The key to going to the movies is fairly simple, to be entertained. When the movie is good, you feel as though you are part of the cinematic landscape, and you move with the participants. When it stinks, you know you are watching a movie, and feel very far from the screen. After a spirited start, I found myself drifting back into my seat, and watching an arcade game unfold before me. Contrary to those who have professed their love for this film, and McCarthy, I found no redeeming value or statement from this film. I found myself more and more annoyed at the 'puppets with guns' dancing through a non-reactive society. There are many ways to communicate the theme of an indifferent society, but an uncaring Sheriff appeared more expositional than thematic, and by the last forty five minutes, I was left wondering if the three teenagers sitting behind me who had already walked out on this snoozer were rbighter than me. The Emporer had no clothes, and No country was missing a plot.… Expand

I understand and take into account how this film is an allegory for good and evil, and how evil is an unstoppable force, showed in the way that severe injuries obtained my chigurh are merely minor inconveniences. However there are many parts that i looked on at all levels and couldn't see any meaning or story in them. I appreciate the fact that this movie can be taken on a different level, however this level is just one, and only one level. Allegories such as Animal Farm can be taken on 3 levels - a childish story, a satire on the Russian Revolution, and a satire on revolution in general. However the reason this movie has got average user reviews is that No Country for Old Men can only be taken on one level, which is the allegory level. The people who gave this movie bad reviews cannot see the movie on this level. They see movies like they see crap hollywood rubbish - no attention to acting, just jokes and successful protagonists. This, is what I consider to be a major flaw in this potentially perfect film. At around 2 hours long, No Country for Old Men may continue to share its numerous messages, however it can be compared to sitting down for 2 hours learning about lessons in life and views on good and evil. The storyline is solid, but could be better, to avoid this lesson-learning process. To all those people wondering where the money went, Chigurh got it and its proved when he pays the boy 100 dollars for his shirt after the crash. Also, TO ALL THOSE CONCERNED WITH THE ENDING READ THIS. The ending is somewhat perfect. Yes you heard me. At 15 years old even I understand it. The story is another allegory for good and evil. The mountains being darkness, that envelop the good and surround it, almost cornering it. Bell is carrying the flame of good, but it is aging and is going to be extinguished as Bell is aging and is going to retire. Can everyone see my logic with the points i raised? Comments please… Expand

This movie didn't have much of a purpose, but still was an incredible movie. Full of suspenseful scenes that were incredibly well done. Some people might find the lack of a musical score a bad thing, but I think it added to the subtle intensity that was pretty consistent throughout the movie. The tension was broken up by occasional humor which was actually funny. Those of you who don't like seeing strong violence, brutal killings, some language, humorous mexican stereotypes, bowl-shaped haircuts, and a cranky old lady shouldn't see this movie. For everyone else: go see this and Sweeney Todd now!… Expand

This film was so gripping that it seemed life outside the theater walls melted way. It provokes so many questions as well. SPOILER I would love to hear theories on why Moss went back the crime scene. He barely looked at the dying Mexican man, let alone felt sympathy for him. Then, as he replays the day

Overall I enjoyed this movie, but given the hype I was a bit disappointed. The cinematography, acting, and dialogue was quite strong. But I thought plot felt awkwardly compressed, particularly towards the end. Also, I found the amount of bloodshed to be comically excessive in an otherwise serious and well adapted movie. I liked the film, but it is certainly not the Coens' best.

Nihilistic, dark, unstoppable, and calculated. At the penultimate snapshot of the film, we see a subliminal glimpse of what lies at the rotten core of contemporary society: blood money, power and purposive rationality of destruction. A bold and mind bending movie.

Great acting all around. Great story until the end where they forgot to tie up any loose ends. News flash to the cinematic snobs -- a movie can have a hidden underlying meaning AND an ending -- they aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, it would take more movie-making skill to include both.

I personally think this move is overrated but it looks like it will get best picture which is fine I guess since many people including friends of mine loved it, the movie is above average as far as I am concerned but I am not one of the many people who was touched and thought it was great

Fargo in Texas. Didn't impress me a whole lot. Not nearly as good as Fargo. Some wars have less dead people!

A waste of a couple of hours. Sure the critics say it is great film didn't see the whole movie. It starts with a reasonably interesting overly violent movie and turns into mush. It seems it takes until the end of the movie for the director to learn that it is possible to explain a murder without showing it on screen.

great, great film; some will be turned off by the violence and the lack of "closure" in the ending, but i thought the ending was perfect

This movie actually excelled in areas except conclusion. While it's definitely not for everyone, I highly recommend this film. If you're a fan of mafia movies or other storylines that ooze violence and have often unexpected grim outcomes then you sit through this movie. With that said, the violence is not overly gory as some other films have sought out to be. The acting in this film is excellent and Bardem has landed a role that not only is worthy of Oscar but should be classified as one of the all-time great villains in movie history. The only reason I have it an 8, is this continued trend of the last five years to not conclude stories. Continuing to reference The Sopranos, why can't we bring things to a conclusion any longer? It's almost as if we're trying to leave things open for a sequel or something. While I appreciate that life doesn't come all wrapped up with a bow on top, stories usually do. It's called an ending and this movie would have earned a 10 if it had a solid one.… Expand

