No Country for Old Men

User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1400 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

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. 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
  2. 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.
  3. DD.
    Feb 27, 2008
    2
    The least surprising movie the Cohen bothers have made. It
  4. LeoC.
    Feb 4, 2008
    10
    The film is a masterpiece from the Coen Brothers.
  5. DanielJ
    Feb 7, 2008
    10
    I am completely surprised at how many people simply don't understand the movie and hence lambast it with tripe like "it's pointless and too violent." First of all, as if to scream at the audience that the film is not solely about violence, the Coens decide to tone down many of the book's murder scenes and don't even show (physically) the fates of Chigurh's last I am completely surprised at how many people simply don't understand the movie and hence lambast it with tripe like "it's pointless and too violent." First of all, as if to scream at the audience that the film is not solely about violence, the Coens decide to tone down many of the book's murder scenes and don't even show (physically) the fates of Chigurh's last victims. It is consistently well directed, shot, and acted throughout, resulting in a completely in-depth environment and characters. By no means is it ever boring or choppy, as long as you understand the motives and developments of the characters throughout the whole movie. Chad would have you believe that the first third is nothing but slow and boring nonsense, but it is in actuality the whole basis for the characters. The first part establishes Moss's motivation (which is not simply greed for those of you who think 300 is the best film of 2007), Bell's contempt for the modern state of man, and Chigurh's inhuman nature that propels each man to his own distinct fate. Aside from the constant intensity, I believe one of the film's greatest strengths is its dialogue. Not much is changed from the book, but some is to fit a different scene in the movie better. Each time a character speaks the viewer can see straight into his head and view his motivation, his worldview, his disillusionment, or, in Chigurh's case, his nonchalant disregard for humanity. Finally, the ending of the movie, while much reviled by incompetent viewers, is absolutely perfect. That's not just my opinion, it's a fact. (Spoilers) Yes, every good person except Bell dies and the villain gets away with the money, and the last line is a seemingly disconnected reflection on Bell's dream. However, one of the most prevalent themes of the movie is how evil has come to envelope society, harming the innocent (i.e. Carla Jean) while evil itself often gets away and further spreads its venom. Thus, the ending may be depressing, but it is necessary. With that in mind, there really weren't any loose ends that needed to be tied up, there were only certain characters' uncertain futures. As to Bell's last line, in which he describes his dream, reflects how Bell is second guessing his whole existence because he earnestly feels that it is futile to try to ward off the encompassing evil that Chigurh represents and he has wasted his whole life in a vain attempt to do so. All in all, the direction, acting, cinematography, editing, and even the sounds of the movie serve to bring McCarthy's chilling novel of profound insight into haunting reality. Don't listen to the morons who give it anything less than an 8. Anyone who is able to actually interpret and apply the film beyond its outer surface would see just how incredible a job the Coens did in writing and directing the film. It's even better than Fargo, and that's saying something. Expand
  6. DavidF.
    Mar 11, 2008
    9
    I thought the movie was great. People complain about the ending, but I don't understand what they want. Is anything short of the bad guy dying or killing everyone else a non-ending? Great acting, interesting characters, suspenseful. Was pretty violent, but if that doesn't bother you, then I highly recommend it.
  7. halb
    Mar 11, 2008
    9
    Dark and nihilistic? Yes. Not your typical feel-good, tie-everything-up-in-a-nice-ribbon, hollywood ending? Check. Not everyone's 'cup of tea'? Yes, most definitely. But to suggest that this is a bad movie, or that it didn't deserve its Oscars... Well, that's just flat out wrong-headed. This film, based on the excellent story by Cormac McCarthy, is *exceedingly* Dark and nihilistic? Yes. Not your typical feel-good, tie-everything-up-in-a-nice-ribbon, hollywood ending? Check. Not everyone's 'cup of tea'? Yes, most definitely. But to suggest that this is a bad movie, or that it didn't deserve its Oscars... Well, that's just flat out wrong-headed. This film, based on the excellent story by Cormac McCarthy, is *exceedingly* well written, well acted, well paced, beautifully photographed, well edited and well directed. The three leads - Bardem, Jones and Brolin - are outstanding. This film does not -- as some suggest -- glorify violence or nihilism. It absolutely does NOT glorify or condone the cold-blooded actions of the killer (actually, killers plural). Dig just a little deeper, all you nay-sayers, and you may understand the central point of McCarthy's book and of this excellent film. Then again, maybe this is just a bit too profound and clear-headed a morality tale (and character study) for many viewers. There are one or two scenes alone that are worth the price of admission ... e.g., the pit bull chasing Brolin's character down the turbulent river, closing on him as relentlessly as Death. Amazing stuff. Expand
  8. SeanP
    Mar 11, 2008
    10
    Or they really liked the movie Mike. Movies here aren't rated on originality but enjoyment. Its okay though because dismissing other peoples opinions is a good way to get yours dismissed. It is easy to hate the movie if you go in with unreasonable expectations.
  9. PeterK.
    Mar 12, 2008
    6
    This movie is engrossing, with an emphasis on violence that is so strong that one loses track of some of the fine acting. A much more elemental performance by Tommy Lee Jones can be seen in the nearly altogether ignored film In the Valley of Elah, which has a tragic plot rivaling anything by Sophocles and which shocks, mesmerizes and horrifies the audience with its powerful dramatic This movie is engrossing, with an emphasis on violence that is so strong that one loses track of some of the fine acting. A much more elemental performance by Tommy Lee Jones can be seen in the nearly altogether ignored film In the Valley of Elah, which has a tragic plot rivaling anything by Sophocles and which shocks, mesmerizes and horrifies the audience with its powerful dramatic irony. No Country for Old Men is an OK movie but In the Valley of Elah is one of the best pieces of writing and acting (almost solely carried by Jones) in a decade. Expand
  10. ChuckD
    Mar 12, 2008
    5
    The first 3/4 of the movie - an amazing picture that hauntingly pulls you in -- the last 1/4: one of the biggest disappointments in cinematic history. I feel sorry for anyone who who actually says they like the finale - they obviousluy have no idea what true cinema is. I am severely upset at the Coens for turning a possible masterpiece into worthless dogs#!t in the space of about 20 The first 3/4 of the movie - an amazing picture that hauntingly pulls you in -- the last 1/4: one of the biggest disappointments in cinematic history. I feel sorry for anyone who who actually says they like the finale - they obviousluy have no idea what true cinema is. I am severely upset at the Coens for turning a possible masterpiece into worthless dogs#!t in the space of about 20 minutes. They should be forced to rewrite the ending, or at least let someone with some intelligence do so. Expand
  11. KirkP
    Mar 13, 2008
    2
    At the start it had you going. But like another said same old movie just different angle. Where is the uniqueness Ok A compressed air can gun WooHoo!! The ending is suppose to be original why change something that works?
  12. linda
    Mar 14, 2008
    0
    Are you kidding? this is one of the best out of hollywood? truely sucked, what's the sequel gonna be called? no country for old women? can't remember the last movie i hated so much.
