No Country for Old Men

User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1424 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. KevinL.
    Nov 11, 2007
    10
    Best American movie of the year, no doubt. Great contribution to the Western genre. NOT a Coen "black comedy," though, so I wish some critics would start reading it for the tragic contemplation about evil that it was written and directed to be.
  2. DanB.
    Nov 12, 2007
    9
    Fantastic film on all levels. However the only reason I am voting is to let DWilly know that the film takes play in 1980. Therefore the lead character would have been in Vietnam just at the right time. Pay a little more attention next time. Coens, out!
  3. ChrisK.
    Nov 10, 2007
    10
    Ridiculously good. 'No Country' will get under your skin and stay there; the Coen brothers' best since "Fargo."
  4. DK
    Nov 7, 2007
    10
    Brilliant. One of the best films this year. Barden will lead a slew of Academy Award nominations.
  5. JackP.
    Dec 10, 2007
    10
    "No Country for Old Men" is a masterpiece. It is the Coen brothers' best movie, and it only gets better with repeated viewings.
  6. PaulK.
    Dec 2, 2007
    7
    The user rating tells the real story about this movie. While it has it's moments, and Javier Bardem is nothing short of brilliant, the third act falls flat on it's face. I didn't read the book, but I have to wonder how faithful the screenplay was?
  7. TaylorB.
    Dec 4, 2007
    10
    Some of the most impressive dialogue within the last couple of years. Excellent performances all around; I especially liked Tommy Lee Jones. Extremely well shot. Superb film.
  8. MitchellZ
    Dec 5, 2007
    9
    NO ENDING? POINTLESS?! TOO BLOODY?!!!! I am amazed when I see comments like these. If you wanted Die Hard, go see die hard. If you want a taught, complex, visually stunning, beautifully acted, thriller that also actually speaks to the complex realities of the present world, GO SEE THIS FILM! No, there's no big finish. Yes, the pace is slower than most action flicks. And, yes, NO ENDING? POINTLESS?! TOO BLOODY?!!!! I am amazed when I see comments like these. If you wanted Die Hard, go see die hard. If you want a taught, complex, visually stunning, beautifully acted, thriller that also actually speaks to the complex realities of the present world, GO SEE THIS FILM! No, there's no big finish. Yes, the pace is slower than most action flicks. And, yes, character motivations are confusing, but not ill conceived. A great movie from start to finish. (I, personally, loved the ending(s)). Expand
  9. JL
    Dec 8, 2007
    10
    I think that people need to remember a couple of things about this movie: 1. Comparisons to 'Fargo' are invalid. 'Fargo' was written for the screen by the Coen brothers. This was an adaptation of someone else's work. Also, criticizing this movie for being excessively violent in one breath and saying that 'Fargo' was great in the next seems rather I think that people need to remember a couple of things about this movie: 1. Comparisons to 'Fargo' are invalid. 'Fargo' was written for the screen by the Coen brothers. This was an adaptation of someone else's work. Also, criticizing this movie for being excessively violent in one breath and saying that 'Fargo' was great in the next seems rather incongruous. 2. If you were expecting a tidy ending to this movie,for it be wrapped up with a bow or a shootout at the OK Corral, then you went to the wrong movie in the first place. That is not the typical style of neither the Coen brothers nor McCarthy. In other words, don't criticize a movie because you had unrealistic expectations of it. On the other hand, if you are looking for a movie that tells a story exceedingly well, with all of the elements of first rate film making, then this is definitely for you. Expand
  10. DanP
    Dec 8, 2007
    10
    Awesome.
  11. JosephA.
    Dec 8, 2007
    9
    Just when I thought not a single notable movie would come out of 2007 the Coen brothers deliver a classic. Excellent movie. I haven't been so engaged at the movies since Lord of the Rings.