Violent & with no point! No way - no how is this movie worthy of any awards, individual actor awards or even as a "best movie" award. Pulp Fiction with a western theme to it, except much better use of actors in Pulp Fiction. Ridiculous and gorie movie....I hated seeing Tommy Lee Jones in such a horrible film. Were giving awards to men who act as pointless killers with "principal"...give me a break.… Expand

This movie seems to be yet another vehicle for the cinema elite to demonstrate how much smarter they are than the rest of us. Take zaja's comments below. The guy in the cinema that didn't like the movie was not just a guy but a "loud guy": an oaf. Likewise, to understand this movie you have to think "like a grown up." By deduction, if you don't like the movie you must be childlike. Zaja's main point seems to be that the movie is great because it breaks out of the conventional stereotype, ironically he/she can't seem to break his/her own thinking away from typecasting individuals based on their response to this movie. When we play the moviegame we invest in a story by suspending our disbelief. We are prepared to overlook shortcomings in the way the story is told for the sake of the story itself. This movie requires a sizeable investment: there are significant plot holes, improbable scenarios and incredulous character actions (hint: when you find a psychopath sitting in your bedroom don't sit down beside him but make a run for the door.) When we play this game we have a right to expect a return on our investment. Unfortunately, when it comes time for payback in this movie, we find that the storyteller has skipped town leaving us with a plot deficit. So to all the critics who "got this movie," I got it too - I just didn't like what I got. It left me with the same uneasy feeling I get when someone puts their hand out to shake and then pulls it away at the last moment as a joke.… Expand

Let me summarize No Country for Old Men- 1st 1/3 of the movie is slow, boring, and dull. 2nd 1/3 of the movie is suspenseful, interesting, and exhilarating. And the 3rd 1/3 of No Country is depressing, pointless, and unsatisfying. Javier does a good job acting, and is a unique villain with some good dialogue and scenarios, but he is completely one dimensional. Honestly, Casey Affleck should win for best supporting actor, but because all the critics have there noses in No Country's crack that wont happen. Tommy Lee plays a completely wasted character and never does anything to help push the plot forward and in the end you will just wonder why he was even in the film to begin with other than to draw fans. The main character/protagonist does an adequate job but something off screen happens part of the way through the movie that doesn't make sense. I truly believe, as do a lot of reviewers here and everyone in the theatre with me, that this movie has one of the worst endings in the history of film. If you're not one of those people who stare at an abstract painting to simply figure out what its meaning is (like JG H pointed out below) then you are going to be left entirely disappointed once the credits start rolling. Or maybe you wont be disappointed and you will assume that there has to be more, and wait till the credits end to find out there isnt like many people in the theatre did. Critics are entirely wrong on this film. If you want to see an action movie go watch the bourne ultimatum, which by the way got an 84 overall rating on metacritic, if you want to see a western film go watch 3:10 to yuma where the characters have much more depth, and finally if you want to watch a movie that has beautiful camera work go watch the assassination of jesse james. This movie is not worthy of any of these high reviews. You will agree with my summary in the beginning, you will realize the critics just praise and worship everything the coen brothers do for absolutely no reason, and most importantly you will realize how horrible the ending is.… Expand

Oh please, all the people who are giving this horrible reviews are obviously not the kind of viewers who would ever be interested in this in the first place. How is it that people cannot realize that half of the movies on Metacritic with great reviews are going to be artistic or very non-mainstream. Look at chad for example: he lists alternate movies to go see, all of which are very mainstream marketable. And he himself even states the real reason many people don't like it by referencing abstract art: some people like it, others don't. The fact that No Country is NOT a mainstream film should tell people that it will not appeal to those more linear tastes. And I am continuously wondering how can so many people not get the ending? Even I, a 16 year old, thought the ending was brilliant. And though I don't really want to type out the symbolism here, I would hope that those people who hated the ending can at least figure it out from here: Take into mind that the movie is completely allegorical-- the villain represents all of the evil in the world and it's unwavering continuity; the protagonist who finds the money is man kind, being subdued by a force they are trying to desperately understand and can never really defeat; and the sheriff is the weary old generation, trying to make sense of everything as it happens (hence the title of the movie). Now think about the second dream the sheriff had, and interpret the words' meaning. It had me floored; I couldn't move from my seat for a few minutes. This is purely a movie of taste-- people are just mad that they went to watch a movie which wasn't in their own taste. And while I want to avoid insulting anyone's intelligence level, so as not to assume, but I think that many people just couldn't understand this. But for those of you who can see deeper into such allegories and the more artistic nature of movies, this will completely hypnotize you and leave you numb by the end. At least Tricky and N K recognized the quality of the film without having to like it.… Expand

I think it's quite fascinating how far the divide between those who can view cinema as an art form and those who cannot has become. A majority of the harsh critiques for this film cite how "slow" or "boring" the film is and/or how the film has no "ending." First off, I don't believe one should be able to cite their review of this film unless they know what "allegory" means. Another point I want to make - the main character in "Psycho," widely considered a masterpiece of cinema, was killed off halfway through the film. One doesn't need to see the "main character" make it through the film. This is NOT a formula film. Those who use the word "plot" should also not be allowed to review the film. Please, people, free your minds from formulaic thinking. And what's wrong with abstract art?!… Expand

1? Really? 1 is what my home videos deserve not the best picture of the year. Anyone who gives this movie less then an 8 doesn't even deserve to defend your position; you have no creative spirit and are more then likely stupid. I hate to be so blunt but seriously it doesn't even make sense to give this film a 1. You don't have to like it but, really, to give it 1 defies any and all purusuits of analysis and intellect.… Expand

There were some good parts... SOME, but the rest of it was just a let down. I really dont understand why this movie won so many awards.