  13. benp.
    Mar 14, 2008
    10
    Love it or hate it, cause the only way to leave the theatre feeling different is if you have vegetable brains. And anyone who hates it must have lived their whole life in colorado city or behind padded walls. It doesn't mean their crazy or stupid, just that whatever goes on in the world isn't their reality. No Country For Old Men portrays drugs, money, greed and the fate that Love it or hate it, cause the only way to leave the theatre feeling different is if you have vegetable brains. And anyone who hates it must have lived their whole life in colorado city or behind padded walls. It doesn't mean their crazy or stupid, just that whatever goes on in the world isn't their reality. No Country For Old Men portrays drugs, money, greed and the fate that comes with it in a very eery and extreme, yet completely realistic way. Any one of us could be Llewelyn and in this world we live in, his fate could be ours as well. What a raw display of how powerful and unforgiving the nature of men can be. Expand
  14. AdamK.
    Mar 15, 2008
    3
    I didn't get it, I guess. A mildly exciting movie at parts, but mostly it was deadly boring and without any real ending.
  15. Sharyn
    Mar 15, 2008
    3
    why did I think it was a stupid movie full of stupid people who went through a series of events that made them look stupider? Was that the point? I could not suspend my disbelief because I just didn't think Brolin would be dumb enough to keep the money in its original case, not look for a trace, et cetera. I just kept going "why are they so stupid?" I thought the acting was great, why did I think it was a stupid movie full of stupid people who went through a series of events that made them look stupider? Was that the point? I could not suspend my disbelief because I just didn't think Brolin would be dumb enough to keep the money in its original case, not look for a trace, et cetera. I just kept going "why are they so stupid?" I thought the acting was great, but believable? No Way Even For Old Men. Expand
  16. EdT
    Mar 15, 2008
    10
    I wouldn't say 30+million people is nobody, would you? Is that your definition of nobody? If so, you might want to find a dictionary. Regardless, at this point, is there such a thing as an original story? No, there isn't. But what makes No Country for Old Men a great film is its terrific sense of pace, understated, powerful performances from everyone involved (especially Tommy I wouldn't say 30+million people is nobody, would you? Is that your definition of nobody? If so, you might want to find a dictionary. Regardless, at this point, is there such a thing as an original story? No, there isn't. But what makes No Country for Old Men a great film is its terrific sense of pace, understated, powerful performances from everyone involved (especially Tommy Lee Jones and Kelly MacDonald, who deserved a nomination), a script that's both darkly funny and fearsome and of course, the sure-handed direction of the Coens. As for its conclusion, it underscores the point and theme of the film perfectly: that life is ambiguous, that fate and chance both have their roles to play and that life, no matter how hard we try to impose some sort of meaning and narrative upon it, just is a series of randomly connected events. Expand
  17. MiltG.
    Mar 16, 2008
    1
    The Coen Bros should be brought in front of a congressional panel and be forced to give our money back for any movies or dvd purchase. Maybe Anton Shugar was on HGH or steroids with Roger Clemmons. That would explain the violence on Anton's part in the movie and heck, they were both in Texas right...? I believe the same screenplay writers for " The Grifters" wrote the ending for this The Coen Bros should be brought in front of a congressional panel and be forced to give our money back for any movies or dvd purchase. Maybe Anton Shugar was on HGH or steroids with Roger Clemmons. That would explain the violence on Anton's part in the movie and heck, they were both in Texas right...? I believe the same screenplay writers for " The Grifters" wrote the ending for this piece of trash. Hollywood and the Coen Bros. goosed the movie public in the foulest way and are laughing all the way to the bank! I feel so used. Expand
  18. HaroldR.
    Mar 17, 2008
    9
    It's so amusing to watch people frequently try to disparage this movie because it doesn't cater to what they perceive the average movie as being. The movie is thrilling, well written, imaginative and purposefully unique. It doesn't possess the cliched "we got the back guy!!" ending that everyone is accustomed to. No, it reflects the real world, where things cannot be It's so amusing to watch people frequently try to disparage this movie because it doesn't cater to what they perceive the average movie as being. The movie is thrilling, well written, imaginative and purposefully unique. It doesn't possess the cliched "we got the back guy!!" ending that everyone is accustomed to. No, it reflects the real world, where things cannot be anticipated. If you crave eccentric films, that follow no set path, then this movie is for you. Oh, and it deserved Best Movie of the Year, and no amount of petty 1 out of 10 ratings is going to change that. Expand
  19. LesterF.
    Mar 17, 2008
    10
    An understated, post-modern masterpiece. It is the way it is told that makes this film so wonderful. Yes, it disconcertingly prises your hands from their obedient grasp on reality but the payoff is worth it. The running time is a little over two hours but I challenge anyone to refute that this film did not stick with them for far longer. Love it or hate it Anton Chigurh's pageboy An understated, post-modern masterpiece. It is the way it is told that makes this film so wonderful. Yes, it disconcertingly prises your hands from their obedient grasp on reality but the payoff is worth it. The running time is a little over two hours but I challenge anyone to refute that this film did not stick with them for far longer. Love it or hate it Anton Chigurh's pageboy hair, hallow eyes and hateful tongue; and the romantic ramblings of Sherrif Ed Tom Bell were part of our conscious and subconscious thought for days after this one. Phantasmagorical. Poetic. Brilliant. Expand
  20. JRo
    Mar 18, 2008
    10
    Wow. The people that give low ratings on this movie seem to not be able to understand ....anything about life. Useless filler? Building suspense without using music is incredible enough in itself. You have to try to interpret what happens in the movie. Apparently, some of you are typical Americans and fail to be able to watch a movie that is not completely straightforwad. Congrats on the Wow. The people that give low ratings on this movie seem to not be able to understand ....anything about life. Useless filler? Building suspense without using music is incredible enough in itself. You have to try to interpret what happens in the movie. Apparently, some of you are typical Americans and fail to be able to watch a movie that is not completely straightforwad. Congrats on the lack of progression in being a normal functioning human adult. This movie is one of the best that you could ever hope for. Expand
  21. DianaChertova
    Mar 19, 2008
    2
    I think those who doesnt "GET" are the ones who gave HIGH rating to this movie. They get what ? The violence or the stupid dialogs? There is nothing to get.and they just try to look intellectual by waving to a politically oscar winning film.To not to look stupdi, they say they understood something.What they undesrtood is nothing..
