User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1284 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. MichaelH
    Dec 25, 2007
    8
    I was prepared to like this movie more than I did. The timing dragged. I believe the Coen brothers wanted the spare words and images to say more than they did. I believe some critics and reviewers were mesmerized by the beautiful photography and were distracted from the rather fragmentary plot. I don't think its fragmentation spoke to me: the thriller portion of it and theI was prepared to like this movie more than I did. The timing dragged. I believe the Coen brothers wanted the spare words and images to say more than they did. I believe some critics and reviewers were mesmerized by the beautiful photography and were distracted from the rather fragmentary plot. I don't think its fragmentation spoke to me: the thriller portion of it and the philosophy didn't work together for me. I think the writing needed to be stronger.

    I gave it an "8" on the strength of the cinematography which is gorgeous and the acting which is good. I thought a couple of the monologues could have been spoken in a way that was more meaningful...I felt a couple of them wandered..
    Expand
  2. SiskelsGhost
    Dec 3, 2007
    8
    An awesomely well directed, paced, and acted film on the tragic state of man. The film basically highlights the trouble we (as individuals or a society) get into when we try to satisfy our most unquenchable base motivations of greed and ego. Tommy Lee Jones, who plays an aging sheriff, seems frustrated by this merciless nonsensical "modern world" but soon realizes - hey this is just how usAn awesomely well directed, paced, and acted film on the tragic state of man. The film basically highlights the trouble we (as individuals or a society) get into when we try to satisfy our most unquenchable base motivations of greed and ego. Tommy Lee Jones, who plays an aging sheriff, seems frustrated by this merciless nonsensical "modern world" but soon realizes - hey this is just how us humans have been and always will be! In general, I feel the "evil" (Chiguhr) was portrayed as a little too extreme and simplistic. The films "beast of man" is simply too easy to identify. I would prefer a more subtle characterization of our most base instinct. For example out of control consumerism or blind patriotism instead of the cliched mass murderism. As the infamous Kaiser Soze once explained... "the most cunning thing the Devil every did was to convince us that he doesn't exist...". Expand
  3. JohnPapas
    Oct 29, 2008
    7
    Just because I don't like Wes Anderson, it doesn't mean I don't understand comedy. Just because I don't enjoy Coen Brothers movies, doesn't mean I don't understand unique American filmmaking. Overrated by film nerds, another Memento/Fight Club, I'm-smarter-about-films-than-you following. Watch it once then decide. But it's easy to win best pictureJust because I don't like Wes Anderson, it doesn't mean I don't understand comedy. Just because I don't enjoy Coen Brothers movies, doesn't mean I don't understand unique American filmmaking. Overrated by film nerds, another Memento/Fight Club, I'm-smarter-about-films-than-you following. Watch it once then decide. But it's easy to win best picture when most films are crap competition nowadays anyhow. People real defensive about the ratings here need to get off their high horse. Not liking the Coen Brothers does not make you a movie heathen. Lighten up, it's not that good. Expand
  4. notmyrealname
    Jan 30, 2008
    8
    Great acting, direction, story, everything. Ending did kind of seem unfulfilled at first, but, later, I realized how meaningful it really is.