Love the cohen brothers movies.....but this movie absolutely is not Academy Award material. Script holes, continuity, who's who, so many flaws it hard to count them all up. Look forward to better movies from the Cohens.

As a Filmmaking graduate I adored Coen's because of their unusual style in editing and storytelling.But I must say that it was not the excessive show off of the violence that makes the film superficial, but it is the self-conciousness that Coen's always use, but this time I think is failed.The unconsciousness is exaggerated so much that you can see it everywhere from lightning to the dialogs.The cold-mysterious and distancing atmosphere of the film of course, done by purpose, But the film is not either a western or a film noir.and I dont really understand the critics talking about Western Noir,because there is no such genre. There are only 11 major Genres and some sub- cathegories.And I think those who say that this film is Film noir, didnt even watch Billy Wilder.Every Genre has its own elements and nobody can call a western as Film Noir depending on some lightning preferences.are they trying to ?NVENT a non- existing genre by mixing some weak proofs ?… Expand

Uhggg... I'd like my 2 hours back. Waaaaay over rated. I don't see what all the critics were raving about! This is an average movie AT BEST. There were maybe two tense scenes and the rest was useless filler. Unbelievable that this would get an Oscar. Hollywood is smokin' crack if this is the best film of the year!!

This is a thinking man's film- the relationship between individuals in this movie and their motives are not spoon-fed to the viewer. Those willing to explore the themes and metaphors presented in No Country for Old Men will find this film compelling. Additionally, Tommy Lee Jones' cliche role as a policeman in this movie is justified by his stellar performance.

I dont see what all these people are waving to..But we all should consider why oscar Committee gave it an oscar, which I think , Like everything in america jewish lobbie works a lot.Except its cinematic measures, the movie is a crap and actually does not deserve an Oscar.No one sane or non-jewish can say that it was a masterpiece. Coens in the past, did better movies to be nomited as masterpieces like Fargo.… Expand

In Yeats' "Sailing to Byzantium" that opens with the line, "That is no country for old men," I am reminded of the fleeing antelope in one of the early scenes of the movie, and the last lines of Ed Tom Bell : "I seen he was carryin' fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. 'Bout the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin' on ahead and he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. And then I woke up. " . . . echoing strangely in Yeats' poem: "O sages standing in God's holy fire As in the gold mosaic of a wall, Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre, And be the singing-masters of my soul. Consume my heart away; sick with desire And fastened to a dying animal It knows not what it is; and gather me Into the artifice of eternity." . . . make of it what you will.… Expand

I just saw the movie last night with a few friends. We got excited only to be dismayed. I don't know what the critics are raving about. Feeling sorry for the Coen Brothers is more like it perhaps??. The movie was exciting for a while albeit horrificly bloody for the masses but the ending put it in the "Crummy" category as one of the worst movies of the year. Hollywood, like our foreign policy these days, has gone blind in seeing through the muck. Save your mulla on this one. It… Expand

I generally like the coen's work, try to get past the violence and nihilism. But, I just couldn't get past it on this one. The one redeeming point I took from the film is the poignancy of the overall message- along with age comes a realization and possibly acceptance of those things that you no longer understand and the liberation that comes iwth that realization.

The first 90 minutes of this film had me on the edge of my seat. Then within 5 minutes and two scenes, everything that had been building up was ruined by an incredibly poor and ill constructed twist. After watching Broken Flowers, which also had no ending, i must say im becoming somewhat disillusioned by the film industry at this moment in time.

The movie was probably the worst i've seen, there was too little information on everything. There were times when some scenes they really didn't even need. The ending was horrible and the main guys death wasn't shown in the movie. You don't get to see what happened to the characters in the end.

This movie was one of the worst movies I have ever seen - I hated the ending and hated the multitude of "why's" left hanging at the end = why anybody would watch such abysmal drival is beyond me.

When I spend my time watching cinema, I at best expect to see a complete and thought provoking piece of art. This work failed on both counts. The violence was for the most part pointless. Holes in the narrative dangled like nagging prepositions. The nonending simply confirmed my firm conviction that I had wasted valuable time that could have been better spent EVEN IN A LAUNDROMAT!!!

Disappointing. Although the movie is fast paced and beautifully filmed, it's nihilist message left me cold. I thought Kelly McDonald was very good.

I must admit I'm baffled by the critical success of this movie, and I'm generally a Coen Bros. fan. I just don't get it. I'll admit that the chase between Bardem and Brolin is exciting, but that's about it. Best Picture??! Somebody please explain the point of it all. Didn't resonate for me, and every time one of the characters (mostly Tommy Lee Jones) started off on an inteminable blah-blah-blah, I contemplated the wax in my ears and waited.… Expand

this movie was the biggist piece of pointless dribble ive ever seen, somehow a mentaly challenged cowboy 4 no good reason returns 2 the seen of a shoot out in the middle of the night,2 give water2 a guy who was nearlydead 8 hours ealier, gets away again then stays in town waiting 4 the killer,what the f--k. there was no real stoy and tommy lee jones seems 2 b there 2 dribble down his own shirt in some lame attempt at wisdom, myself and everyone i watched it with was just left baffeld at 2 what the piont of this film was, waist of time.… Expand

To cry foul at the plot...is to completely miss the point. A masterpiece. And deservedly so.

