User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1172 Ratings

User score distribution:

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. Aug 29, 2010
    0
    I thought this movie was such a waste of time that I have gone out of my way to write a review. As it is based on a fictional work (book) there seems to be no logical sence for brutal violence then for pure entertainment. I don't find brutal and senseless violence entertaining. I do not find it artistic or enriching or in any way psychologically interesting.
    The movie did not have the
    riveting plot or entertainment value of Silence of the Lambs or Pulp Fiction. It did not have strong characters such as Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugative whith it's suspence. There was no witty dialogue or great music.
    In my opinion the movie lacked everything in quality. The ending was a total letdown as if someone who was working on the ending just handed it in unfinished and left.
    72 people were murdered in Mexico last week - do people find that entertaining? I understand that art is up to interpretation but just as there are great works of art there are really poor ones. A broken lightbulb on a wet floor at the Guggenheim that is exhibited for a month draws reaction and it is weak - just because something is new and has not been done before does not mean that it is great art and good. Awarding this piece of dung with an academy award takes away from all the great productions which have been awarded in the past and cheats the public into thinking that any junk, no matter how bad it is will be great and worth enduring and spending your money on just because it was awarded and got great reviews. This movie is one of the worst ever and a disgrace to have been awarded. Javier Bardem Bardem is a good actor in many things - not an academy award winner in this one. The Coen brothers should pay me back for my time wasted watching their junk but I will know better in the future. I am watching every Best Picture Academy Award winner and about 60% of the way through, this is by far the worst movie. Had it not been on the list I would not have bothered to watch it until the end.
    Don't waste your time or money. Sensless violence can be had daily on the news.
    Expand
  2. Aug 21, 2011
    0
    I think they are ill. After about an hour one no longer cares who lives or dies. My own life experience is utterly at odds with what is shown. We are told that the theme is biblical. Tosh. I repeat: I think that the Coen brothers are ill.
  3. Aug 24, 2011
    0
    This film is a steaming pile of **** and one of the worst movies I have ever scene 0 out of 10
  4. Oct 7, 2012
    0
    This movie sucked. There's a reason why it lost money at the box office, and was winner at the least-watched Academy Awards of all time. That reason is this: it's boring, pretentious, and shoddily made.
  5. Oct 23, 2010
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie may be "a piece of art" and work on many different psychological levels but they clearly forgot that it had to make sense. This movie doesn't even have an ending, it just proves that psychopaths have the tendency to kill people when armed with a cattle gun and facing a bunch of morons who are so stupid they probably only just manage to dress themselves in the morning. For example the guy who was stopped by Bardem in a police car: When noticing that he had no badge or uniform and was carrying a cattle gun as a sidearm, he thought that listening to whatever he said (even to the point of getting shot in the face) was the best idea. Or Brolin bringing water back to a man who was clearly going to be dead and not even considering that people will look for the money. Never mind the fact that the movie went nowhere slowly and somehow no-one cares or fears a serial killer on the loose apart from 2 cops, they could have at least make it look like they cared about movie. Expand
  6. Jan 22, 2014
    4
    After just seeing the Coen Brother's masterpiece "Inside Llewyn Davis" I decided to go back and re-watch some of their previous movies. I started with No Country for Old Men. I have tried very hard to enjoy this movie and see what all the fuss is about but I can't. It is a great looking movie and some interesting scenes especially the shootout where Llewellyn and Anton first butt heads, but that's about it. First off, I thought Anton Chigurh was a terrible character. Everyone says how menacing he is, but he's just ridiculous. Secondly, I don't get Tommy Lee Jones significance. His character doesn't do a damn thing in the whole movie and serves virtually no purpose. Josh Brolin did a really good job as per usual, but besides that, the movie is just bland and overblown to be something it obviously isn't. Expand
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. Feb 26, 2013
    2
    Slow paced and entirely unsatisfactory pretentious hipster bullcrap. So many things done wrong: pacing is slow, uneventful, crappy ending. It was 2013 when I saw this movie, so I guess analogy like "No country" is Mass Defect 3 of the film world would make sense
  10. 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
    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
  11. Oct 7, 2013
    2
    Javier Bardem deserves every award he got in this film. A dedicated and masterful performance. Movie-wise details though, the film grips my attention during tense chases between Llewelyn and Anton. Concept-wise, rather flat and I understand the ending but as a first watch experience, it is utterly disappointing. The book is a masterpiece and I commend the Coen Brothers for their attempt to adapt the book, but as a book-to-movie, it just doesn't work. Expand
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.