  12. JeffJ.
    Jan 13, 2008
    10
    This movie was not only completely entertaining and engrossing but is what filmmaking should be - magical. Evil manifested in the character of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) couldn't be more chilling. The unconventional plot line was surprising and perfect for a movie like this. And for a movie about killing, it's surprisingly restrained. This could have been a graphic portrayal This movie was not only completely entertaining and engrossing but is what filmmaking should be - magical. Evil manifested in the character of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) couldn't be more chilling. The unconventional plot line was surprising and perfect for a movie like this. And for a movie about killing, it's surprisingly restrained. This could have been a graphic portrayal of what a man will do to get what he wants but it was far more effective to omit most of the brutal acts. I will see this again. Expand
  13. ColinC.
    Jan 13, 2008
    10
    A devastating film. The idea that TLJ is wasted in this movie is utterly missing the point of his casting. He brings with him your assumptions of the idealistic sheriff of movies past and the Coen Brothers dismantle it expertly. The viewer is rendered as impotent as Sheriff Bell in the face of the pure formidable evil of Anton. I'm jealous of people who were cinema goers when A devastating film. The idea that TLJ is wasted in this movie is utterly missing the point of his casting. He brings with him your assumptions of the idealistic sheriff of movies past and the Coen Brothers dismantle it expertly. The viewer is rendered as impotent as Sheriff Bell in the face of the pure formidable evil of Anton. I'm jealous of people who were cinema goers when Hitchcock was hitting his stride. Now less so. Expand
  14. TimW
    Jan 19, 2008
    10
    The dialogue alone makes this movie worth watching. A very well written script.
  15. AaronC
    Jan 2, 2008
    10
    Best adaptation of a book to film. It manages to deliver the masterful pacing and detail of Cormac McCarthy's novel while realizing the inferred tone, color, and character. In it's own right it's an expertly crafted, acted, and directed film. Casting deserves awards. The suspense was top quality, the jumps were deserved, and not a single thing was gratuitous.

    As for the
    Best adaptation of a book to film. It manages to deliver the masterful pacing and detail of Cormac McCarthy's novel while realizing the inferred tone, color, and character. In it's own right it's an expertly crafted, acted, and directed film. Casting deserves awards. The suspense was top quality, the jumps were deserved, and not a single thing was gratuitous.

    As for the story, the plot, the bit that people seem to love or hate most, it is clearly a rarity. It never gives you what you expect, it never let's you rest and it certainly never lets you win. It's an amazing experience to read, and just as amazing on screen thanks to the Coens. It's something primal, it's something you're forced to internalize, and it's a reminder of your humanity. Writing and storytelling at it's bravest.
    I don't know what lead poor souls into the theater expecting a happy ending. I like paying admission for a new experience. Sorry, your happy ending, predictable dialogue, and hokey thrill scenes are waiting for you in the next theater down.
    Expand
  16. LukeW
    Jan 22, 2008
    10
    The single greatest film I have ever seen. Anyone who does not like this film understands nothing about not only the art of film-making, but that medium's ability to mirror the most fundamental questions of humanity. This movie strikes at the very foundation of what it means to be human in ANY larger society, and questions the whole concept of "good and evil", or "right and wrong". The single greatest film I have ever seen. Anyone who does not like this film understands nothing about not only the art of film-making, but that medium's ability to mirror the most fundamental questions of humanity. This movie strikes at the very foundation of what it means to be human in ANY larger society, and questions the whole concept of "good and evil", or "right and wrong". For those who prefer more dramatic films such as "Independence Day", review THEM, and not movies that you most certainly fail to understand. Expand
  17. LindaL.
    Jan 28, 2008
    9
    Well, as of today I've seen all five of the "best picture" nominees. I have to say that this one -- bleak and nasty and violent though it is -- strikes me as the best. I sympathize with those who find the violence pointless. Hard to disagree. Yet the story and the acting and the cinematography are brilliant and haunting and a revelation. Can't say enough about Tommy Lee Jones as Well, as of today I've seen all five of the "best picture" nominees. I have to say that this one -- bleak and nasty and violent though it is -- strikes me as the best. I sympathize with those who find the violence pointless. Hard to disagree. Yet the story and the acting and the cinematography are brilliant and haunting and a revelation. Can't say enough about Tommy Lee Jones as the world-weary "old man" who is the insightful heart of the film. Josh Brolin is a wonder; Javier Bardem's performance is gripping. The movie stays with you the way great movies do. Expand
  18. VinceReighard
    Jan 3, 2008
    9
    The Best Buddy Comedy Since 'White Men Can't Jump'

    There isn't much to say about this movie that hasn't been said already, but I feel the need to add to the parade of praise this movie has received. Harrelson is brilliant and hilarious in his role as a tough talking hit-man who get's in waaaayyyy over his head! And Josh Brolin, as the kind-hearted welder
    The Best Buddy Comedy Since 'White Men Can't Jump'

    There isn't much to say about this movie that hasn't been said already, but I feel the need to add to the parade of praise this movie has received. Harrelson is brilliant and hilarious in his role as a tough talking hit-man who get's in waaaayyyy over his head! And Josh Brolin, as the kind-hearted welder who just keeps showing up at the wrong place at the wrong time, kept the audience rolling with laughter throughout. Javier Bardem will almost certainly receive a Golden Globe nod for his portrayal of the coin-flipping killer who definitely woke up on the wrong side of the bed, desperate to find his stolen loot! This is a must see!