I am not one for violent movies - I get a gut-wrenching feeling that makes me tremble inside - and I trembled from the opening scene of this film. But I was mesmerized by the story line - I think Cormac McCarthy's story as the source for the this amazing movie is as sharp and brilliant as the western landscape it takes place in. The Coen Brothers have made a masterpiece.

Plodding display of meaningless violence. No redeeming qualities at all.

This movie was terrible. It was nothing more than an anti-climatic clusterf*ck that does nothing more than waste 2 hours of your time to feed you some message that the world is a terrible place.

I agree with Joseph S. and SK, how on earth did this movie get such rave reviews. It started out very entertaining, but by the end of the movie, I was ready to go to sleep. It seems as though they did not know how to end such a great beginning, so they just killed everyone off and said the heck with it. YUCK

No Country For Old Men Movie Review: In a nutshell. No Country For Old Men is definitely a hit classic, and is the Coen brother

The movie had potential right up until you popped it into the dvd player. the story sounded good, execution sucked. You are left wondering why about too many things...Don't get me wrong I like movies that make you think and make you wonder but you need SOME details to why or else it's just pointless killing and it was so slow. I did not develop any feelings for any characters in the film so I really didn't care if they lived or died. And since when does a good movie let the bad guy get away and as much as I love Tommy Lee, I can't believe he would play a character that can be classified only as a quitter. Awful waste of 2 hours! The only reason I didn't give it a 0 is because, again, it had potential and it had Tommy Lee Jones in it.… Expand

The ending ruined the whole movie.

This is a brilliant piece of cinematography and storytelling, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

First of all this is one of the greatest movies ever made and not because of the brilliant acting, direction, perfectly adapted screenplay, brilliant cinematagraphy but the dark realism that most people don't want to accept so they shun it for being Real. I'm sick and tired of people bitching about the ending or the fact that Brolin's demise isn't shown because read the damn book. There weren't many loose ends neither people just don't want to think about them and the ending is perfectly interrelated with the entire movie and he finally woke up to the fact that things don't turn out the way they are expected; Good guys lose, Bad guys win.… Expand

Despite excellent cinematography and a strong cast, the film's plot meanders to a very unsatisfying end. While it's understood that Good doesn't always triumphant over Evil, the requisite show down between Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) and Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) doesn't happen. Failing that, you would have expected a showdown between Chigurh and Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Again this doesn't happen. What about Woody Harrelson's early, pathetic exit? I guess the Coen Brothers wanted to break the Hollywood Movie stereotype. For me, this existential ending simply didn't work.… Expand

to tell you the truth i was not expecting to much heading into the theatre to see no country, but as i walked i wanted to tell everyone to go see this movie, i was not priorly influenced by the critics because my cuzzin let me see an advanced screening in his theatre about 2 weeks prior to the films release. after 2 weeks i was still lovin and saw that the critics loved, i should be one, this is the most perfect movie i have ever seen it kept me at the edge of my seat until the very end!! thank you thank you!!… Expand

Great filmmaking. Stupid message that appeals to bitter old people. The world isn't going to hell.

This was a good chase movie until a dramatic shift marred the last third or so. The "ending"--if one can even call it that--was one of the worst I've ever seen. The emperor's-new-clothes crowd like to mock you as a simpleton if you don't appreciate how "deep and thought-provoking" the ending is--all the while failing to say what makes it so deep or thought-provoking. Non-elitists know better.… Expand

Really slow, a bit unrealistic, could have been shorter.

It seems that a lot of people really don't get this movie - do American audiences honestly want to turn up to a movie that's all hokey, corny action, catchphrases and OTT melodrama? the whole point of this film is that we don't have a protagonist to root for - can people not understand that it's not a totally classic storyline, or is that too much for you to handle? it all makes sense if you think about it - it might be abstract in parts, such as when the sheriff sees Chigurgh in the motel room (I believe it's his mind's projection of what he believes will be behind the door), but the plot makes perfect sense and has quite a powerful message, the most potent being the fact that Chigurgh is the only one still alive and fighting by the end of the film. I think that the lack of a protagonist makes it easier to look at all the characters as mere human beings - it's total realism as there are some parts where we even see Chigurgh's vulnerability, but also the flaws of Llewellyn. It's an exercise in harsh realism, not idealism, which is a rare thing in modern films. And yes, the plot may be confusing, but a confusing film is usually far more brain-engaging and fascinating than a clear-cut, black-and-white movie that requires no insight (i.e. the crap we usually get from Hollywood these days). It might not appeal to the lowest demographics, as it does require a brain to be appreciated, but it really is a stunning movie that contrasts the gruesome and tense with the prophetic, 'dull' if you like, insightful. Excellent film, still one of my favourites.… Expand