  5. DavidFoster
    Jan 3, 2008
    1
    Pointless dark murderous humor was impressive and shocking to me in 1997, when I was 19... as were "deep cinematic messages." But now I require real plots, or at least character development in order to invest genuine interest in a film. Any 14 year old in the world could have thought up these plots and characters. And cool cinematography is for photographers - not filmmakers. This is whyPointless dark murderous humor was impressive and shocking to me in 1997, when I was 19... as were "deep cinematic messages." But now I require real plots, or at least character development in order to invest genuine interest in a film. Any 14 year old in the world could have thought up these plots and characters. And cool cinematography is for photographers - not filmmakers. This is why it's so hard to make good movies. And this is why the Coen Brothers are not good at it... unless you're a pseudo-intellectual film geek easily impressed by contrived brilliance and pretentious filmmaking. Expand
  6. AnonymousMC
    Jan 3, 2008
    4
    Cinematography, Directing, Casting, Art Direction, Acting, and other technical aspects are all spot on. Even the writing is superb. The movie has some incredible dialog and more than a few scenes that shine. It's just that the movie doesn't take you anywhere and leaves you wondering why the Coen's bothered. I saw the film opening day because I am a fan of the Coen'sCinematography, Directing, Casting, Art Direction, Acting, and other technical aspects are all spot on. Even the writing is superb. The movie has some incredible dialog and more than a few scenes that shine. It's just that the movie doesn't take you anywhere and leaves you wondering why the Coen's bothered. I saw the film opening day because I am a fan of the Coen's but was confused and disappointed by the movie. I honestly felt that I had missed something in the movie (and, in fairness, perhaps I did). I was going to ask my very astute freind who attended with me to explain the movie to me, when he turned to me and said, "let's stay through the credits to see if there's another short scene that will tell us what this movie was about. "
    The movie to me was like a father who promises his child a trip to Disneyworld and then takes time to get the kid excited by showing him pictures of Disneyworld, telling him about Disneyworld, introducing him to the cartoon characters he'll meet at Disneyworld, even going so far as to put him into the car, luggage and all, to leave for Disneyworld, and then at the last moment says, "we're not really going to go to Disneyworld."
    That's what the movie did for me. It's not just that it made me hope for something I didn't get - it's worse than that - it's that it gave me every reason to hope and then dropped me flat on my face. The very things that are so right about this movie are what make it all the more disappointing in the end. It just seemed like a cruel joke on the viewer rather than a bad movie.
    Never-the-less, the pictures of the Disneyworld it showed where high-def, color corrected glossies, and they looked really nice.
    Expand
  7. Tim
    Jan 4, 2008
    6
    "What's the point?" indeed. I've been rolling the events and characters in this movie around in my head for the past hour, and I really don't think this movie was that great. I enjoyed it, to some degree, but all the hype about how brilliant it is seems like just a lot of hype. Nothing was revelatory about the way this film handled it's themes and I was not powerfully"What's the point?" indeed. I've been rolling the events and characters in this movie around in my head for the past hour, and I really don't think this movie was that great. I enjoyed it, to some degree, but all the hype about how brilliant it is seems like just a lot of hype. Nothing was revelatory about the way this film handled it's themes and I was not powerfully affected at any point during the movie. Finally, this movie is so frikkin' violent that it becomes blase at some point. I didn't think the violence was implemented in a way that gave it some sort of profound meaning either. All that being said, the performances are excellent and it's fairly enjoyable to watch. Expand
  8. AD
    Oct 7, 2008
    8
    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 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
  9. JL
    Feb 12, 2008
    7
    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.
  10. JamesW.
    Feb 18, 2008
    5
    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.
  11. MikeP.
    Feb 19, 2008
    6
    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
  12. MikeM.
    Feb 23, 2008
    5
    Fargo in Texas. Didn't impress me a whole lot. Not nearly as good as Fargo. Some wars have less dead people!
  13. TomT
    Feb 24, 2008
    2
    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.
  14. ChaseW.
    Feb 2, 2008
    8
    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 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
  15. MaureenF
    Feb 3, 2008
    1
    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 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
  16. chad
    Feb 4, 2008
    3
    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 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
  17. CoryG
    Mar 14, 2008
    1
    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.
  18. GK.
    Mar 1, 2008
    5
    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.
  19. manresaxxx
    Mar 15, 2008
    6
    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 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
  20. AaaB.
    Mar 16, 2008
    3
    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!!
  21. elenakarpova
    Mar 18, 2008
    4
    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 asI 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
  22. RichardP.
    Mar 24, 2008
    5
    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 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
  23. Markus
    Mar 2, 2008
    1
    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 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
  24. Carol
    Mar 28, 2008
    6
    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.
  25. TheBest
    Mar 30, 2008
    0
    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.
  26. LeeC.
    Mar 30, 2008
    0
    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.
  27. AudreyC.
    Mar 3, 2008
    1
    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!!!
  28. DavidH.
    Mar 30, 2008
    6
    Disappointing. Although the movie is fast paced and beautifully filmed, it's nihilist message left me cold. I thought Kelly McDonald was very good.
