User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1307 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. 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.
  2. Angela
    Nov 19, 2007
    0
    Boring, slow and graphic, gory pointless scenes. Don't waste your time.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. WillT.
    Dec 5, 2007
    2
    A sadistic, ridiculously violent and pretentious waste of time. It has no relationship to real life and no meaning.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. RonaldG.
    Jan 22, 2008
    1
    A psychopath who eventually kills nearly everyone in the movie doesn't do much for me.
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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??????
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. CathiM.
    Apr 19, 2008
    1
    Woody Harrelson was the best thing in the movie and that says it all.
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. Jun 29, 2015
    0
    Terrible movie! It's boring, empty, pretentious, too long and full of stupid characters. The plot is ridiculous, there is no progression and no ending. Movie that hasn't nothing to say, only a huge waste of time.
  31. 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.