Well said Seb H... I really pity the user reviews that declare that 'most people say they like it b/c they don't get it so it must be intelligent and so they pretend it's good'. LOL... Dude, grow up... read a bit. Or shut up and steer clear of art - it's clearly WELL over your head. People who are smart or who have studied and understand the language of film (much like the language and rhythm of life), like myself, enjoy and appreciate the movie BECAUSE we are intelligent enough to get it - and love it (It is my top 2 favourite films of all time with Taxi Driver). There is no pretending going on my sad friend. That is a 'truth' that exists only in your mind (if it qualifies to be labelled as such).. The ending is indisputably one of the greatest endings in film history (I wept... but then, I got it, I listened to what he was saying, and I have lived a life both in personal experience and in worldliness, that allows me to understand precisely what is being said)...... and there is absolutely NO confusion WHATSOEVER with working out a/ what happened to Llewellyn (RIP) who Chigurh does not kill at all b/ what happens to the money (the money is a macguffin you idiots, it is NOT relevant and is taken back half way thru the film... HE HAS IT ALREADY morons (and from Woody NOT Llewellyn). His pursuit is a matter of principal, not of profit) c/ whether llewellyn's wife is or is not toast at the end?.... there is NO ambiguity... None whatsoever. The point is, she dies a hero, with courage, because she utters the most beguiling line of the movie b4 she meets her maker: "There's no coin mister - there's only you." Brilliant. Sums up so much... and is the most courageous line and act in the movie. She never calls the coin. With all the tough talk and bombast flying around, she is the toughest character in the film. No, the real problem is that originality, intelligence, poetry, thematics and the magic of life, the spaces inbetween the space between, have passed you and your lives and minds by..... so, I am afraid it's true, if you don't like this movie because you claim that it is confusiong, has a bad ending, does not make sense or is in need of concluding further..... rather than, say, criticise it for being too cynical, cathartic, scary or violent, which you COULD do..... then you are simply WRONG. This is not a matter of opinion. The average critic is smarter and more intuitive with film than the average user... Fact. That's how they became critics... get it? Hence the average review of this film, as it is so brilliant, being lower with users than with the critics. Can you work that one out chumps? Honestly, you should be embarrassed that you felt so self-consious on a sub-conscious level in not enjoying the film that you had to post a bad review to save your pride. Somewhat hilarious, but deeply embarrassing for each of you....as you ironically, in doing so, demonstrate you missed the movie's narrative, charcterisation and thematics almost entirely. "In need of a sequel"!!?? I truly, honestly pity you. Chigurh wins becasue he is not weighed down with little things like decency, compassion, empathy and so forth.... which is one of the points of the movie. If you want to benefit quickly from other's demise and troubles (get the politic allegory now), you won't get away with it and get to have your cake and eat it too and simultaneously be in the right and covered in glory. You will be pursued... and by an enemy you don't understand or relate to.... and if you stay true to being good, to yourself, if you display fanciful things like 'courage' or 'bombast' (llewellyn is tracked ONLY b/c he returns to the scene with water for someone who has already died - get it?), this enemy will mercilesly send you and everyone you love to hell. And they will not be punished by karma, they will just walk, or in this case limp, off into the sunset. There's a starting point for you... think poetically when you watch this film, not literally... and see what is on screen, not what you expect to be. Good luck.… Expand

Possibly the worst ending to a movie ever. One user compared it to winning the lottery only to find out it was a joke, a perfect analogy. I would have given this movie a 10 rating if it had an ending!

This movie started with an improbable story line that led no where. This was a total waste of time.

It was an amazing movie. I had to watch it at least 5 times before I truly understood it, but than again I never read the book. It skews the lines that distinguish the token 'good guy' and 'bad guy,' which is my favorite part of all. And the fact that in the end, the 'protagonist' does, the 'bad guy' lives and the real 'good guy' doesn9;t have a clue just leaves realizing that this is quite a peice of work. I would have given it a 10, but I feel it was a little bit confusing.. But than againthat may be a good thing, causing me to watch it many times and really dissecting it. Cormack McCarthy is a literary genius.… Expand

No Country For Old Men was the best picture of 2008 -- without a doubt. Criticized by some for its graphic violence, the movie in fact had a mere few moments of blood and guts. And the violence was more psychological than it was graphic. Having read the book, I was amazed at how close the script stayed to the book. With the exception of Bell's war careerm it was pretty much all there. The aspect of the movie that struck me most was that in discussing it with literary people, it was discussed as if it were in fact a book, not a movie. When discussing it with those of a lesser literary bent, it was discussed simply as a drug/crime movie. As for that latter perception, it's not even close. Drugs and money were incidental -- a vehicle on which to place the themes of fate, change, acceptance, time, and place. And while some talk of good and evil in No Country For Old Men, it played no role at all. In fact Anton showed no evil in his character or actions. He lacked good and evil in equal proportions. Of all the charactors in the movie, he was perhaps the most sane in that he had his principles and beliefs and stuck by them. His integrity was intact at the end of the movie. One could go so far as to say Anton show as much compassion in the movie as did Bell. Several times he removed himself from the equation to allow the coin to decide -- it was the best he could do. My point in writing this simple review is to refute much of what I've seen concerning Anton. Much in the same way as I've written to defend Shylock as a victim in The Merchant of Venice.… Expand

Obscure, but without depth.

Breathtaking! I loved this movie, almost every single thing about it! I disliked the ending, feeling it was a bit anti-climatic, but not one preformance is bad in this film. Every now-and-then a film comes alog and changes the way we think of everything, this IS that one!