  22. JohnJ
    Mar 2, 2008
    2
    The only movie I have seen in my long, mostly pointless life, that had a worse ending than this was Gone Baby Gone. The Casey Affleck character should have been shot for ratting out that wonderful couple who were going to give that little girl a beautiful, loving upbringing. Instead he all but sealed her fate by giving her back to that lowlife, alcoholic, drug addicted slut of a mother The only movie I have seen in my long, mostly pointless life, that had a worse ending than this was Gone Baby Gone. The Casey Affleck character should have been shot for ratting out that wonderful couple who were going to give that little girl a beautiful, loving upbringing. Instead he all but sealed her fate by giving her back to that lowlife, alcoholic, drug addicted slut of a mother who in the final scene was going out to get high and herpes without a second thought for her daughter. But I digress. The ending of ncfom was not even an ending. You just have to hope that that bone sticking out of Anton's elbow might have given him some discomfort before killing another dozen or so people. Expand
  23. RMB.
    Mar 20, 2008
    3
    I don't understand why this show got such rave reviews. The plot line had all sorts of holes: Why was everyone walking or riding horses to the crime scene in the desert? There were five vehicles at the scene so there was obviously a road there. You would think locals and the sheriff would know their territory. Why was an experienced hunter walking in the desert with no water? If he I don't understand why this show got such rave reviews. The plot line had all sorts of holes: Why was everyone walking or riding horses to the crime scene in the desert? There were five vehicles at the scene so there was obviously a road there. You would think locals and the sheriff would know their territory. Why was an experienced hunter walking in the desert with no water? If he gives water to the guy in the truck, he doesn't return later and would avoid all the other problems. Why did he suddenly get a conscience and have to go back to the crime scene in the middle of the night? Again, if he stays home, there is no plot. In addition to the numerous plot problems, the ending was incomprehensible. A Simple Plan had the same basic plot and was a much better show. No Country does not come close to Fargo. Expand
  24. RaysaJ.
    Mar 22, 2008
    5
    Where is the rest of this movie? I feel gypped. I have read almost all of Cormac McCarthy's great work. I am a fan but I find the film adaptation to be claustrophobic and badly timed. It has the look of a three hour plus film that was chopped to two for release. I found it hard to follow the story... and I knew the story. Great acting by Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Where is the rest of this movie? I feel gypped. I have read almost all of Cormac McCarthy's great work. I am a fan but I find the film adaptation to be claustrophobic and badly timed. It has the look of a three hour plus film that was chopped to two for release. I found it hard to follow the story... and I knew the story. Great acting by Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, Kelly Macdonald and the rest of the cast. A shame... there may have been a great film before the overdone editing. Expand
  25. MarcB.
    Mar 26, 2008
    8
    Real life characters rather than movie characters. Real life result rather than movie result where everyone lives happily ever after. Two contemporary scenes which struck me as insightful occurred when Moss was shot and when Anton was involved in a car crash. Both situations revealed more emphasis on money than health by one of the parties. The young men on the bridge were more Real life characters rather than movie characters. Real life result rather than movie result where everyone lives happily ever after. Two contemporary scenes which struck me as insightful occurred when Moss was shot and when Anton was involved in a car crash. Both situations revealed more emphasis on money than health by one of the parties. The young men on the bridge were more inquisitive than helpful and Anton felt compelled to pay for the kid's shirt when his immediate need was healthcare . The modern priorities are held up to the light for inspection here. Tommie Lee Jones as sherrif skulks into retirement rather than confronting the criminal.Much food for thought in this movie. Those who rate it shamefully low were probably expecting a more commonly seen conclusion where the bad guys are vanquished in some way. Expand
  26. SeanA.
    Mar 27, 2008
    1
    The only reason I'm giving this movie a 1 is because the last 30 minutes is so confusing and then the movie just ends. You don't know what happened to the the hero or the villian. The first hour in a half are some of the best film making I've seen. Too bad it has no ending.
  27. MattM.
    Mar 3, 2008
    10
    This movie was absolutely magnificent. I loved this movie everything about it made it wonderful experience. The plot, the characters, and the dialogue was great. I'm not sure what the other people rating it 1's are talking about they obviously have no taste.
  28. klm
    Mar 7, 2008
    7
    "Apart from using Josh Brolin, who just isn't up to the task, nevermind being repeatedly referred to in this contemporary setting as a Viet Nam vet, which would have put him in combat at around age five" - DWilly. Err DWilly you obviously weren't paying close attention to the funeral scene near the end! The the birth to death date clearly indicated that the year was 1980 NOT "Apart from using Josh Brolin, who just isn't up to the task, nevermind being repeatedly referred to in this contemporary setting as a Viet Nam vet, which would have put him in combat at around age five" - DWilly. Err DWilly you obviously weren't paying close attention to the funeral scene near the end! The the birth to death date clearly indicated that the year was 1980 NOT 2007/8 as you seem to have surmised! Expand
  29. Chrystal
    Mar 8, 2008
    10
    Amazing movie!! Going in, I though it would be kind of boring and that maybe it was also overrated. I was definitely wrong. This movie is going on my top ten greatest movies of all time!! You have to see it!!
  30. ArmondA.
    Apr 10, 2008
    0
    Does anyone remember "Barton Fink" ? The Coen Brothers are heartless masters of style, and even when I like one of their films I wish I didn't. In the case of the critically acclaimed but audience-detested "Barton Fink" I faced no internal conflict--my heart and my head were in perfect agreement. And so it is with "No Country". It's a nasty film with nothing to say and an ugly Does anyone remember "Barton Fink" ? The Coen Brothers are heartless masters of style, and even when I like one of their films I wish I didn't. In the case of the critically acclaimed but audience-detested "Barton Fink" I faced no internal conflict--my heart and my head were in perfect agreement. And so it is with "No Country". It's a nasty film with nothing to say and an ugly way of saying it. Expand
  31. MiKE
    Apr 10, 2008
    0
    Wow! What a disappointment this turned out to be! Pointless, unreal, boring, and a terrible ending!
  32. MattP.
    Apr 13, 2008
    6
    I may be "that guy," but I just don't get this movie. The first hour and a half are spent following what the audience suspects is the main character, Lewelyn Moss, until he just ups and dies at the hands of Mexican drug dealers (a scene shot in my hometown of Albuquerque by the way) at suddenly the movie just pulls the parking brake and and turns right around, focusing on Bell. Why I may be "that guy," but I just don't get this movie. The first hour and a half are spent following what the audience suspects is the main character, Lewelyn Moss, until he just ups and dies at the hands of Mexican drug dealers (a scene shot in my hometown of Albuquerque by the way) at suddenly the movie just pulls the parking brake and and turns right around, focusing on Bell. Why waste the first hour and a half of the movie by shaking the left hand, saying hey look at this look at this, moving said hand to punch you the face, then kicking you in the shin and spit on you. It made me feel stupid, thinking that the movie might follow the character that had been the focus of the film: you start to build up emotions and feelings for Moss, then they are shooed away with out any thought for the audience, only to stroke the Coens ego. I'm usually a fan of the Coens, Fargo rocks, and the Big Lebowski is the funniest movie ever, but NCFOM is just cheap. It "subverts" film genres by not really following one certain one, but it cheats the audience out of any real satisfaction. I get the whole evil is coming, we are all doomed, don't even try to be a good human being because your actions will just go for naught and you will die lonely with a big Hispanic Mary Lou Renton standing over you, but god, how snooty. Expand
  33. Dr.Wayne
    Apr 14, 2008
    2
    One of the worst movies I've seen. You can talk about all the 'hidden' meaning all you want. It was not interesting, was very simple, just a simple double cross ... big deal. It's worth a 2 only because Tommy Lee was in it. Don't try to build up some idiotic intrigue ... there was none.