  29. TS
    Mar 6, 2008
    5
    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 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
  30. aaron
    Mar 7, 2008
    1
    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 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
  31. LeoM.
    Apr 13, 2008
    3
    Plodding display of meaningless violence. No redeeming qualities at all.
  32. JonathanK.
    Apr 18, 2008
    1
    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.
  33. LWeeks
    Apr 25, 2008
    1
    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
  34. Michelle
    Apr 26, 2008
    2
    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 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
  35. LindaW.
    Apr 26, 2008
    1
    The ending ruined the whole movie.
  36. DavidStone
    Apr 6, 2008
    6
    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 (TommyDespite 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
  37. WesM.
    Jun 15, 2008
    8
    Great filmmaking. Stupid message that appeals to bitter old people. The world isn't going to hell.
  38. TedK.
    Jun 20, 2008
    4
    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. 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
  39. PaulS.
    Jul 10, 2008
    6
    Really slow, a bit unrealistic, could have been shorter.
  40. JoeA.
    Sep 5, 2008
    6
    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!
  41. KNob
    Sep 9, 2008
    1
    This movie started with an improbable story line that led no where. This was a total waste of time.
  42. AnonymousMC
    Feb 3, 2009
    4
    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 wantedProbably 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
  43. Steve
    Jun 30, 2009
    2
    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
    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
  44. DallinP
    Jul 13, 2009
    0
    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.
  45. VerminD
    Sep 5, 2009
    7
    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
  46. denimb
    Jun 18, 2010
    6
    90% of the movie was fantastic, but the end is so bad(it has no happy end).
  47. AlexP.
    Nov 11, 2007
    8
    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 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
  48. NormD.
    Nov 14, 2007
    6
    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.
  49. RobertI.
    Nov 17, 2007
    5
    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.
  50. Filmfan
    Nov 18, 2007
    8
    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.
  51. DougR.
    Nov 19, 2007
    4
    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.
  52. JillE.
    Nov 22, 2007
    1
    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.
  53. BillC
    Nov 22, 2007
    7
    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.
  54. MicheleC.
    Nov 22, 2007
    0
    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.
  55. RobertH.
    Nov 22, 2007
    5
    A well-made but essentially boring movie. i wasted my time. The Coen brothers still can't top Fargo.
  56. MG.
    Nov 24, 2007
    1
    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 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
  57. ChristopherW.
    Nov 24, 2007
    7
    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 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! Expand
  58. ChrisP.
    Nov 25, 2007
    5
    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 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
  59. HerbertN.
    Nov 27, 2007
    8
    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.
  60. JamesC.
    Nov 20, 2007
    2
    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 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
  61. BenB
    Nov 30, 2007
    7
    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 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
  62. GeorgeM
    Nov 9, 2007
    8
    Brilliant film with an abrupt, unsatisfactory conclusion. Outstanding performances for all involved.
  63. AndrewT.
    Dec 1, 2007
    8
    Entertaining with intense characters and scenes. However, I found the ending emotionally unsatisfying. And a movie like this has to work on an emotional level to be truly great. So only a 8, despite the critic's raves.
  64. toosinbeymen
    Dec 26, 2007
    0
    The film "No country for Old Men" was recommended by the metacritic as a great movie. I'm sorry but it was a completely gratuitous blood porn giving a pass to gross police incompetence of the "lone wolf" sheriff and his "country wisdom". The affect of this genre on our society is to view this casual brutality as the norm and sensible.
    With all respect, your judgement is flawed.
    The film "No country for Old Men" was recommended by the metacritic as a great movie. I'm sorry but it was a completely gratuitous blood porn giving a pass to gross police incompetence of the "lone wolf" sheriff and his "country wisdom". The affect of this genre on our society is to view this casual brutality as the norm and sensible.
    With all respect, your judgement is flawed. Please, I encourage you to come back to earth, read some real literature, listen to Bach, pay attention to a string of good films to get your judgement back. But it's not just you.

    Obviously the US film industry has sunk to this very low standard and is blindly stoking anxiety so high that we can barely recognize it for what it is; it's become so integral to our society.