Probably the most overrated film of the year. I'm not gonna be harsh like G cash but I also won't defend the movie. I was bored for most of the film. As well, the ending left things out that needed to be resolved, questions that remained unanswered. I was at no time entertained during the film, even with some fantastic acting by Javier Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones. I really wanted to like this movie...but I didn't.… Expand

Possibly one of the best films ever made. It's rare that a picture is created with so much philosophical depth and intrigue, yet manages to be so unbelievably entertaining. The Coen Brothers continue to impress the film making industry with their bleak, ingeniously constructed tales; No Country for Old Men only boosts their repertoire. As the final shot abruptly cuts to slow credits, I sat, and I thought. Even when I finally left the theater, the movie just wouldn't leave my mind. It's so deep, so interesting, and so tense. It really just makes you think. How many movies do that nowadays? With all the mindless crap out there, it's refreshing to see a film that will make you really stop and wonder. As great as No Country is, one is able to see its brilliance at its pinnacle after the film is over. A true masterpiece, and completely deserving of its Oscars.… Expand

Outstanding film. Reminded me of Apocalypse Now in a broader sense that in the heart of many men lies darkness, with a key difference being that in AN we get a glimpse of Col. Kurtz's inner being while in NCFOM Chigurh's character is opaque and impenetrable. Another parallel to AN is that evil infects all of the characters to some degree -- Moss is undone by his own greed for trying to keep the money instead of turning it in; Chigurh is a psychopath who cannot feel anyone's pain and not even his own; even the good 'ol Sheriff Bell is called out for vanity and retires just when duty calls. Many people complain about ambiguity in the plot, but that is by design; in real life, Good and Evil are rarely so black and white and at times fate and circumstance interfere with justice. The cinematography, the acting and the dialogue are all top drawer. Kept me on the edge of my seat the entire film.… Expand

I just don't get it. Really i don't. The praise that this film got just baffles more and more i watch this film. Yes i have watched this more than once because like i said i just don't get it. I wanted to but i mean ....

For starters this is porbably one of the best acted and directed films in recent times. Some of the action and suspense parts are genius. But that's it, the movie is crippled with a ridiculous plot that just never goes anywhere. The main characters were completely dull and unfulfilling, as was the story, the plot progression, the ending. Some of the scenes were just completely void of sense.

The worst example was the whole motel, hiding the briefcase incident. My god what on earth was that 10 minutes all about? he messes about, hides a briefcase in an air vent adjacent to the next room, and prepares with others means for an intrusion. NOTHING happens with this, it was the most pointless and iratating scene in movie history.

Don't get me wrong i like movies with subtlety, i like movies that make you think about their meanings. Hell i mainly watch japanese movies and anime which are horrible for people that don't like figuring out things for themselves. But this movie was just complete nonsense. A well produced and atmospheric film with absolutely no substance what so ever.… Expand

A movie with no real characters, no closure, and just a little plot. The only thing that separates this fil from other dumb action films like shoot 'em up is shoot 'em up has enough action to keep you entertained solidly for two hours.

After what seemed to be a somewhat interesting cat and mouse movie hits a nice brick wall and I don't just mean the ending as some people did not understand. Plot: A serial killer trying to get back 2 mil in drug money. Money, killer, southwest USA - not much to understand and definitely not something you haven't seen before in a nice made for TV movie. But besides that point, to remind you that Javier Bardem who is a good actor and a decent serial killer in this movie, won best supporting actor at the Academy's for literally walking around and into different hotel rooms and killing random people who we don't care about. Oh, ok - occasionally he would give some psychotic speech that a smart serial killer should do in these kind of movies, ya know, the speeches that try to justify why he's killing people. So here's a scene about an hour and a half into the movie (spoilers): A woman is seen trying to get moss to have a couple of beers with her. 30 seconds later, Sheriff Bell finds him in a puddle of blood. Oh, that's nice, just show the killer kill all the pointless human beings in the movie, but when it comes down to one of the main characters, just show him that he's dead. Then, the remainder (15 minutes or so) of the movie is of this Tommy Lee Jones cop character who all we know is a cop up to this point. This guy was only seen in about 3 or 4 scenes prior to this point and we are supposed to care about the fact that he cannot go out and catch this killer because he is to old. Oh he had 2 dreams that basically told him his "reality." Give me a break. Oh wait - we have to like this movie because there's symbolism because if movies have symbolism we have to love them and give them awards. "It's free will and chance that the killer goes around and kills people. It's morality, it's deep, it's dark, it's meaningful." Really? So in every other movie that you see that a guy kills somebody, you can't apply THESE SAME THEMES of free will and chance? Take some advice here, if you want symbolism, read a John Steinbeck book. If you want symbolism and murder, read Watchmen. At least it has a point and more than enough symbolism. I really do not like much of the Coen Brothers' movies, especially Fargo. Watching No Country for Old Men makes me even hate Fargo even more. The Coen Brothers want to portray how Tommy Lee Jones is too old to go out and catch this killer but in Fargo, a 7 month pregnant woman can shoot down a psycopath in a snowy day in North Dakota. Go figure out that logic.… Expand

Film projection on the harsh reality faced by the world.

