wooden acting and a mindless script only for kiddiwinkles without a brain.
    It's amazing that funding can be found for trash like this when so many deserving scripts go wanting...
Metascore
91

Universal acclaim - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 1 out of 37
  1. It’s a near masterpiece.
  2. 100
    Joel and Ethan Coen's adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel is an indisputably great movie, at this point the year's very best.
  3. 90
    It's the most ambitious and impressive Coen film in at least a decade, featuring the flat, sun-blasted landscapes of west Texas -- spectacularly shot by cinematographer Roger Deakins -- and an eerily memorable performance by Javier Bardem, in a Ringo Starr haircut.