    Expand
  19. motive
    Jan 4, 2008
    10
    I find it hilarious that people question the ending of this movie when they go to see something that is set up to be a sequel for money purposes and not look at the singular movie at work here. Amazing on every front. I saw this the first screening in my city and a lot of people didn't like the ending then I hear people that read the book give it praise... to understand the premiseI find it hilarious that people question the ending of this movie when they go to see something that is set up to be a sequel for money purposes and not look at the singular movie at work here. Amazing on every front. I saw this the first screening in my city and a lot of people didn't like the ending then I hear people that read the book give it praise... to understand the premise and meaning is to understand the movie. So well done but see it twice Expand
  20. FrankMonteleone
    Jan 7, 2008
    2
    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.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
  21. KentC
    Jan 9, 2008
    9
    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 whoThis 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
  22. edzilla
    Feb 10, 2008
    9
    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
  23. JayP.
    Feb 16, 2008
    10
    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.
  24. waynec.
    Feb 25, 2008
    10
    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
  25. TrickyH
    Feb 3, 2008
    4
    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 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
  26. JonathanS.
    Feb 7, 2008
    10
    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 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
  27. Chris
    Feb 9, 2008
    10
    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.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
  28. JustinG.
    Mar 10, 2008
    9
    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 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
  29. MattC.
    Mar 16, 2008
    9
    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.
  30. Marc.D.
    Mar 7, 2008
    10
    To cry foul at the plot...is to completely miss the point. A masterpiece. And deservedly so.
  31. DevonC.
    Apr 26, 2008
    9
    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
  32. anonymousanonymous
    Apr 27, 2008
    10
    This is a brilliant piece of cinematography and storytelling, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
  33. AlexB.
    Apr 4, 2008
    10
    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 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
  34. FrederickM.
    Apr 9, 2008
    10
    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, 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
  35. SebH
    Sep 30, 2008
    10
    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 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
  36. NC.
    Sep 30, 2008
    10
    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 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
  37. JohnW.
    Jan 17, 2009
    9
    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' 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' doesn'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. Collapse
  38. LawrenceP.
    Jan 6, 2009
    10
    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 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
  39. GARYA.
    Feb 21, 2009
    3
    Obscure, but without depth.
  40. RobbieB.
    Feb 2, 2009
    10
    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!
  41. JackS.
    Mar 8, 2009
    10
    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, 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
  42. JamesV.
    Mar 8, 2009
    10
    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 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
  43. MS
    Jul 2, 2009
    3
    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, 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
  44. mohammedi
    Aug 10, 2009
    10
    Film projection on the harsh reality faced by the world.
  45. WW
    Nov 12, 2007
    10
    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 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
  46. MikeK.
    Nov 12, 2007
    9
    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 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
  47. OtmS.
    Nov 15, 2007
    10
    Gratifies expectations by defying them.
  48. Lulzy
    Nov 16, 2007
    10
    Chicago Reader Jonathan Rosenbaum A very well-made genre exercise, but I can
  49. TylerK.
    Nov 18, 2007
    9
    Excellent thriller. Very stripped-down, not sensationalized or predictable. One of the best villains to hit the big screen since Hannibal Lecter
  50. RobertL.
    Nov 18, 2007
    10
    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.
  51. BibliotechaSanchez
    Nov 22, 2007
    10
    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 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
  52. ShameM.
    Nov 22, 2007
    10
    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!