If you think reality TV is cool (every emotion vocalised, contrived confrontation in everything, no use for self respect/restraint), then this movie probably isn

90% of the movie was fantastic, but the end is so bad(it has no happy end).

This movie is in huge danger of being over-praised. It is an expertly made crime-gone-wrong western, but it is not a masterpiece and I'm not sure it's even great. The movie (and this probably issues from the book) seeks to be more than a genre story. About 70 minutes in, it starts to become an existential fable about how Death waits on the other side of the door for us all. And though it starts with thrilling efficiency, it finishes with needless scenes and dubious monologues about dreams, fathers, and the hazards of police work. Josh Brolin is tremendous but when he disappears, the momentum peters out. Great movies have great endings. This movie does not finish so wonderfullyl. Critics will admire it; audiences will be puzzled.… Expand

It's the kind of film that simultaneously entertains, then prods the viewer and pushes him until it hurts. But it is not devoid of purpose. Many will miss the expansive call of this film because they are symbolically wrapped up tightly within the film. Many will scratch their head and wish for a happy, nicely packaged ending. But this is a film for those who don't need spoon fed morals and dumbed down endings. This is a film to awaken and warn us; to encourage and yet haunt us.… Expand

The Coens are back in top form with this one, their best since Fargo, if not their best ever. Brilliant dialogue and excellent performances throughout (especially Bardem's villain, who's incredibly creepy). And to DWilly, who said Josh Brolin's character would have been in combat at age five: the movie is set in 1980 (watch the scene with the coin-flip in the gas station again), so assuming Brolin's character is around 40 years old, he would have been around 25 in 1965, more than old enough to serve in Vietnam.… Expand

More proof of the cluelessness of critics. Film takes one idea and beats it to death- sorry for the pun. Audience with me was sorely disaappointed-- booing at end.

Gratifies expectations by defying them.

Chicago Reader Jonathan Rosenbaum A very well-made genre exercise, but I can

Highly overrated. Substitutes smartass wisecracks for dialogue that might cause authentic frisson. Tommy Lee Jones cracks his role open like a golden egg, with hard-bitten stoicism as wizened as his face. Otherwise, what a disappointment.

Excellent thriller. Very stripped-down, not sensationalized or predictable. One of the best villains to hit the big screen since Hannibal Lecter

The film is absorbing, well paced and well acted. The hip ironic dialogue is entertaining, but the film is propped up too much by Tarantino type blood humor.

Riveting and simply sensational. Pulls you in like a vaccuum and does not let go. Not only does Javier Bardem create the greatest screen terror since Hannibal Lecter, his performance results in the most suspenseful and electric experience I've had at the theaters in years.

would have scored it much higher, but for the ending... i won't spoil it here, but thought it was ridiculous in the extreme... a really terrific movie, right up to the point where it chooses to become a truly lousy one.

I hated this movie and I am a Cormac McCarthy fan! A better title would have been Two Weeks in the Life of a Psychopath. Great cast but extremely violent with no point that I could see. Hope to get it out of my mind soon.

With all the great reviews this film has gotten I was anxious to see it. While watching it I couldn't get the thought out of my mind that this film was a lot like FARGO. Change the location from Minnesota to Texas and presto. It's paced well and filmed beautifully. Fargo is the better picture IMO , but this film was good.

Best movie I've seen in the 2000s. I say the ending was the way it was because, There Will Be a Sequel. Camera work perfect. I love the western Hills Have Eyes feel, and backdrop. The two old couples sitting in front of me dressed in tuxes, jumped about a mile and a half out of their seats toward the end of the movie. I've Never seen old people move so fast. I thought that they would die of cardiac arrest right on the spot in front of me they were so spooked. My chair was rattled by the younguns behind me too. I'm the only one that didn't move, because, well, I've got nerves of steel, and in my job in real life I deal with extreme stress. Nothing phases me. All in all, GREAT movie! I liked the way I felt when leaving the movie. I liked the music while walking out of the theatre. I somehow felt like the murder was not all bad of a guy who lived by his principles, lived in his Own reality, and was just trying to seek the truth in others. Sure he was pure evil, but people straightened up and thought Real hard about their answers when talking to him, maybe because they sensed that he was a volatile man and dangerous. Kind of reminds me of Brad Pitt in Kalifornia. 4 out of 4. Excellent movie that puts you right in it, as if you're there. Not like Children of Men (hated it). Better. Plus that former Goonie James Brolin is a great actor.… Expand

This was the most boring movie I have ever viewed -- a total waste of money -- which is saying a lot, because I have seen some really bad flicks. I started to walk out -- I noticed four people did just that -- but felt I should give the film a chance. It started flat; it ended flat. I couldn't wait to get home and express my disappointment here.

Those that give this movie a bad review should stick with the summer blockbusters. Not every movie has to follow the same tired formula to be good. This movie breaks the mold and actually makes you think, God forbid. Simply brilliant!

A well-made but essentially boring movie. i wasted my time. The Coen brothers still can't top Fargo.