  34. GerhardL.
    Apr 2, 2008
    6
    The well matched Brolin and Bardem are great as the anti-hero and psycho killer exchanging wits and bullets. This, plus a few entertaining set pieces make for an interesting first half and set this film well on its way to being one of the year's best. Unfortunately, this is overshadowed by the Coens' shameless bid for academy awards by attempting to turn what has been up until The well matched Brolin and Bardem are great as the anti-hero and psycho killer exchanging wits and bullets. This, plus a few entertaining set pieces make for an interesting first half and set this film well on its way to being one of the year's best. Unfortunately, this is overshadowed by the Coens' shameless bid for academy awards by attempting to turn what has been up until the last 25 minutes a fairly linear and slow moving chase thriller into something more meaningful than it really is. An attempt that falls flat on its face as the film twists and turns horribly in a pathetic undertaking of audience 'shock and awe', which promptly flings the films two most engaging characters out of the picture. While Brolin's premature death can be taken on the chin, after all we've seen this before, you can't help wondering, as Bardem's mophead f**ks off unchallenged into the suburban sunset, why Tommy Lee Jones' two-dimensional, wise-cracking sheriff has suddenly become the centre piece of a film you were just starting to like and now you're not so sure. After all, you'd thought this film was about a Vietnam vet, a psycho and a big bag of money, but you were wrong. Actually, it's about an old fart in a tool shed, a bad dream and five Oscars, stupid. It's not about failing to comprehend or appreciate what the Coens are trying to do, but instead admitting that firstly, this just doesn't work for me and secondly, the disappointing realisation that this film's ending is equivalent to shitting a nice, new pair of pants. Expand
  35. OdhranH.
    Apr 20, 2008
    10
    seems to me every criticism of this wonderful film stems from the fact that it does not follow generic convention and structure- so what? do you people really find it so insulting to be challenged a bit by filmmakers, or have we all got so boring and safe that we just want visceral thrills, we just want what we expect? we don't like being invited to think for ourselves? also all the seems to me every criticism of this wonderful film stems from the fact that it does not follow generic convention and structure- so what? do you people really find it so insulting to be challenged a bit by filmmakers, or have we all got so boring and safe that we just want visceral thrills, we just want what we expect? we don't like being invited to think for ourselves? also all the Coens really did with the structure was stay faithful to the novel, so I don't get the criticism of them as being arrogant or trying to be clever- to all who say that- go and read the book. Expand
  36. DarrenP.
    Apr 22, 2008
    10
    very very good film, best l've seen in months.on par with Shawshank Redemption.a film were you don't want to get out of your seat.
  37. Aj
    Apr 25, 2008
    10
    Very intense thriller that kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time. BIG LEBOWSKI baby.
  38. ShortyGT500
    Apr 3, 2008
    10
    Never heard of Javier Bardem, but truly impressed...
  39. JP
    Apr 4, 2008
    3
    Violent & nihilist, beautifully done but ultimately pointless.
  40. MattR.
    May 17, 2008
    6
    An excellent first half gives way to an abysmal end to both the main character and the movie itself. The movie begins as an excellent thriller and dissolves into a confused and unlikeable discussion of good and evil. Brilliant performances and dismal set pieces can't save this movie from ultimately coming off as something that succeeds extremely well at first and then lapses into An excellent first half gives way to an abysmal end to both the main character and the movie itself. The movie begins as an excellent thriller and dissolves into a confused and unlikeable discussion of good and evil. Brilliant performances and dismal set pieces can't save this movie from ultimately coming off as something that succeeds extremely well at first and then lapses into thoughtful territory that should have been left out. Expand
  41. NikkoC.
    May 23, 2008
    10
    Slow? Confusing? Oh my.... When people rave that a film is great like, say, Schindler's List (and it is, it's a five star film, don't get me wrong), it always gets straight 9s and 10s.... No one gets thrown by it and it is well-acted and moving and y-a-w-n..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. But the real greats, the true greats, do not pander to everyone (euphemism). Great art never Slow? Confusing? Oh my.... When people rave that a film is great like, say, Schindler's List (and it is, it's a five star film, don't get me wrong), it always gets straight 9s and 10s.... No one gets thrown by it and it is well-acted and moving and y-a-w-n..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. But the real greats, the true greats, do not pander to everyone (euphemism). Great art never does. And then it consequently takes the risks that occasionally, as is so true here, make it better. Firstly, NCFOM has one of the all-time greatest bad guys in cinematic history. Complex in his simplicity, driven and scary as hell. In a metaphorical sense he has to represent a force and evil that cannot be quantified or understood and it only works because he gives the single-most scariest and most intoxicating performance I have ever seen along with Hopkins in SOTL. Like the Reaper himself, there is a lure and dread that accompany him and it is an achievement in selfless acting and craft that cannot be cheapened by words. It simply must be watched to be believed. God Bless you Javier. Secondly, it is not an oxygen tank per se, and it pains me that people do not watch movies more attentively. The devil is in the detail, as they say. The remark at the beginning is a MacGuffin, yet, instead of going on in that vein to rival Hitchcock's best films scenes and moments, this film outdoes them. Tommy says explicitly what it is, but, it's worth repeat viewings and I can't wait to see it again anyway, so, no biggie..... thirdly, the ending is so good, so perfect, that I am happy to admit that I wept for its brilliance. I said out loud, 'please end' and it cut to black and the credits began and I just dropped my head and in that moment I have to say, it was like a strong narcotic, that moment of knowing I had watched a perfect film. It was perfect folks. Perhaps better than perfect and, as Ron Burgundy would say, "That makes no sense." But then, it plays against a backlog of accepted movie 'traditions' that were always formulaic and trite, and instead the Coens, like the book (I imagine) make the brave choices true to the story, or most importantly, the ALLEGORY. See, people who are confused, or who don't spot the allegory and its bleak and moral undertones, will be 'gunning' for the hero, the old cop come good, the blah blah blah... they will be disappointed for reasons I will not go into and, well, sorry, but it's all bollocks. Grow up. It's a world of grey, not black and white. Santa's not real. Get over it. What you wanted is far less than what you got, but you can't see the wood for the trees. Please, open your eyes. It always was bollocks. The Coens knew this and they rise above over a hundred years of film-making tripe to deliver, regardless of some people's and even critics' (as indicated from the 30 - yes, 30 - above...what an idiot) inability to recognize it due to it placing an IQ-pre-requisite on the audience, the greatest and most perfectly shot and intensely-realized motion picture since the likes of Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Fargo!? Blood Simple (which I saw two weeks ago)!? You MUST be joking. Only someone who is afraid to enter the ghost world (if you will), the darkness itself and delve DEEP, as this film does, could say that those films come close to this film. This is indisputably the Coen brothers finest work and I say that as someone who LOVES them. Miller's Crossing is one of my all-time favs. But it can't match NCFOM.... Not remotely. It makes me want to reassess every perfect mark I have ever given! **SPOILERS** The Hotel Scene, the tracking device, the dog, the coin toss, the thematic and allegorical perfection...... as a film buff I recall somewhere along the way I had to pause the dvd, have a sip of tea and permit myself the audible admission that I was close to shitting myself for the amount of tension... and that I was in the midst of some bizarre cinematic orgasm (emotional/spiritual) as a result - and I say that as someone who has yawned through a thousand horror films. In fact if you are a horror fan, it is worth mentioning that this is also the best horror film I have seen in sometime. For you see, it is so thrilling and tense, it is horrific. And I loved it! Oh and the sound.... oh the sound is SOOOOOOO good. Watch this thing on 5.1, seriously. When it ended I simply was unable to move, but then, I got it. And bravo Coens, bravo.... Don't stress that some are like, "Oh, but ___," this and that.... you compromised nothing and you made my favourite film of all time. Thank you. I mean shit guys, this is easily the best film of this millenium even from an objective point of view..... Easily. Am I being a little elitist in saying this when some people clearly don't seem to 'like' (get) it? Um, I don't care. That's not how you go beyond the expected and create masterpieces. So the answer is, yes, the people who don't like it ARE wrong. Sorry, but it's that simple. They might not like NCFOM, that's fine, but it IS a great movie nonetheless. It just went over your head. You may lack a bit of dimension and/or be naive.... Don't sweat it. Even now, two days after seeing NCFOM, and just the one time, I ache. The best film I have seen this millenium. But by no means for everyone. Oh HELL NO.... if you'll excuse the pun..... And shoot me with a cattle-gun for saying it, but thank God for that. 11/10 Expand
  42. AnonNy'Mous
    May 3, 2008
    10
    Great film, in spite of what the others say. Maybe the way it breaks away from the norm after the first helps aid the point? Anyway how can a film with a villain such as that be unentertaining?