    Rolling Stone, Variety, Village Voice, Roger Ebert, Christian Science Monitor, the Onion, Premiere, USA Today, SF Chronicle, Boston Globe, LA Times, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Time, Miami Herald, Baltimore Sun, Seattle Post-Intelligencer all gave it a maximum rating of 100 in metacritic.com like it was Shakespeare or Tolstoy. This is how warped we are as a society. This is how deep our numbness to wholesale death goes.

    What should be called a low budget horror film is called "the most ambitious and impressive ... in at least a decade" by Salon and "for formalists ... it's pure heaven" NY Times. "I haven't seen a stronger or better American movie all year" Christian Science Monitor. "An indisputably great movie, at this point the year's very best" Rolling Stone.

    When we use these words for this kind of film, small wonder the world thinks we're killers without remorse.
    Expand
  65. ArielG
    Dec 29, 2007
    5
    I'll admit I got suckered into this movie because of all the positive critic reviews. After watching the movie, I was left feeling disappointed and felt that the movie was highly over-rated. The acting was solid, especially from Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin. I was literally scared of Bardem's portrayal of the Anton character. The dialogue and the characters were quite good.I'll admit I got suckered into this movie because of all the positive critic reviews. After watching the movie, I was left feeling disappointed and felt that the movie was highly over-rated. The acting was solid, especially from Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin. I was literally scared of Bardem's portrayal of the Anton character. The dialogue and the characters were quite good. However the pacing was very uneven though, tense and suspenseful one moment followed by long drawn out scenes which added nothing to the main storyline. For most of it, the movie just dragged on and on. Running at more than 2 hours, I felt that the script could've bit tightened up a bit more, which would've made it more watchable. Also the abruptly ending, the disjointed storylines, and the suspense that resulted in no pay off, left me and a few others in the theatre disappointed. The Coen bros have made classic movies that have reached cult status, like Fargo, Miller's Crossing and Big Lebowski. Then there are the movies they've made which aren't so great, like as Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. I'm afraid No Country For Old Men fits into the latter category. It's not that bad, but it's certainly not as good as critics have made it out to be, definitely not the best of 2007, not by a long shot. Expand
  66. StevenM
    Dec 31, 2007
    9
    Every great piece of art has its detractors, hence the few downer votes here. The Coen brothers serve up their most serious film in a decade -- a slow burn look at violence in America. Bardem is a psycho who is violence; Brolin is a guy who thinks he can only play with violence; Jones is the veteran of violence, submitted by its power. Don't go in expecting a Leathal Weapon film orEvery great piece of art has its detractors, hence the few downer votes here. The Coen brothers serve up their most serious film in a decade -- a slow burn look at violence in America. Bardem is a psycho who is violence; Brolin is a guy who thinks he can only play with violence; Jones is the veteran of violence, submitted by its power. Don't go in expecting a Leathal Weapon film or Fargo; this is a slow methodical character study. The last scene is a stunner, and demands that Jones win a second Oscar. Not the best of the year, but close. Expand
  67. JasonJ.
    Dec 3, 2007
    7
    I've never seen a movie come so close to being a 9 or 10 when, in the last 20 minutes, loses the audience on a dime. What an exciting premise. The beginning is spectacular and it just gets more dramatic from there. But, the movie takes a nose-dive when the principal character is nonchalantly killed (they don't even show the scene) and we are left with a cast of actors that were I've never seen a movie come so close to being a 9 or 10 when, in the last 20 minutes, loses the audience on a dime. What an exciting premise. The beginning is spectacular and it just gets more dramatic from there. But, the movie takes a nose-dive when the principal character is nonchalantly killed (they don't even show the scene) and we are left with a cast of actors that were more or less very minor to the interesting part of the plot. It was great entertainment and it certainly holds up to almost anything made lately, but it was butchered at the end needlessly. Expand