  53. MikeH.
    Nov 24, 2007
    10
    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 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
  54. LesleyW.
    Nov 25, 2007
    10
    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!
  55. AA
    Nov 25, 2007
    10
    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.
  56. BrendanM.P-diddy
    Nov 28, 2007
    10
    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 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
  57. CarldaddyC.
    Nov 30, 2007
    10
    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.
  58. AaronS.
    Nov 7, 2007
    10
    The best film of 2007.
  59. ProgGrrl
    Nov 9, 2007
    9
    A fantastic film. See it twice. Incredible artistry at work on all levels.
  60. ColinS
    Dec 16, 2007
    10
    I guess Matt B needs to be spoon fed his explanations in a generic doses of generic, in-your-face, make-sure-everything-is-wapped-up-in-a-tightly-wound-package-because-the-audience-can-only-be-entertained-and-never-enlightened kind of conclusion, rather than being challenged by the mature ending that presents itself in No Country. For once, I had something to ponder on the ride home. I guess Matt B needs to be spoon fed his explanations in a generic doses of generic, in-your-face, make-sure-everything-is-wapped-up-in-a-tightly-wound-package-because-the-audience-can-only-be-entertained-and-never-enlightened kind of conclusion, rather than being challenged by the mature ending that presents itself in No Country. For once, I had something to ponder on the ride home. After Transformers, all I had plastered in my brain was the Chevy brand symbol. Exceptional movie, with the most involving environment I've experienced since Fargo. There's not one misstep here. Expand
  61. NancyO.
    Dec 17, 2007
    9
    Enthralling film by the Coen Brothers. Their incredible taste in storytelling is amazing. Loved the performances by all three principals. Their best work since the incredible Fargo, in my opinion.
  62. MaureenC.
    Dec 18, 2007
    10
    Terrific movie - found my self laughing at inappropriate moments - the dialogue is sparse, economic and right thru the heart. Bardem IS a bad-ass fab actor!!
  63. LarryS.
    Dec 2, 2007
    10
    Brilliant film. Outstanding casting, great characters. The direction is superb. A fabulous film that has something to say! NOT FOR THE AVERAGE MOVIE GOER WHO LIKES THE formula films that the studios pass off as filmaking.
  64. JohnB.
    Dec 20, 2007
    10
    No Country for Old Men is absolutely brilliant. All the performances were mesmerizing and had me looking at their every movement, face, gesture. This is about as flawless of an adaptation as it gets. The best part of the movie was its suspense making every scene so strong. The movie manages to draw the viewer in and keep him/her glued to their seat eyes fixated on the movie screen. This No Country for Old Men is absolutely brilliant. All the performances were mesmerizing and had me looking at their every movement, face, gesture. This is about as flawless of an adaptation as it gets. The best part of the movie was its suspense making every scene so strong. The movie manages to draw the viewer in and keep him/her glued to their seat eyes fixated on the movie screen. This is most likely the best American movie of 2007. Expand
  65. MikeS.
    Dec 3, 2007
    10
    A near perfect movie. Do not go expecting a typically told formulaic story. This is an exploration on a theme. And it was a pleasure to go on the journey. Great performances and direction. This movie pulls you in a way none other has since American Beauty. Best film of the year - hands down.
  66. DonJ.
    Dec 4, 2007
    10
    It's not surprising that people who complain about this movie have no idea what they're talking about. Anyone that has ever watched a Coen Bros' movie should know there's much more going on than what you see. The movie is a contemplative masterpiece about the universal good vs. evil, and how-as the title states-each generation thinks the next will bring an end to It's not surprising that people who complain about this movie have no idea what they're talking about. Anyone that has ever watched a Coen Bros' movie should know there's much more going on than what you see. The movie is a contemplative masterpiece about the universal good vs. evil, and how-as the title states-each generation thinks the next will bring an end to everything good they've ever known(note: the scene where Jones talks to the old sheriff in the wheelchair, and asks him about how it was when he ran things). It truly has become no country for old men... And, finally, if you've read the book, you'll realize the movie is almost identical; hence the abrupt ending. One more thing: ever notice the Coens always have a theme related to money? their characters look for the quick fix and all hell ensues...(lebowski, arizona, fargo, no country...). Expand
  67. JaredM.
    Dec 7, 2007
    10
    I do not give out 10's on a regular basis, so trust me when I tell you that if you want a movie that is perfectly paced, gripping, and contains the BEST dialogue in any movie this year or last, you want to see No Country for Old Men.