  43. DylanM
    May 3, 2008
    10
    I thought it was a great movie. Mainly due to its intelligence, if that makes sense. Its great action and story, but it could be real. Its not a movie that has dazzling special effects but really something that could have happened. Now the ending left me puzzled at first then i realized that that's just how it is in real life. Sometimes nobody wins, villains get away, and innocent I thought it was a great movie. Mainly due to its intelligence, if that makes sense. Its great action and story, but it could be real. Its not a movie that has dazzling special effects but really something that could have happened. Now the ending left me puzzled at first then i realized that that's just how it is in real life. Sometimes nobody wins, villains get away, and innocent people die. Not every movie can have a happy ending. Not every movie should. Its basically a commentary on how we as a society are today. We kill for pleasure (drugs) and those who stick to their morals often die or go crazy (pro and antagonist) Really makes you step back and look at your life and the people that surround you. Expand
  44. JamieL.
    Jun 12, 2008
    4
    This film had an abrupt ending that left many loose ends and frayed edges. The violence was mindless and not tasteful. There were many moments I was just completely confused. Although the film was extremely well-filmed and well-created, it was just not very good.
  45. JackZ.
    Jun 30, 2008
    0
    The acting is perfect, the camera work excellent, but unfortunately the source material is so diabolically terrible there was little chance of this film being any good, unless some major reworking was done. An abysmal movie which seems intent on mocking and insulting the viewer, promising closure but then ripping it away like some kind of failed orgasm. The main character is killed The acting is perfect, the camera work excellent, but unfortunately the source material is so diabolically terrible there was little chance of this film being any good, unless some major reworking was done. An abysmal movie which seems intent on mocking and insulting the viewer, promising closure but then ripping it away like some kind of failed orgasm. The main character is killed half-way through, and the last ten minutes of film seem totally absent. Did the makers have any grasp of how to tell a story? This film is an insult to anyone with the mental faculties to understand what a story is, and the fact it has garnered so much praise shocks and disappoints me. Ignore the hype, you'd find more satisfaction from viewing spasmodically undulating pictures of winos flashed on screen in time the noise made from industrial machinery. This film is the equivalent of if halfway through Star Wars, Luke decided he wanted to become a gardener, and then for the next sixty minutes you watched as he built a shed on a grassy lawn. Out of context, ridiculous, stupid, pointless, lacking any kind of sense, and hopelessly disappointing. Why would anyone make half a film and then decide to derail it in such an indescribably idiotic fashion?! WHY?! Expand
  46. AdamC
    Jul 27, 2008
    9
    Wow, great movie. I can't believe so many people voted it low. To all of those who did: not everything is spoon fed to you, I realize it is kind of difficult, but use your mind. Although the background on Bell could have been better, coming from someone who hadn't read the book, just thinking about what happened in the movie, and the point the movie gets across is pretty Wow, great movie. I can't believe so many people voted it low. To all of those who did: not everything is spoon fed to you, I realize it is kind of difficult, but use your mind. Although the background on Bell could have been better, coming from someone who hadn't read the book, just thinking about what happened in the movie, and the point the movie gets across is pretty amazing. I know it won't fit everyone's viewing style, but seeing it knowing that the outcome isn't just good over evil, will make the movie so much better to you. Overall, excellent movie. Very well done. Expand
  47. Kenny
    Jul 8, 2008
    10
    Superb film, almost flawless.
  48. SimonB
    Aug 29, 2008
    4
    Being left out on the loop. This is what this movie is all about. You watch a movie and for some reason, it feels like it's been going on for hours already. Some dude starts killing people just because he feels like it, never seems to be found by the police... Okay, I can dig it. Lots of movies have psychotic murderers never being caught by the police. Now another guy finds a bunch Being left out on the loop. This is what this movie is all about. You watch a movie and for some reason, it feels like it's been going on for hours already. Some dude starts killing people just because he feels like it, never seems to be found by the police... Okay, I can dig it. Lots of movies have psychotic murderers never being caught by the police. Now another guy finds a bunch of bodies, is pursued by unknown assailants... Then a sheriff comes up, asking stupid questions with his assistant... Then the killer dude called SHEEGURR kills some more people... Money's being tossed about. People are being fooled in to take money, then some Mexican guys show up and seduce this girl's ma... What the fuck?! This movie doesn't make any sense. It's kind of like watching a depressing version of American Psycho, with no music, no fun catch-phrases. Just a stoic antagonist which the movie seems to root for all the way. The only character that you want to attach yourself with gets killed before the end in the most degrading fashion... Then the sheriff becomes the main protagonist and all he has to do is go retire and talk about his dreams? Total. Rip. Off. Expand
  49. gcash
    Jan 3, 2009
    1
    This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. There was pointless killing with no sense of direction of the movie plot. I will never rent or buy a coen brothers film again!!!!
  50. Sam
    Oct 4, 2009
    0
    I saw this movie because of all the hype surrounding it and needless to say i was disappointed. It was too long, violent and slow in its execution and left me puzzled and disappointed.
  51. DanP
    Feb 2, 2009
    10
    Awesome.
  52. KM
    Mar 19, 2009
    9
    I can watch this movie a thousand times and still not get the significance of it, but I still liked it.