  68. MikeF.
    Dec 4, 2007
    4
    I love the Coen Brothers and looked forward to this movie, especially because of the trailers and the critics' reviews. I had faith that all of the stuff that I was watching throughout the movie would turn into a spectacular ending. It did not. I cannot believe that anyone would give this movie anything more than a 7. It had its witty moments, but the ending ruined it for me. I haved I love the Coen Brothers and looked forward to this movie, especially because of the trailers and the critics' reviews. I had faith that all of the stuff that I was watching throughout the movie would turn into a spectacular ending. It did not. I cannot believe that anyone would give this movie anything more than a 7. It had its witty moments, but the ending ruined it for me. I haved watched O Brother Where Art Thou, Millers Crossing, Fargo, and Raising Arizona many times. When I see one of them on as I'm channel surfing, I almost always stop. I will never watch a single scene of No Country again. Expand
  69. JoeH.
    Dec 4, 2007
    8
    The Coens love movies, love to recreate them and making loving homages to them, but it's always been American films and now they have decided to take an "art" novel and give it their best Bergman take. Note the suddenly still camera, the spectre of Death, ala Seventh Seal, the final "dream" ripped right out of that film. This movie is about a "plague" and it fits in perfectly with The Coens love movies, love to recreate them and making loving homages to them, but it's always been American films and now they have decided to take an "art" novel and give it their best Bergman take. Note the suddenly still camera, the spectre of Death, ala Seventh Seal, the final "dream" ripped right out of that film. This movie is about a "plague" and it fits in perfectly with the boys deciding to focus on Bergman for their story telling inspiration. Expand
  70. Jwh
    Dec 4, 2007
    5
    Tense and taut. But with plot holes you could drive a truck through. Everyone in the movie (especially bad guys) has sonar/radar and are bloodhounds. The first half of the movie, it makes sense and is explained... the second half, everyone mystically can track everyone else and it is crap. The ending is so-so trying to make a simple point about Tommy Lee Jone's character and Tense and taut. But with plot holes you could drive a truck through. Everyone in the movie (especially bad guys) has sonar/radar and are bloodhounds. The first half of the movie, it makes sense and is explained... the second half, everyone mystically can track everyone else and it is crap. The ending is so-so trying to make a simple point about Tommy Lee Jone's character and pretending it is "artistic." Over-rated. Hyped. Pretentious. I can see why a lot of the critics liked it. Expand
  71. BruceT.
    Dec 5, 2007
    0
    The most violent, pointless movie I have ever suffered through. I guess they must pay you for the rating? I'll never trust meta-critic by itself again. I've liked other Coen Bros. movies.
  72. TimH.
    Dec 5, 2007
    2
    This movie represents nothing more that gratuitous violence and nihilistic nonsense masquerading as high art. I can't believe the critics were so taken in. This doesn't come even close to Fargo which was fantastic. It's only the Coen brothers superstar status that allows them to market this crap. It's like Picasso doodling on a napkin and calling it art.
  73. DenisM.
    Dec 7, 2007
    2
    Inspired acting and cinematography, but in the end, I felt as simply a voyeur in a West Texas drug culture slaughterhouse. Not up to Fargo.
  74. RobertC.
    Dec 7, 2007
    6
    Based on all the glowing reviews of this film I was a bit disappointed with it. There are some great performances, the story is engaging and very thought provoking but the ending is a BIG letdown. This would have been a much better film for me had the ending been better. So, do not expect a satisfying ending. I realize the movie is based on a novel and the ending may be faithful to the Based on all the glowing reviews of this film I was a bit disappointed with it. There are some great performances, the story is engaging and very thought provoking but the ending is a BIG letdown. This would have been a much better film for me had the ending been better. So, do not expect a satisfying ending. I realize the movie is based on a novel and the ending may be faithful to the book but it doesn't work for me. You have been fore warned! Expand
  75. KeirB.
    Dec 7, 2007
    8
    Very well acted and written, with great Cinematography. My only problem with the film, is that I feel that it glorifies violence. It is a good film, by all standards. I do hope that "Atonement" beats this for Best Picture.