  68. RawlinR
    Dec 8, 2007
    10
    A stunning movie that takes an in depth look at the true nature of violence. Do not go see this movie expecting to see superb fight scenes or leave the theater feeling good. In fact it is quite possible that when you leave the theater hating it, just as I did. But as one thinks about the movie and its statement about the nature of violence, one recognizes the genius of the movie and A stunning movie that takes an in depth look at the true nature of violence. Do not go see this movie expecting to see superb fight scenes or leave the theater feeling good. In fact it is quite possible that when you leave the theater hating it, just as I did. But as one thinks about the movie and its statement about the nature of violence, one recognizes the genius of the movie and realizes that the ending is not lacking but is in reality the only proper way to conclude the story. Expand
  69. WTFPancakes
    Jan 14, 2008
    10
    This is probably the most technically perfect exercise in filmaking since 12 Monkeys. It isn't overstating it to say that the character of Anton Chigurh is one of the most memorable ever to haunt the silver screen. He isn't "evil" in the sense that terms like "good" and "evil" don't apply to him. He embodies the Nietzschean superman and, as such, regards humanity in much This is probably the most technically perfect exercise in filmaking since 12 Monkeys. It isn't overstating it to say that the character of Anton Chigurh is one of the most memorable ever to haunt the silver screen. He isn't "evil" in the sense that terms like "good" and "evil" don't apply to him. He embodies the Nietzschean superman and, as such, regards humanity in much the same way we regard livestock. He is, at once, a magnificent symbol and a memorably drawn character, and the Coen brothers deserve enormous praise for bringing such an enormously complicated creature to the screen so brilliantly. Expand
  70. AJ
    Jan 14, 2008
    10
    In response to Jonathan Rosenbaum's poor review: One star? It seems you must be grading on a rather steep curve. Jonathan, how can it be a "well-made genre exercise" with admirable "creativity and storytelling" that has the "primal impact of silent pictures" and is "gorgeously shot" and yet earn one star from the reviewer? The very fact that a film that you describe as such has In response to Jonathan Rosenbaum's poor review: One star? It seems you must be grading on a rather steep curve. Jonathan, how can it be a "well-made genre exercise" with admirable "creativity and storytelling" that has the "primal impact of silent pictures" and is "gorgeously shot" and yet earn one star from the reviewer? The very fact that a film that you describe as such has provoked you to give it one star is evidence of its peculiar power. I hadn Expand
  71. kevinO
    Jan 16, 2008
    10
    The Coen Brothers are what's great about America and they have hit the jackpot with this one.
  72. TomD
    Nov 8, 2008
    5
    The acting was great by everyone. the story was good until the end way to many holes that were not filled in it reminded me of the soprano's ending not giving you the closer the movie deserve.
  73. JohnS
    Jan 19, 2008
    10
    Those who are looking for the satisfaction of a normal movie are missing the point. This movie is a parable. All of its characters are symbolic. Watch it again and ask yourself what each character represents, and you will get a lot more out of it. And you will better understand how masterful it is.
  74. Chris
    Jan 21, 2008
    9
    In actuality, I give this film a 9.7 out of 10. It was a nearly perfect film that was so well captured. The film moves very fluidly and is very engaging. Javier Bardhem was brilliant, as was Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones. I would have liked Woody Harrellson's character to have been developed more and a little work with the editing knife would have been welcome, but in the end, this In actuality, I give this film a 9.7 out of 10. It was a nearly perfect film that was so well captured. The film moves very fluidly and is very engaging. Javier Bardhem was brilliant, as was Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones. I would have liked Woody Harrellson's character to have been developed more and a little work with the editing knife would have been welcome, but in the end, this film was spectacular. Easily the best film of 2007. Expand
  75. R.A.Lopez
    Jan 22, 2008
    10
    A masterpiece. Extraordinary meditation on chance, choices, ethics and evil, that dares to play with the audiences' expectations in a way that resembles the randomness and brutality of life itself. The performances are great. Bardem and Kelly Macdonald are the standouts.