  53. LeviH
    May 21, 2009
    10
    Action films are, by definition, hot medium. The design is for the audience to be given all the information they desire and to be taken on a pretty ride. No Country For Old Men defies this by answering nothing. Who is Chigurh? What kind of man is he? Is he even a man at all? The Coen Brother's seem to have a distinct interpretation of the character, yet in keeping with their style Action films are, by definition, hot medium. The design is for the audience to be given all the information they desire and to be taken on a pretty ride. No Country For Old Men defies this by answering nothing. Who is Chigurh? What kind of man is he? Is he even a man at all? The Coen Brother's seem to have a distinct interpretation of the character, yet in keeping with their style they aren't exactly going to spell it out for the audience. This film, for days afterward, will make you think. This film, during it's screen time, will engross you in top notch cinematography, acting, editing, writing, and directing. Coming from a novel I considered largely unfilmable, the Coen's have created something special and unique, as only they could. Expand
  54. RommelA
    May 9, 2009
    10
    The movie provides great thrills and awesome acting. The actors know how to play their parts and they play them really well. I really recommend this game anyone!
  55. saran
    Jul 17, 2009
    10
    No country for old men is arguably one of the finest ever thriller movies made in hollywood.James Bardem is simply awesome with a stunning performance.
  56. MikeR.
    Aug 2, 2009
    10
    This movie will go down as one of the top films ever. Its sad that so many people cant shut there rambling gum chewing, instant judgment, minds off and just be zen with the movie. If they did they would be amazed by the atmosphere and pathos. I loved the ending. Poetic and true to his character.God how people just piss at genius like they know what these artist.
  57. JarekD.
    Aug 24, 2009
    0
    One of the worst movies I've ever seen.
  58. JohnH
    Aug 5, 2009
    2
    Weak film. Begins well and peters out. The central performances are laughable. I guess it was their year for the Oscar, but they've made much better.
  59. DanP
    Sep 5, 2009
    10
    Awesome.
  60. SteveH
    Nov 11, 2007
    7
    My biggest problem with this movie, is that it is not at the Fargo level. The critics are over hyping this movie. The acting is great but I got tired of Kelly Maconald's character, Your southern, naive and not too smart, ok, I get it. Where Fargo tied up most of the loose ends, this movie leaves you wondering.
  61. JonathanF.
    Nov 11, 2007
    9
    great, really great. tense. the ending kind of caught me off guard so i missed what was said.. it kind of had a bit of a lag before the great conclusion. other than that it was great.
  62. DMil
    Nov 11, 2007
    8
    The film making here is flawless. The performances, spot on! The locations were textured and retrospectively American. The film had a subversively liberal subtext which is a little cliche'. 2 problems for me were in it's general relevance and the (sorry) contrived story. By the end, I knew where it was headed and couldn't wait for it to be there. It will grow on me. Not the The film making here is flawless. The performances, spot on! The locations were textured and retrospectively American. The film had a subversively liberal subtext which is a little cliche'. 2 problems for me were in it's general relevance and the (sorry) contrived story. By the end, I knew where it was headed and couldn't wait for it to be there. It will grow on me. Not the subtext, but its wonderful ability to create tension through memorable images and twisted air blasts. Expand
  63. JoshB
    Nov 10, 2007
    5
    Be warned: this is the kind of film that most professional critics go nuts for. It's well-made, but in the end, not very satisfying (and not even close to the best work of Cohen Brothers, which I love). I agree with the the reviews from the Washington Post and The Hollywood Reporter. The rest are just happy to see something that's better than the crap Hollywood usually churns out.
  64. JackF.
    Nov 12, 2007
    10
    Wow! Mesmerizing! Brilliant from the opening scene to the poignant and bleak conclusion. Unfortunately, a certain core of movie fans will stay home. This is a very violent film! There will be others that will leave the theater disappointed or bewildered with the conclusion. The Coen's were faithful to the Cormac McCarthy book. Any other ending ruins the basic premise: it's Wow! Mesmerizing! Brilliant from the opening scene to the poignant and bleak conclusion. Unfortunately, a certain core of movie fans will stay home. This is a very violent film! There will be others that will leave the theater disappointed or bewildered with the conclusion. The Coen's were faithful to the Cormac McCarthy book. Any other ending ruins the basic premise: it's about the way life was and the way life is. If I hadn't read the book I may feel like many of you. Expand
  65. NathanT.
    Nov 12, 2007
    10
    A masterpiece that is every bit on the same level as the Coen Brother's "Fargo." It's a thrilling moral and ethical lesson disguised as a chase movie. Javier Berdam is mesmerizing as the villain, while Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin are riveting as the good guy and the harder to define character, respectively. This is one of the few perfect movies I've ever seen and it A masterpiece that is every bit on the same level as the Coen Brother's "Fargo." It's a thrilling moral and ethical lesson disguised as a chase movie. Javier Berdam is mesmerizing as the villain, while Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin are riveting as the good guy and the harder to define character, respectively. This is one of the few perfect movies I've ever seen and it already stands as one of the great theater-going experiences of my life. Expand
  66. JesseL
    Nov 12, 2007
    10
    DWilly, the movie doesn't take place now, it takes place a little over twenty years ago. Pay closer attention. Awesome movie. Brilliant. People who say that the ending is unsatisfactory may have missed the point. It isn't about Moss, the money, or any of the other characters. It is about Tommy Lee Jones losing his faith in humanity and his belief in their being a point. Hence DWilly, the movie doesn't take place now, it takes place a little over twenty years ago. Pay closer attention. Awesome movie. Brilliant. People who say that the ending is unsatisfactory may have missed the point. It isn't about Moss, the money, or any of the other characters. It is about Tommy Lee Jones losing his faith in humanity and his belief in their being a point. Hence the name and the ending. Expand
  67. MarcusF.
    Nov 12, 2007
    10
    Great movie, loved it, wonderful plot and well done story.
  68. Erak
    Nov 12, 2007
    10
    It's basically Fargo in Texas, only infinately darker and containing one of the most frightening villains in film history. It's great to see the Coens back in form after years of lackluster output. Note to DWilly--though not stated in the film, the story takes place in 1980. It helps explain how Brolin and Harrelson are 'Nam vets and appear so young.
  69. nateb
    Nov 12, 2007
    9
    DWilly, you are an idiot. Neither the film, nor the book on which it was based, is "contemporary." NCFOM is set in 1980. The references to Nam, along with countless other lines of dialogue and set pieces, are meant to clue you in to this. It's too bad you missed this, since it may have helped you to understand the entire fantastic film a bit better.