  76. BillW.
    Dec 9, 2007
    3
    Magnificently executed and imagined with humor and brilliant pacing. Performances were terrific. I hated it. At least they didn't kill and children or animals. But the blood and violence were depressing and disgusting. At the end, the only catharsis for me was a glorious re-acquaintance with the fact that even the worst experiences are finite. I left the theatre angry and needing Magnificently executed and imagined with humor and brilliant pacing. Performances were terrific. I hated it. At least they didn't kill and children or animals. But the blood and violence were depressing and disgusting. At the end, the only catharsis for me was a glorious re-acquaintance with the fact that even the worst experiences are finite. I left the theatre angry and needing both a shower and a keyboard with which to warn others. Expand
  77. Lev
    Jan 11, 2008
    3
    This movie is a good example of how an idea deteriorates through the creative process. It's worse still in this case as the screenplay is adapted from a novel. As much as I appreciate the ideas and themes, be they McCarthy's or the Coens', the movie does not convey them well enough to warrant the fawning of most reviewers. It's commendable in terms of filmmaking craft This movie is a good example of how an idea deteriorates through the creative process. It's worse still in this case as the screenplay is adapted from a novel. As much as I appreciate the ideas and themes, be they McCarthy's or the Coens', the movie does not convey them well enough to warrant the fawning of most reviewers. It's commendable in terms of filmmaking craft insofar as the cinematography, dialogue, and acting are skillfully executed. As a whole, however, it doesn't work. It's not enough to rely on ideas to hold these elements together because the whole thing ends up being an intellectual excercise. It requires an emotive line of action as well, which isn't completely absent but poorly drawn this movie. That's why viewers can be bewildered at the end. It's an abrupt end because you don't feel as though anything has led you to it. We can call it clever and subversive because it means something beyond the film itself. It's not good enough, especially as it's by the same guys that made The Big Lebowski, which is almost flawless in all respects. The rave reviews aren't warranted; there's a hysteria around movies like these (abstract humour, unconventional, nihilistic, well shot) that's really frustrating, especially when we rely on critics for insightful judgements. And I agree with Larry T.: the pretentious laughter was the worst part. Expand
  78. JeffA
    Jan 10, 2008
    5
    What I liked about NCOM Javier Bardem could be the greatest villain of all time. He stole every scene and basically redefined evil. Acting performances and cinematography was outstanding. First half of the movie was intense and just seemed to keep building up. Now the bad stuff So many flaws that I don't know where to start. The film leaves so many questions unanswered. No character What I liked about NCOM Javier Bardem could be the greatest villain of all time. He stole every scene and basically redefined evil. Acting performances and cinematography was outstanding. First half of the movie was intense and just seemed to keep building up. Now the bad stuff So many flaws that I don't know where to start. The film leaves so many questions unanswered. No character development whatsoever. There are scenes and characters in the film that just lead us astray and have no business being in the final cut. The lead is actually killed off screen after following his every move for 2/3 of the film. WTF? More plotholes than swiss cheese. Now its considered the greatest film of the decade. Greatest thing since sliced bread since the critics don't understand it. Could be the most overrated movie of all time. It stands at #23 of all time on the IMDB list as I write this. I'd like to add that its the only film on this incredible list that lacks an ending. Believe me, I wanted to love this movie. Mislead once again by the critics. They are all in together to rob us of our hard earned cash. Expand
  79. RK
    Jan 12, 2008
    3
    Anytime the antagonist walks away after killing everyone that has any decency about them, it makes me wonder why it made it to the screen in the first place. Oh wait a minute, we live it America and this is what real life really is all about. Bad people killing good, honest decent, hard working people. Let's glorify the villians so they can sleep well at night knowing they have put Anytime the antagonist walks away after killing everyone that has any decency about them, it makes me wonder why it made it to the screen in the first place. Oh wait a minute, we live it America and this is what real life really is all about. Bad people killing good, honest decent, hard working people. Let's glorify the villians so they can sleep well at night knowing they have put another notch in their gun. The only reason I went to see the movie is because of TLJ. I feel like this was a bait and switch. He was useless in his character and his tremendous talents wasted in this movie. Expand
  80. LloydM.
    Jan 12, 2008
    4
    The movie was engaging, but every movie needs a beginning, middle and end. This movie had no ending. This may be a critics dream, but it left me and several others who went, wondering what was the point of this movie and why did we waste time and money to leave frustrated.
  81. MB
    Jan 15, 2008
    3
    I have to admit I was excited to see this movie, however that only hightened my disappointment. This was an unengaging story of no signifigance that will not be enjoyed by anyone hoping to be entertained. yeah it was different, but I could not care less.