  76. AlC.
    Jan 23, 2008
    9
    Quite an impressive film. I found that the absence of nondiagetic sound creates a wonderfully raw effect, leaving us feeling a bit naked, and unprotected. Best use of that technique I've seen in a while.
  77. RobH.
    Jan 24, 2008
    9
    Very Coen. Like a darker version of Fargo - less humour, more violence (honestly portrayed). Morally complex and satisfying.
  78. DamienArkins
    Jan 4, 2008
    6
    The Anthony Lane review in the New Yorker is remarkably accurate and insightful in my opinion. He actually does not give a score but I think 6 is closer to the 7 that metacritic ascribed him.

    Yes, film criticism is a subjective thing but I would argue to the ends of the earth that this is not a 10/10 film.. In fact I would say that 7 is as far as anyone who values originality and
    The Anthony Lane review in the New Yorker is remarkably accurate and insightful in my opinion. He actually does not give a score but I think 6 is closer to the 7 that metacritic ascribed him.

    Yes, film criticism is a subjective thing but I would argue to the ends of the earth that this is not a 10/10 film.. In fact I would say that 7 is as far as anyone who values originality and passion in their filmmaking could possibly give it!

    **Spoiler Alert**

    I think the worst moment of the film is the car crash. I felt that we were meant to be taken by surprise but the clumsy editing back and forth to the green light took away any surprise value..

    Also the death of Woody Harrelson's character seemed unbelievable and redundant.. He know's who he is dealing with yet he was killed like a nobody civilian.. It's like the film deals with cliches but want's to make serious points about violence, greed etc.. Chigurh was a caricature and cliche of a serial killer.. and I would argue that most of the film was also cliche..
    I did enjoy the dog chasing moss down the river.. The dog had more character development than Chigurh..
    Expand
  79. FredB.
    Mar 23, 2008
    3
    Since the movie was so slooow and the plot somewhat confusing, at least we deserved a satisfying ending. But no, we are left with the key situation unresolved, our heads shaking with the disappointment of wasting two hours for what -- a lot of violence (between the slow parts) and a new way to kill people, which some idiot will now probably try to duplicate. It's not that the lack of Since the movie was so slooow and the plot somewhat confusing, at least we deserved a satisfying ending. But no, we are left with the key situation unresolved, our heads shaking with the disappointment of wasting two hours for what -- a lot of violence (between the slow parts) and a new way to kill people, which some idiot will now probably try to duplicate. It's not that the lack of resolution by itself was the downfall: as others have said, the rest of the movie just wasn't that interesting (primariy because it drags), so we need a good ending to save this movie. Don't waste your time or money. Expand
  80. JosephS.
    Apr 22, 2008
    3
    This movie had such promise for the first half, but derails somewhere along the way. If you enjoy movies that focus on quirky characters and symbolism far more than a good storyline and plot, than this might be for you. Extremely disappointing.
  81. JuneK.
    Jul 30, 2008
    8
    Looking forward to the sequel. Too many unanswered questions. Such as where is the money? How did the anti-hero die? Did he really die or did the sheriff let him go away with his wife?
  82. LoccusD.
    Aug 14, 2008
    5
    This is the movie all the critics are having a fit about? Solid performances, but one of the slowest paced and boring movies I've seen in recent memory.
  83. JoeW.
    Nov 16, 2007
    0
    Boo!
  84. MattS.
    Nov 25, 2007
    3
    This movie punches you in the face with how horrible it is, mostly because of the praise it has received from the tongues of many critics. Does this movie have a moral? Sure it does. But this no a rant, or a sermon - it is a movie, and it has to function as one. That is where No Country stumbles. I have no sympathy for Moss; I could care less if he is injured or killed. The pacing is slow This movie punches you in the face with how horrible it is, mostly because of the praise it has received from the tongues of many critics. Does this movie have a moral? Sure it does. But this no a rant, or a sermon - it is a movie, and it has to function as one. That is where No Country stumbles. I have no sympathy for Moss; I could care less if he is injured or killed. The pacing is slow to the point absurdity, and it gives the movie a suffocatingly heavy feel. Which would be fine, if the moral complex, or a big emotional pay-off ever arrived. But it never does. Save your time - Instead of going to see No Country for Old Men, go listen to your grandmother talk about when that pretty high-school student was brutally murdered in 1920. You'd get the same point. Expand
  85. DavidMarx
    Dec 31, 2007
    0
    I will come out and say it, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. And I'm being completely honest about this. I will also come out and say that this is the scariest movie I have ever seen. And it is not like the kind of scary where you scream and then laugh with your friends. This is the kind of scary where you literally are considering leaving the theatre.
