- Studio: Miramax Films
- Release Date: Nov 9, 2007
User Score
7.3
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 995 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 744 out of 995
-
Mixed: 83 out of 995
-
Negative: 168 out of 995
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
-
May 19, 20132
-
Feb 26, 20132Slow paced and entirely unsatisfactory pretentious hipster bullcrap. So many things done wrong: pacing is slow, uneventful, crappy ending. It was 2013 when I saw this movie, so I guess analogy like "No country" is Mass Defect 3 of the film world would make sense
-
Oct 7, 20120This movie sucked. There's a reason why it lost money at the box office, and was winner at the least-watched Academy Awards of all time. That reason is this: it's boring, pretentious, and shoddily made.
-
Mar 31, 20124No country for old man is the Cohen brothers weakest film. You see i need a score in a movie to help it move along, when this movie did not incorporate music it made it very boring in a lot of parts. pretty good acting with a few a good scenes though.
-
Aug 24, 20110This film is a steaming pile of **** and one of the worst movies I have ever scene 0 out of 10
-
Aug 21, 20110I think they are ill. After about an hour one no longer cares who lives or dies. My own life experience is utterly at odds with what is shown. We are told that the theme is biblical. Tosh. I repeat: I think that the Coen brothers are ill.
-
Oct 23, 20102This review contains spoilers, click expand to view.
-
Aug 29, 20100
-
HughBApr 18, 20100
-
-
DaveDec 28, 20090
-
-
SylviaCDec 25, 20094
-
-
ThomasWNov 6, 20091
-
-
SamOct 4, 20090I 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.
-
-
ZacH.Sep 21, 20090Critics like boring movies this is one of them but the ending is no joke the worst ending to a movie of all time it ends with the cop talking about his dream.
-
-
JarekD.Aug 24, 20090One of the worst movies I've ever seen.
-
-
JohnHAug 5, 20092Weak 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.
-
-
JeffB.Jul 20, 20090Although the actors did a great job ... the plot had no substance or meaning due to a poorly written ending. I don't even think the Director could tell you what it meant. All i can figure out is they reached thier target budget and said "Alright ... let's end it here".
-
-
DallinPJul 13, 20090A 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.
-
-
MSJul 2, 20093
-
-
SteveJun 30, 20092
-
-
DCApr 30, 20093
-
-
GARYA.Feb 21, 20093Obscure, but without depth.
-
-
AnonymousMCFeb 3, 20094
-
-
Stung47000Jan 20, 20090Who told Hollywood that in order to make an original movie nowadays you have to make it suck at the end? The movie was a 10 until the last act, but then it ended so god-awful it actually deserves a negative score for failing so hard!
-
-
gcashJan 3, 20091This 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!!!!
-
-
TomDec 28, 20080Imagine an episode of "Popeye the Sailor Man" but with real actors and barrelfuls of tomato ketchup. That's "No Country for Old Men". Pathetic and shallow despite excellent photography.
-
-
ButteredPopcornNov 28, 20082Nice acting that was unfortunately wasted on this film that seemed to say nothing. Agree with all the others who said this was a waste of time, and the ending could of only have been worse if i cared enough to want to figure it out.
-
-
JohnD.Oct 27, 20083Intriguing but not a movie I would say was enjoyable. The acting was incredibly good but the ending left me with no closure which I so desperately was looking for in a movie that was convoluted in many ways. Too many unanswered questions for me and I would not recommend this movie and do not understand all the hype it has received.
-
-
ErickSep 13, 20084The only reason I'm giving this a 5 is because I watched it after "There Will Be Blood", which was even worse.. If there isn't a sequel to this then it is pointless.
-
-
DenizY.Sep 13, 20084I'm not stupid, but this is just 120 minutes of some guy going around killing people with a bolt gun. It was boring, had the worst and most awkward ending in recent memory. Seriously, why do people like this movie? I don't think they get it either, they just believe it looks intelligent and so they play along. Retards, the lot of you!
-
-
KNobSep 9, 20081This movie started with an improbable story line that led no where. This was a total waste of time.
-
-
SimonBAug 29, 20084
-
-
LaurenceE.Jul 6, 20084I saw this movie on dvd at home on a big screen projector.Maybe it was a different version to the one at the cinema.. I thought it was a predictable story with no twists of any great substance. I was not on the edge of my seat nor was it a thriller or heart stopping. Some of the acting was ok but I was disappointed overall. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
-
-
JackZ.Jun 30, 20080
-
-
TedK.Jun 20, 20084
-
-
JamieL.Jun 12, 20084This 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.
-
-
TinoR.May 3, 20081Rented the video for a dollar at a vending machine in the local drug store. It wasn't even worth the dollar.
-
-
LindaW.Apr 26, 20081The ending ruined the whole movie.
-
-
MichelleApr 26, 20082
-
-
LWeeksApr 25, 20081I 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
-
-
JosephS.Apr 22, 20083This movie had such promise for the first half, but derails somewhere along the way. If you enjoy movies that focus on quirky characters and symbolism far more than a good storyline and plot, than this might be for you. Extremely disappointing.
-
-
JimM.Apr 22, 20084How did this win an academy award? What a horrible movie. No entertainment value whatsoever.
-
-
JacoboN.Apr 20, 20083Overrated movie, a not so good FARGO .