  70. nic-
    Nov 13, 2007
    10
    best of all the coen's serious films
  71. JaredC.
    Nov 13, 2007
    9
    No Country for Old Men is excitingly absorbing and grabs your attention with the main focus of this film played by the mysterious and frightening character being acted out by Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. It's also a very stunning visual with sustainable balanced violence and mild language, as well with its spine tingling paced length. Its 2 hrs of pure western-world acting, No Country for Old Men is excitingly absorbing and grabs your attention with the main focus of this film played by the mysterious and frightening character being acted out by Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. It's also a very stunning visual with sustainable balanced violence and mild language, as well with its spine tingling paced length. Its 2 hrs of pure western-world acting, escpecially played by Tommy Lee Jones. Although, it got kind of wonky when it shows scenes in the city but not in the wild west. The first time ever a film actually focuses on desperado crime. The Coen Brothers brings us something new to the big screen. Its something so extraordinary. Its the western masterpiece of 2007: No Country for Old Men. Hang on, its going to be an experience of your life. Just don't eat too much popcorn. It might ruin your appetite, and ruin the whole film. Expand
  72. JayK.
    Nov 13, 2007
    10
    Just saw an advance screeing last night and all I can say is...well there aren't any words to say except what an incredible piece of film making. Javier Bardem is chilling (enough said!), Josh Brolin gives a great performance as a man trying to compete with forces beyond his control and Tommy Lee Jones gives humanity to a character that tries to do what is right against a scoiety Just saw an advance screeing last night and all I can say is...well there aren't any words to say except what an incredible piece of film making. Javier Bardem is chilling (enough said!), Josh Brolin gives a great performance as a man trying to compete with forces beyond his control and Tommy Lee Jones gives humanity to a character that tries to do what is right against a scoiety that has changed significantly. This could be the Coen's finest. Expand
  73. KaseyS.
    Nov 17, 2007
    10
    Brilliant. Deftly points out that death is secondary to a life lived knowing one's futility.
  74. RE
    Nov 17, 2007
    6
    I was enjoying the hell out of this movie until the Coens apparently deemed me, and every other audience member, unworthy of seeing it. I "get it" and everything, but when the film ended and the lights came up, I felt cheated. It's a shame.
  75. BrendanM.
    Nov 18, 2007
    10
    As the comments below indicate, this movie challenges the intelligence of its audience. Gainsayers don't realize how this movie doubles as a very localized cat-n-mouse thriller and as a universalizable morality tale, straight out of a tradition that dates to Chaucer and beyond. The allegorical nature of the tale helps to explain the confusion about dating, because of course the As the comments below indicate, this movie challenges the intelligence of its audience. Gainsayers don't realize how this movie doubles as a very localized cat-n-mouse thriller and as a universalizable morality tale, straight out of a tradition that dates to Chaucer and beyond. The allegorical nature of the tale helps to explain the confusion about dating, because of course the Vietnam references are also veiled allusions to Iraq. The movie succeeds at enriching its sparsity with maximum complexity, yet also resists easy interpretation and judgment about the depravity of our society and the capacity to fight evil. With its gestures towards an older morality tale tradition, its pos-vietnam placement, and its hints of contemporary life, the film critiques both human depravity and our tendency to see our society's decline as a merely contemporary problem. Expand
  76. BabakP.
    Nov 18, 2007
    7
    I give the first 4/5 of the movie, a big10 and the last 1/5 a big 0. Also, It would've been better if tommy Lee jones's character didn't exist at all.
  77. AramisG.
    Nov 18, 2007
    9
    I seldomly love the Coen brothers movies. I mean, they are good, but I didn't crave seeing them again. This one is different and I'm sorry, the ending is pretty good.
  78. JamesB.
    Nov 18, 2007
    5
    Extremely disappointing! The first two thirds have a slow, tense build up, but the final act is a complete let down. At the end of the movie, I felt like I wasted 2 hours of my life. Unfortunately for the typically very tight Coen brothers, they let this film be dragged down by the pretentious boredom of literary windbag like Cormac McCarthy.
  79. NeilK.
    Nov 18, 2007
    2
    What a pretentious and pointless movie. Yes, yes, the camera angles and acting were all fine, but it completely lacked any sense of direction or purpose as well as any surprises or twists. The only message the movie seemed to have was, "We're the Coen brothers, look how great we are." Don't waste your money.
  80. AndyS.
    Nov 18, 2007
    9
    One of the Cohen bros. best yet. The pace and action in the movie keeps you on your toes and the out there visuals can make you laugh at the most graphic violence you will witness in years. The ending is a bit of a cop out.
  81. Angela
    Nov 19, 2007
    0
    Boring, slow and graphic, gory pointless scenes. Don't waste your time.
  82. NickAnno
    Nov 19, 2007
    10
    Joel and Ethan Coen created one of American cinema
  83. MikeA.
    Nov 21, 2007
    10
    A devasting film. Taut and intense
  84. JamesL.
    Nov 20, 2007
    3
    The second most disappointing and over rated film of the year after "Eastern Promises". This film is simply bloody carnage scenes, one ater another, disguised as a morality tale. "Natural Born Killers" was this graphically violent but at least it had a message. The only message I received was that the Coen brothers can stage a brutal murder scene numerous times without any real plot, The second most disappointing and over rated film of the year after "Eastern Promises". This film is simply bloody carnage scenes, one ater another, disguised as a morality tale. "Natural Born Killers" was this graphically violent but at least it had a message. The only message I received was that the Coen brothers can stage a brutal murder scene numerous times without any real plot, suspense or character development. Tommy Lee Jones looked and acted as if he was embarrassed to be in this soory spectable. The critics who are lavishing the extraordinary praise should be embarrassed as well. Expand
  85. RobG
    Nov 22, 2007
    10
    This movie is excellent for those who aren't retarded and are able to listen to the dialogue. It's as if the best scene of a movie is stretched out for two hours--there's not one boring moment! And uh, it's not even that violent; that is, the violence is realistic and not over the top as in a Tarantino film.
  86. LydiaF.
    Nov 22, 2007
    8
    Confusing beginning but very suspenseful and well acted.
  87. Paul
    Nov 23, 2007
    1
    This movie was one of the worst I had ever seen. It is bloody and gory and sadistic. I gave it at least one point for a little of the dialogue.
  88. JoeL.
    Nov 24, 2007
    5
    For the first hour this movie showed promise. After that it slowly went downhill until the end. I use the term "end" loosely. Because there was no end. The movie just stops. To call what was on the screen an ending does an injustice to writers all over this planet. Everyone, and I mean everyone, in the theater where I watched this debacle was murmuring and scratching their heads as they For the first hour this movie showed promise. After that it slowly went downhill until the end. I use the term "end" loosely. Because there was no end. The movie just stops. To call what was on the screen an ending does an injustice to writers all over this planet. Everyone, and I mean everyone, in the theater where I watched this debacle was murmuring and scratching their heads as they left. Perhaps if I had not read so many glowing reviews before I entered the theater I would not have been so disappointed when I left. But I doubt it. If not for the acting by the 3 main characters I wouldn't have rated this dud a 5 it would have been 0. Too bad they didn't let one of those three write the script. Or at least the last page. Collapse
  89. KevinB
    Nov 24, 2007
    7
    Yeah, it's basically "Fargo 2" without the humor but MUCH MORE suspenseful. Unfortunately it falls completely apart in the last 20 minutes. At the end you sit wondering what was the point of everything before. But that's Cormac McCarthy for you: write something in a specific genre, then make it not make sense and then it's not genre, "It's art!" The shocking part is Yeah, it's basically "Fargo 2" without the humor but MUCH MORE suspenseful. Unfortunately it falls completely apart in the last 20 minutes. At the end you sit wondering what was the point of everything before. But that's Cormac McCarthy for you: write something in a specific genre, then make it not make sense and then it's not genre, "It's art!" The shocking part is that the Coens fell for it. And don't get me started on some of the unintelligible Texas accents. Some scenes were incomprehensible because the actors talked like they had marbles in their mouths. Still it was extremely suspenseful, which makes it worthwhile. Expand
  90. JoeBlow
    Nov 24, 2007
    3
    Great acting. Great cinematography. Horribly pretentcious and self important false advertising. Teases with the promise of greatness but in the end only pees in your cornflakes. I got the point, the message, whatever. Who cares. I want to some sort of payoff or sense of satisfaction. A very skillfully executed dissapointment.