    And I'm not
    I will come out and say it, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. And I'm being completely honest about this. I will also come out and say that this is the scariest movie I have ever seen. And it is not like the kind of scary where you scream and then laugh with your friends. This is the kind of scary where you literally are considering leaving the theatre.
    And I'm not saying that this movie was poorly made, don't get me wrong. The imagry and sense of emotion is paramount! But it had no climax and the plot was only visited every once and a while. You would think that the movie would end when ****SPOILERS**** Moss was killed by the Mexicans, but no, it continues with boring and seeminly irrelevent talking sequences with the police chief. I came out of it dissapointed and releived it ended.

    Also, the ending sucked. ****SPOILERS***** After Moss died, the psychopath broke into Moss's wife's house and KILLS HER. Then as he's driving away he gets hit by another car, and guess what, HE WALKS AWAY. It's like giving a middle finger to everyone who managed to watch the whole thing.
    Expand
  86. WV
    Dec 23, 2008
    5
    A dark fantasy born of a story tellers imagination. Coined "real" by people who watch movies for a living, and licked up by peasants who are afraid they can't see the kings new outfit. The message is simple, it's been told a million times; good guys never win, and those that sell their souls to the devil end up being rock and roll stars. Big whoop. Now walk out your front door A dark fantasy born of a story tellers imagination. Coined "real" by people who watch movies for a living, and licked up by peasants who are afraid they can't see the kings new outfit. The message is simple, it's been told a million times; good guys never win, and those that sell their souls to the devil end up being rock and roll stars. Big whoop. Now walk out your front door and open your eyes - that is reality. Come back inside and place No country for old men in your DVD player - that's fantasy. Learn the difference. Anyone can write a story, by its very nature it is CONTRIVED; random segments of reality warped into a narrative. In this story the bad guy wins, and a true hero is a dead one, and all that other 'arty' romanticised BS. Yes BS... Contrived things like coin flipping... can anyone else smell a two faced bat? Just because it's "different" doesn't make it good. If I deficate on a canvas its still shit, even it it smells like art. And N.C. if you are so incredibly intelligent why don't you read some books, or write your own movie. Your mind is more active sleeping than watching the tube. It's not dumb people who don't get the movie, most people get the stupid movie. The real dumb ones are people who make a big deal about "getting it"; congratulations, the king is pleased that you say you cant see his penis; here's a noddy badge. Expand
  87. MichaelE.
    Feb 12, 2008
    8
    The best film of the year, much warmer and more meaningful than it's made out to be.
  88. JasonS.
    Apr 16, 2008
    4
    All I can say about this movie was the ending is a huge letdown. I realize that the Coens were aiming for symbolism and mystery in a dramatic finish, but it just didn't work for me.
  89. Marlene
    Jul 14, 2008
    5
    I was on the edge of my seat until the end. What was that? I had to get the book from the library ton read the last 1/4 to fill in the details of the sheriff's life and why he seemed to be the main character at the end.
  90. ZacH.
    Sep 21, 2009
    0
    Critics like boring movies this is one of them but the ending is no joke the worst ending to a movie of all time it ends with the cop talking about his dream.