Do yourself a favor and don't trust the hype. While some of the scenes are great and oddly humorous, the movie is horrendously long and unsatisfying and in the end. In fact, it doesn't "end", it just stops, and most frustratingly so. None of the storylines are concluded, none of the issues resolved. The main character is killed OFF CAMERA about 20 minutes before the movie's over, which turns that time into a meandering, unfocused and pointless mess. And let's not forget the scene before the credits roll, which is just about as necessary as herpes... or ebola. Those are two hours and 27 minutes I won't ever get back, in addition to the $8.75 I spent on it. I want my money, and more importantly, my time back. I feel robbed. And cheated. I fail to see the genius in it. It was just a self-congratulatory and massively dissatisfying movie experience, which doesn't have much to do with genius and a lot to do with hackness. My prediction: it'll tank at the box office, and for good reason. It's long, it's pointless, and it's poorly executed. Period.… Expand

I see about 100 movies a year in the theater and this was my most anticipated film of 2007 since I read all the film festival praise. " No Coubtry For Old Men" is an instant classic and it works on several levels depending on how much thought one wishes to invest. The characters, dialogue, photography, mood, pacing, acting and tone are all essential ingredients in the film's abilty to entertain and enlighten. So much so that " No Country For Old Men" is likely to be the best film of the year. It must be seen as soon as possible by everyone reading these words.… Expand

Excellent cast, sharp dialogue, deadly good cinematic touches, and fascinatingly morose murders and near murders by a villian as evil as they come...undone a bit by a rather languid pace, some undercooked character motivations, and an instantly controversial ending that just sort of arrives without a truly cohesive resolution. It's unconventional to be sure, but the Coen Brothers live for this kind of stuff!… Collapse

empty. an empty movie. not a single note of score throughout the entire movie, which I guess is an artsy way for the Coen bro to portray the stark emptiness and violence of a disillusioned American landscape. the point of the whole movie as i took it is that we are a violent nation, we were founded in violence, and always will be violent. it isn't any better or worse off than it was in the good ole days, the days that many pine for as being a better time to live....no so, says the coens. we've always been homicidal maniacs. so if thats the lesson you want driven home, go see this movie. great villain, no question, but overall i was just expecting the movie to pick-up or GO somewhere...which it never does. (spoiler alert) and how the hell can you as directors let the audience miss out on a scene where your main character gets offed?! you can't cheat us out like that. no conclusion in the end, the movie just ended in a frustrating fade to black alla sopranos. i realize this is a movie for a more intuned thinking audience but i got just as much thought provoked out of beowulf, and THAT was immensely more entertaining!… Expand

An enthralling, well-crafted, suspenseful movie. I couldn't wait to see what happened next. Javier Bardem is an imposing villain. Amazing directorial nuances. I loved it!

The best and most-superbly haunting movie I've ever seen. Brilliant for what it depicts in stark gruesome detail and equally so for what it leaves to the imagination. Brief moments of dry wit, perfectly timed. A cat and mouse game that churned my stomach so that I wanted to turn away... but couldn't.

maybe i'm becoming a softy in my old age, but there was just something so unrelentingly nihilistic about this film that kept me from giving it a higher score. that said, this may be one of the most brilliantly realized and deftly crafted films from the coen brothers (and that's no small feat). worth seeing.

This debate is truly fascinating, the way that the praise is clearly separated from the "criticism." On the one hand, those of us who love this movie clearly don't have a problem violence, especially violence that is so morally and thoughtfully infused. Perhaps we're sick--perhaps I'm sick (I'll entertain the notion)--but I found the amount and nature of the violence powerful yet palatable. Those who condemn the movie might have accidentally missed the entrance for "Enchanted" or "Fred Claus." The other distinction to be made is that most of the praise tends to be eloquent, intelligent, and knowledgeable, whereas the so-called criticism is almost invariably shallow, vapid, and practically illiterate. I know that I sound like an elitist, but please, if you are going to condemn such well-wrought, meticulously crafted art, please check your spelling and your grammar.… Expand

Somebody has on no clothes and it ain't me. A groan inducing film that has lines only a writer who has not left his house in 20 years could write. Cliche after cliche are hurled at us expecting us to think it's brilliant writing . Don't be fooled by the critical repsonse. Ask yourself when you leave the theater, "Would I tell someone to go see this?" The answer should be no , and don't be afraid that people may think you don't know a good film from a bad one. This is what they call a bad one. The 2 stars are for the worst haircut ever in a film worn by Bardeem. Gobble Gobble.… Expand

The cinemtography in this movie was good stuff. So good I think I crapped mi pantelones...The movies symbolism was amazing..I highly recommend it. ..(pooping noises silently sounding)But if you go wear a diaper.

Not a bad movie by any standards, but one of the worst movie disappointments that I have ever seen. A fairly taut, well-written thriller, the movie is a little too ponderous at times, stretching for a greatness that is not quite there. The Coens made the most ambitious movie possible with this story, that generally comes off well. However, this moves a bit too slow, and the plot is a little too unoriginal. I think the reason this movie deserves a 7 is Cormac McCarthy's source novel, which simply doesn't deserve any hype, and having the Coen brothers adapt a movie from this script is like asking a 4-star restaturant to do the best they can with a McDonald's recipe. Watchable, but nothing that special.… Expand

Best movie i've seen in years. if you have yet to see it, note the themes of duality, two sides of a coin, and fate. the coens are back!

The best film of 2007.

Brilliant film with an abrupt, unsatisfactory conclusion. Outstanding performances for all involved.

A fantastic film. See it twice. Incredible artistry at work on all levels.