  82. Steve
    Jan 18, 2008
    0
    I can not believe anyone likes No Country for Old Men. It is so unbelievably hailed as some kind of great movie that it makes me wonder who is paying off the reviewers or if the reviewers are real people. I bet this review will be burried big time! The plot goes no where but to a dead end! If you go, I will bet that you will regret having spent your good money on this violent junk while I can not believe anyone likes No Country for Old Men. It is so unbelievably hailed as some kind of great movie that it makes me wonder who is paying off the reviewers or if the reviewers are real people. I bet this review will be burried big time! The plot goes no where but to a dead end! If you go, I will bet that you will regret having spent your good money on this violent junk while there are so many better movies you could have gone to see. Believe me, I am a real person not on the take. I give this kone a big ZERO. Expand
  83. sedw.
    Jan 23, 2008
    1
    Most UN-satisfying movie experience. Have seem something like this done better in Fargo. It leaves a lot of loose ends, does not follow through with the characters (lead character dies unexpectedly with no followup on that). Don't know what happened to his wife. Bad guy walks away. And the last hope, the Sherif, quits his job and ends the movie while talking about his dream.... Most UN-satisfying movie experience. Have seem something like this done better in Fargo. It leaves a lot of loose ends, does not follow through with the characters (lead character dies unexpectedly with no followup on that). Don't know what happened to his wife. Bad guy walks away. And the last hope, the Sherif, quits his job and ends the movie while talking about his dream.... Yawwwn. Please what's with all these high rating for this movie ?? Expand
  84. SibylP
    Jan 23, 2008
    1
    I thought it was really bad. The shots of the desert were boring after the first 3, though the DP is tops. If you are going to do tough guy dialogue about flipping a coin for your life, it better be wittier than that. The plot made no sense -- the guy wouldn't get water for the shot guy, but then brings it hours later--weak. The lines between the couple were pathetic--completely I thought it was really bad. The shots of the desert were boring after the first 3, though the DP is tops. If you are going to do tough guy dialogue about flipping a coin for your life, it better be wittier than that. The plot made no sense -- the guy wouldn't get water for the shot guy, but then brings it hours later--weak. The lines between the couple were pathetic--completely cliched. Bardun was so busy acting like he wasn't acting. Tommy Lee Jones totally milked the sad old sheriff thing. What a waste of $11.00. What's wrong with all those critics? Expand
  85. MarkL.
    Jan 24, 2008
    10
    Brilliant. Up there with Fargo and Pulp Fiction.
  86. CooperH.
    Jan 26, 2008
    10
    Stunningly good acting - flawless dialogue - hauntingly real
  87. Amber
    Jan 26, 2008
    10
    Fantastic. Don't read the reader reviews- there's spoilers galore, and they're all too stupid to mention it.
  88. JeffA
    Jan 26, 2008
    3
    What I liked about NCOM Javier Bardem could be the greatest villain of all time. He stole every scene and basically redefined evil. Acting performances and cinematography was outstanding. First half of the movie was intense and just seemed to keep building up. Now the bad stuff So many flaws that I don't know where to start. The film leaves so many questions unanswered. No character What I liked about NCOM Javier Bardem could be the greatest villain of all time. He stole every scene and basically redefined evil. Acting performances and cinematography was outstanding. First half of the movie was intense and just seemed to keep building up. Now the bad stuff So many flaws that I don't know where to start. The film leaves so many questions unanswered. No character development whatsoever. There are scenes and characters in the film that just lead us astray and have no business being in the final cut. The lead is actually killed off screen after following his every move for 2/3 of the film. WTF? More plotholes than swiss cheese. Now its considered the greatest film of the decade. Greatest thing since sliced bread since the critics don't understand it. Could be the most overrated movie of all time. It stands at #23 of all time on the IMDB list as I write this. I'd like to add that its the only film on this incredible list that lacks an ending. Believe me, I wanted to love this movie. Mislead once again by the critics. They are all in together to rob us of our hard earned cash. Expand
  89. JohnH.
    Jan 26, 2008
    3
    Reasonably good drama and acting, but relatively pointless plot and story-line. The ending leaves viewers stunned - not sure whether to leave the theatre -- or wait for the movie to continue playing through to the end AFTER the credits.