  91. NickR.
    Nov 24, 2008
    5
    I agree that this film was supposed to be more realistic and without a protagonist to root for, but by the end i cant ignore the urge that the criminal should have died. The same thing happened in The Departed; all the protagonists died. But at least it finished the story w the mole being shot. Im not saying that No Country For old men is a bad movie b/c the acting was great i just didnt I agree that this film was supposed to be more realistic and without a protagonist to root for, but by the end i cant ignore the urge that the criminal should have died. The same thing happened in The Departed; all the protagonists died. But at least it finished the story w the mole being shot. Im not saying that No Country For old men is a bad movie b/c the acting was great i just didnt like the movie Expand
  92. 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
  93. Nov 24, 2010
    8
    While it starts off very intense with lots of cat and mouse moments, it stops roughly half way through and ends up leaving a lot of unanswered questions. While its neat that you kind of "get to make your own ending" it hurts that the latter half of the movie does not show exact details and just kinda half shows you what is going on. Overall I enjoyed it, but I felt like I only got to readWhile it starts off very intense with lots of cat and mouse moments, it stops roughly half way through and ends up leaving a lot of unanswered questions. While its neat that you kind of "get to make your own ending" it hurts that the latter half of the movie does not show exact details and just kinda half shows you what is going on. Overall I enjoyed it, but I felt like I only got to read half the book and just skimmed the latter half if you know what I mean. Expand
  94. 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,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
  95. Jun 28, 2011
    10
    Having just wasted 2 hours watching No Country for old men I have to say that this was the most disappointing film I have ever watched. I wanted to like it and was intrigued for the first hour or so. The ending however was the biggest disappointment I can describe, far too many loose ends not explained and ultimately unsatisfactory!
  96. Oct 19, 2012
    5
    i think it is d hollywood's one of the most overrated movie of all time and does not deserve to win an oscar for best picture.. although bardem's acting was very good.
  97. Dec 5, 2011
    5
    I can see why critics claimed this movie to be an instant classic, but it's a movie with too much drag. The big ups for this movie was the superb acting from the cast, especially Javier Bardem who showed us the real psycho side of a serial killer. The fact that this movie doesn't have any composed music until the credits shows it's power. It's as if composed music isn't needed. The problemI can see why critics claimed this movie to be an instant classic, but it's a movie with too much drag. The big ups for this movie was the superb acting from the cast, especially Javier Bardem who showed us the real psycho side of a serial killer. The fact that this movie doesn't have any composed music until the credits shows it's power. It's as if composed music isn't needed. The problem is that the scenes make you want to see what's going to happen next, then as the movie progresses it's as if you're taking a mid afternoon nap. It's a movie that when it ends you'll go like, "What? that's it? Well that was a big waste of time." The story is strong, but not strong enough for some people to understand what's going on in the film. I do recommend watching this, it's good, but good in a way that you have to sit and watch too much silence. Otherwise, decent movie, I'll still claim it to be one of the Coen brothers best. Expand
  98. Dec 26, 2011
    10
    I will never understand how any guy doesn't love this movie. Unless you're an idiot, of courseI will never understand how any guy doesn't love this movie. Unless you're an idiot, of course __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________- Expand
  99. May 15, 2014
    8
    Great film as expected and one that really reminded me of my favorite Coen Brothers film, Fargo, at certain times, though this one is far, far darker. However, much like Fargo, this one is anchored by strong performances (especially Javier Bardem who was absolutely postively amazing), as well as brilliant cinematography by Roger Deakins, and great directing by the Coen Brothers. I am not aGreat film as expected and one that really reminded me of my favorite Coen Brothers film, Fargo, at certain times, though this one is far, far darker. However, much like Fargo, this one is anchored by strong performances (especially Javier Bardem who was absolutely postively amazing), as well as brilliant cinematography by Roger Deakins, and great directing by the Coen Brothers. I am not a huge huge Coen Brothers fan, but their skill is undeniable and it is on full display here. In particular, the thrills and then the lack of a "satisfying" ending were perfect. While many were bothered by the ending, I absolutely loved it. While it may not be what you are looking for, it feels all so appropriate. However, easily my favorite sequence is the opening sequence with the great monologue by Tommy Lee Jones, which really sets up the rest of the film perfectly. In addition, Anton's first victim that we see really sets the tone for how crazy and vicious he really is. Finally, the setting is gorgeous. I am a sucker for western settings in film and this one is no exception. It really lends itself to beautiful shot after beautiful shot and Deakins and the Coens really use it to its fullest.

    On the negative side, the film is a tad slow admittedly. While it is thrilling and exciting and never really boring, it certainly drags at times (though everything has a purpose in the film). Not a major knock, but a knock all the same. Overall, a great accomplishment, this one is yet another entry into a great year in 2007.
    Expand
  100. 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

Awards & Rankings

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.