-
-
SKApr 20, 20080A VERY VERY bad movie. I have no idea how this movie won an Oscar. I contemplated multiple times during the movie of walking out, but I endured till the end in the hope that the end would salvage the movie. No such thing, the end leaves you with an even worse feeling. Horrible, horrible movie.
-
-
CathiM.Apr 19, 20081Woody Harrelson was the best thing in the movie and that says it all.
-
-
JonathanK.Apr 18, 20081This 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.
-
-
JasonS.Apr 16, 20084All I can say about this movie was the ending is a huge letdown. I realize that the Coens were aiming for symbolism and mystery in a dramatic finish, but it just didn't work for me.
-
-
JohnC.Apr 15, 20082One of the worst movies we've seen. It was terrible. How the heck it was nominated for anything is beyond me.
-
-
Dr.WayneApr 14, 20082One 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.
-
-
MikeI.Apr 14, 20084
-
-
TedT.Apr 13, 20083What was all the hype about???? You must be kidding me. This was shot like something from the 70's. If thats what turned you on..then watch something from the 70's. I'm still scratching my head over why I heard so many people say "best movie I've seen" are you serious? This was nothing more than...nothing.
-
-
LeoM.Apr 13, 20083Plodding display of meaningless violence. No redeeming qualities at all.
-
-
MiKEApr 10, 20080Wow! What a disappointment this turned out to be! Pointless, unreal, boring, and a terrible ending!
-
-
ArmondA.Apr 10, 20080
-
-
KrisKelleyApr 6, 20083Unsatisfying ending.
-
-
JPApr 4, 20083Violent & nihilist, beautifully done but ultimately pointless.
-
-
LeeC.Mar 30, 20080This 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.
-
-
TheBestMar 30, 20080The 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.
-
-
SeanA.Mar 27, 20081The 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.
-
-
FredB.Mar 23, 20083
-
-
RMB.Mar 20, 20083
-
-
DianaChertovaMar 19, 20082I 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..
-
-
GraMar 18, 20083
-
-
elenakarpovaMar 18, 20084
-
-
AaaB.Mar 16, 20083Uhggg... 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!!
-
-
MiltG.Mar 16, 20081
-
-
SharynMar 15, 20083
-
-
AdamK.Mar 15, 20083I didn't get it, I guess. A mildly exciting movie at parts, but mostly it was deadly boring and without any real ending.
-
-
MaggieMar 15, 20080Soooo stupid, soooo lame, soooo boring. Give me my 2 hours back. Soooo hollywood crap.
-
-
DougMar 14, 20080Pointless violence strung together by a thin plot with an ending that looks like they just run out of money and stopped. Hard to fathom how it could get nominated let alone win any award.
-
-
lindaMar 14, 20080Are 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.
-
-
CoryGMar 14, 20081There 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.
-
-
JanN.Mar 14, 20084
-
-
KirkPMar 13, 20082At 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?
-
-
DavidS.Mar 13, 20081Overrated, over-hyped, couldn't wait until it was over. Enough said.
-
-
ewenm.Mar 8, 20083Way over-rated. pointless, characters void of any interest; been done better many times before.
-
-
aaronMar 7, 20081
-
-
MikeSt.Mar 4, 20081Anyone who rated this movie higher than five must be unaware that it has been made dozens of times before. Guy takes drug dealers money and drug dealer chases him - the only difference is the other movies actually had an ending. The Coen brothers borrowed a tired plot and the ending of "The Sopranos" and get an academy award? No wonder nobody watches that joke of an awards ceremony anymore.
-
-
AudreyC.Mar 3, 20081When 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!!!
-
-
JohnJMar 2, 20082
-
-
JackBMar 2, 20084The first 90 minutes of this film had me on the edge of my seat. Then within 5 minutes and two scenes, everything that had been building up was ruined by an incredibly poor and ill constructed twist. After watching Broken Flowers, which also had no ending, i must say im becoming somewhat disillusioned by the film industry at this moment in time.
-
-
MarkusMar 2, 20081
-
-
DD.Feb 27, 20082The least surprising movie the Cohen bothers have made. It
-
-
ElaineN.Feb 26, 20080The only movie that I have seen that was WORST than this one was BELOVED!! You couldn't pay me to sit thru it again!! Are the Acadamy voters HIGH??????
-
-
christianFeb 24, 20080Complete pile of dookie.. The writers strike started 2/3 of the way in. Typical elitist Hollywood garbage. Just because you give this movie a 10 doesn't make you better than me.
-
-
LV.Feb 24, 20080This movie and every thing around it, is a very good example of how the American film industries has been in decay for the last few years.
-
-
TomTFeb 24, 20082A 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.
-
-
BruceW.Feb 10, 20082This 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.
-
-
blueenigma-blackgirlFeb 10, 20082
-
-
chadFeb 4, 20083
-
-
AnonymousMCFeb 3, 20081
-
-
TrickyHFeb 3, 20084
-
-
MaureenFFeb 3, 20081
-
-
PriyanthT.Jan 31, 20083Slow and boring. Too much of editing.
-
-
TrevorA.Jan 29, 20081What 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.
-
-
RichJan 28, 20082
-
-
JGHJan 26, 20082
-
-
JohnH.Jan 26, 20083Reasonably 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.
-
-
JeffAJan 26, 20083
-
-
SibylPJan 23, 20081
-
-
90It’s a near masterpiece.
-
100Joel and Ethan Coen's adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel is an indisputably great movie, at this point the year's very best.
-
90It'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.