  90. AnthonyS
    Jan 26, 2008
    10
    Wonderful film. It was very dark, and I can see where some people may not be satisfied with the ending. The mistake these people make is that they confuse who the main character really is. This is a story about old men. Men who live until they are old. Get that and you'll have a different perspective of the film's ending.
  91. TrevorA.
    Jan 29, 2008
    1
    What a mess. The metaphors obliterate any chance of a coherent story. Can't comment on the significance of the final speech: I'd lost the will to listen to all the cliches by that point.
  92. RobertP.
    Jan 31, 2008
    10
    Amazing, I hope Bardem gets an Oscar, he was terribly perfect with his character. I think this film is one of the surprises of the year, perhaps one of the best in the 20's, i went out of the cinema containing my feelings, incredibly exciting!!! I think I'll get the DVD.
  93. PriyanthT.
    Jan 31, 2008
    3
    Slow and boring. Too much of editing.
  94. AnonymousMC
    Jan 3, 2008
    2
    Yeah, I know everyone says this is a thinker, and let me tell you I
  95. erics
    Jan 4, 2008
    5
    Tommy Lee Jone's character was well thought out, you could actually feel the struggles he was going through. The rest of the characters though were very weak...the entire movie you are asking yourself WHY?! Too much violence for violence's sake, especially given the ending. The ending did give you pause, and is perhaps worth discussion, but fell short in the context of theTommy Lee Jone's character was well thought out, you could actually feel the struggles he was going through. The rest of the characters though were very weak...the entire movie you are asking yourself WHY?! Too much violence for violence's sake, especially given the ending. The ending did give you pause, and is perhaps worth discussion, but fell short in the context of the entire move. Expand
  96. RichRainey
    Jan 5, 2008
    10
    Perfectly paced, written, filmed, acted, directed and conceived. There is more emotion in one frame here than in most other entire movies. I have always loved the Coen brothers stuff, but this is the best one yet. I felt just as uncomfortable (that's a compliment, because that's how I'm supposed to feel) throughout the entire film as Woody did in his last scene. This has toPerfectly paced, written, filmed, acted, directed and conceived. There is more emotion in one frame here than in most other entire movies. I have always loved the Coen brothers stuff, but this is the best one yet. I felt just as uncomfortable (that's a compliment, because that's how I'm supposed to feel) throughout the entire film as Woody did in his last scene. This has to win the Best Picture award, hands down. Expand
  97. BruceW.
    Feb 10, 2008
    2
    This is the worst ending to a good movie that I've ever seen in my life. It started to fall apart when it showed the main character was dead, after that the movie sucked. But the movies was building greatly at first. Too bad any one would think this ending is artsy.
  98. NS
    Feb 12, 2008
    8
    I think one of the problems is that for 90 minutes the movie trades brilliantly on being a fantastically tense action thriller and then apparently decides that it doesn't care about being that at all for the last 20 minutes. Surely it's understandable that some people might feel cheated by a movie full of charismatic fantasy psychos and resilient everyday supermen slaying people I think one of the problems is that for 90 minutes the movie trades brilliantly on being a fantastically tense action thriller and then apparently decides that it doesn't care about being that at all for the last 20 minutes. Surely it's understandable that some people might feel cheated by a movie full of charismatic fantasy psychos and resilient everyday supermen slaying people and having gunfights and car crashes that never attract attention but which then tries to claim 'this is how the real world is' at its bleak end? Not that the movie does not present some interesting ideas to chew on at the conclusion. Still, a fantastically riveting film overall. Expand
  99. JayH.
    Feb 26, 2008
    9
    An absolutely brilliant film. Every cast member is outstanding, especially Javier Bardem. The pace is perfect, it grabs your attention from the first frame right to the last. Outstanding cinematography and editing. Tense and suspenseful, thoroughly engrossing. The Coen Brothers have made a remarkable movie, well deserving of it's four Oscars.
  100. DD.
    Feb 27, 2008
    2
    The least surprising movie the Cohen bothers have made. It
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.