  91. AmandaM.
    Nov 25, 2007
    6
    After seeing this one, I realized yet again that I'm just not that big a fan of the Coen Bros. more serious movies - "MIllers Crossing" (which people love), "Man Who Wasn't There" and now "No Country..." just leave me cold. Bone cold. While I admire their restraint and ability to generate incredible tension, it's just not an enjoyable or stimulating experience. The film is After seeing this one, I realized yet again that I'm just not that big a fan of the Coen Bros. more serious movies - "MIllers Crossing" (which people love), "Man Who Wasn't There" and now "No Country..." just leave me cold. Bone cold. While I admire their restraint and ability to generate incredible tension, it's just not an enjoyable or stimulating experience. The film is so awash in nihilism, that when you get to the end, it's impossible not to wonder what the point was. The film is expertly executed - clearly the made the film they wanted to make. It just doesn't happen to be a film I wanted to see. Expand
  92. BTBerry
    Nov 25, 2007
    3
    This movie is so violent it made me sick. Moviegoers in general are somewhat inured to all the violence in movies these days but this film's realism was over the top for me. The last 15 minutes of the film were horrible and people shouted and boo'd at the abrupt ending. The only reason I gave it 3 points was that the characters were interesting enough to watch to the end. The This movie is so violent it made me sick. Moviegoers in general are somewhat inured to all the violence in movies these days but this film's realism was over the top for me. The last 15 minutes of the film were horrible and people shouted and boo'd at the abrupt ending. The only reason I gave it 3 points was that the characters were interesting enough to watch to the end. The movie really never made it's point (at least to me) though when you got to the finish. Expand
  93. BucklyS.
    Nov 25, 2007
    4
    Most overrated film I've ever seen. Well made with great performances, but after an excellent first half it descends into miserable on a great train of boredom. What a disappointment.
  94. JackP
    Nov 25, 2007
    5
    Highly overrated. It begins with an interesting plot, but it all just goes downhill and leaves too many things hanging in the end.
  95. jasperdelarge
    Nov 25, 2007
    9
    waaaah! this movie makes me think! waaahhh! this movie has no 'ending'! waaaaahhh! why do i have to draw my own conclusions! waaaahhh! why don't they spell the point out for me in the epilogue?

    this is the best ****ing movie of 2007.
    no country for old men > eastern promises > american gangster > 3:10 to yuma
  96. BenG
    Nov 25, 2007
    8
    First of all, the film is set in the early 1980s. There is nothing inconsistent about Moss being a Vietnam vet and so young, and there are no cell phones in the book or movie. You people aren't paying attention. Second, the book is meant to be a sober and somewhat defeated meditation on the violence of our society. I agree the ending deflates a bit from the hectic pace of the better First of all, the film is set in the early 1980s. There is nothing inconsistent about Moss being a Vietnam vet and so young, and there are no cell phones in the book or movie. You people aren't paying attention. Second, the book is meant to be a sober and somewhat defeated meditation on the violence of our society. I agree the ending deflates a bit from the hectic pace of the better part of the movie, but I appreciate what the Coen Bros and McCarthy are trying to do with their ending, which is mountains beyond what less talented writers - and Hollywood in general - might attempt. This movie is one of the strictest adaptations of a novel I have seen, which shows the reverence the Coen Bros have for McCarthy. Expand
  97. JackR
    Nov 25, 2007
    10
    If you like classic gangster movies, such as Pulp Fiction, you're home.
  98. ChrisS.
    Nov 26, 2007
    10
    One of the best movies I have seen in years. Unbelievably intense and violent . Also, it is sometimes funny and thoughtful. Classic scene after classic scene will stay with you long after you leave the theatre.
  99. RJM.
    Nov 26, 2007
    1
    It's really quite incredible the nut-busting the critics did over this one. it's just a silly movie. I agree with the guys before me who call it a really bad version of Fargo. the movie is entertaining, but really only in the sense that you're waiting for something entertaining to happen. even the would-be entertaining moments, like the dude's escape from his motel It's really quite incredible the nut-busting the critics did over this one. it's just a silly movie. I agree with the guys before me who call it a really bad version of Fargo. the movie is entertaining, but really only in the sense that you're waiting for something entertaining to happen. even the would-be entertaining moments, like the dude's escape from his motel room onto the street, are just drug out and emasculated of all their intensity. that's what this movie is, come to think of it: a limp penis. a limp penis trying pathetically to get hard. Expand
  100. BenJ.
    Nov 26, 2007
    10
    The film opens with Tommy Lee Jones' been-around-the-block Sheriff Ed Tom Bell doing nothing less than explaining exactly what the film is about. Once the voice over story finishes, the movie gets going and never really lets up. What is surprising is how the Coens took what could have been adapted into a mess of a cat-and-mouse serial killer chase film and make it not only one of the The film opens with Tommy Lee Jones' been-around-the-block Sheriff Ed Tom Bell doing nothing less than explaining exactly what the film is about. Once the voice over story finishes, the movie gets going and never really lets up. What is surprising is how the Coens took what could have been adapted into a mess of a cat-and-mouse serial killer chase film and make it not only one of the best movies of the year, but one of the best in recent memory. How do they do this? Simply by treating the audience like adults. This taut, tense, genre-bending film lays out the story expertly defying as many traditional narrative structures as possible along the way. Every shot, every line of dialogue, every grunt and every sigh are packed with information. Each and every performance is wonderful, from Jones to Brolin to Bardem and everyone they encounter along the way. This is the Coen's masterpiece. Expand
Metascore
91

Universal acclaim - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 1 out of 37
  1. It’s a near masterpiece.
  2. 100
    Joel and Ethan Coen's adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel is an indisputably great movie, at this point the year's very best.
  3. 90
    It's the most ambitious and impressive Coen film in at least a decade, featuring the flat, sun-blasted landscapes of west Texas -- spectacularly shot by cinematographer Roger Deakins -- and an eerily memorable performance by Javier Bardem, in a Ringo Starr haircut.