User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1307 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. Jun 29, 2015
    0
    Terrible movie! It's boring, empty, pretentious, too long and full of stupid characters. The plot is ridiculous, there is no progression and no ending. Movie that hasn't nothing to say, only a huge waste of time.
  2. Dec 9, 2014
    0
    Truly awful - unwatchable wooden acting and a mindless script only for kiddiwinkles without a brain.
    It's amazing that funding can be found for trash like this when so many deserving scripts go wanting...
  3. Oct 7, 2013
    2
    Javier Bardem deserves every award he got in this film. A dedicated and masterful performance. Movie-wise details though, the film grips my attention during tense chases between Llewelyn and Anton. Concept-wise, rather flat and I understand the ending but as a first watch experience, it is utterly disappointing. The book is a masterpiece and I commend the Coen Brothers for their attempt toJavier Bardem deserves every award he got in this film. A dedicated and masterful performance. Movie-wise details though, the film grips my attention during tense chases between Llewelyn and Anton. Concept-wise, rather flat and I understand the ending but as a first watch experience, it is utterly disappointing. The book is a masterpiece and I commend the Coen Brothers for their attempt to adapt the book, but as a book-to-movie, it just doesn't work. Expand
  4. May 19, 2013
    2
    the one thing i learned from this movie is that you can still get disappoint even if you are already disappoint which is exactly what happened to me before and after watching this movie.
    the only reason i watched it in the first place because of the Oscar for best picture in which the movie didn't deserve and here's why.
    the script was corny the screen play was silly the characters
    the one thing i learned from this movie is that you can still get disappoint even if you are already disappoint which is exactly what happened to me before and after watching this movie.
    the only reason i watched it in the first place because of the Oscar for best picture in which the movie didn't deserve and here's why.
    the script was corny the screen play was silly the characters were stupid and the directing was normal and there isn't a music and a moral afterward.
    some how the producer/directer was able be lazy in terms of screen play and people weren't able to recognize that but if you do you will notice that there isn't a dialog which might be the laziest way to produce a movie with only few good scene and a huge gap between them.
    in terms of Javier Bardem performance anyone would be able to do that cause there isn't a default standard way to play his role anyone could fill that role and play it his own way and you won't complain about it trust me.
    Expand
  5. Feb 26, 2013
    2
    Slow paced and entirely unsatisfactory pretentious hipster bullcrap. So many things done wrong: pacing is slow, uneventful, crappy ending. It was 2013 when I saw this movie, so I guess analogy like "No country" is Mass Defect 3 of the film world would make sense
  6. Oct 7, 2012
    0
    This 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.
  7. Aug 24, 2011
    0
    This film is a steaming pile of **** and one of the worst movies I have ever scene 0 out of 10
  8. Aug 21, 2011
    0
    I 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.
  9. Oct 23, 2010
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie may be "a piece of art" and work on many different psychological levels but they clearly forgot that it had to make sense. This movie doesn't even have an ending, it just proves that psychopaths have the tendency to kill people when armed with a cattle gun and facing a bunch of morons who are so stupid they probably only just manage to dress themselves in the morning. For example the guy who was stopped by Bardem in a police car: When noticing that he had no badge or uniform and was carrying a cattle gun as a sidearm, he thought that listening to whatever he said (even to the point of getting shot in the face) was the best idea. Or Brolin bringing water back to a man who was clearly going to be dead and not even considering that people will look for the money. Never mind the fact that the movie went nowhere slowly and somehow no-one cares or fears a serial killer on the loose apart from 2 cops, they could have at least make it look like they cared about movie. Expand
  10. Aug 29, 2010
    0
    I thought this movie was such a waste of time that I have gone out of my way to write a review. As it is based on a fictional work (book) there seems to be no logical sence for brutal violence then for pure entertainment. I don't find brutal and senseless violence entertaining. I do not find it artistic or enriching or in any way psychologically interesting.
    The movie did not have the
    I thought this movie was such a waste of time that I have gone out of my way to write a review. As it is based on a fictional work (book) there seems to be no logical sence for brutal violence then for pure entertainment. I don't find brutal and senseless violence entertaining. I do not find it artistic or enriching or in any way psychologically interesting.
    The movie did not have the riveting plot or entertainment value of Silence of the Lambs or Pulp Fiction. It did not have strong characters such as Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugative whith it's suspence. There was no witty dialogue or great music.
    In my opinion the movie lacked everything in quality. The ending was a total letdown as if someone who was working on the ending just handed it in unfinished and left.
    72 people were murdered in Mexico last week - do people find that entertaining? I understand that art is up to interpretation but just as there are great works of art there are really poor ones. A broken lightbulb on a wet floor at the Guggenheim that is exhibited for a month draws reaction and it is weak - just because something is new and has not been done before does not mean that it is great art and good. Awarding this piece of dung with an academy award takes away from all the great productions which have been awarded in the past and cheats the public into thinking that any junk, no matter how bad it is will be great and worth enduring and spending your money on just because it was awarded and got great reviews. This movie is one of the worst ever and a disgrace to have been awarded. Javier Bardem Bardem is a good actor in many things - not an academy award winner in this one. The Coen brothers should pay me back for my time wasted watching their junk but I will know better in the future. I am watching every Best Picture Academy Award winner and about 60% of the way through, this is by far the worst movie. Had it not been on the list I would not have bothered to watch it until the end.
    Don't waste your time or money. Sensless violence can be had daily on the news.
    Expand
  11. HughB
    Apr 18, 2010
    0
    The worst movie I have ever seen, this is saying a lot seeing as I am a film student, have watched Birth Of A Nation and can usually enjoy ANY type of movie for one reason or another. No character development, boring characters (No the killer is not scary), jumpy plot and useless sound track (I have heard people call the silence tense, watch The Hurt Locker for a good example of that) The worst movie I have ever seen, this is saying a lot seeing as I am a film student, have watched Birth Of A Nation and can usually enjoy ANY type of movie for one reason or another. No character development, boring characters (No the killer is not scary), jumpy plot and useless sound track (I have heard people call the silence tense, watch The Hurt Locker for a good example of that) NCFOM is just boring. If you like it and write good reviews for this film maybe you should actually watch it first. Expand
  12. Dave
    Dec 28, 2009
    0
    Horrid movie. What you have is a psychopath running amok, killing 3 random people before he even eats his breakfast. Meanwhile, out of all the law enforcement in the U.S., it seems that only one chronically depressed sheriff even cares to try to track the guy down... but apparently he isn't smart enough to look for fingerprints on that glass of milk. Somehow the critics were fooled Horrid movie. What you have is a psychopath running amok, killing 3 random people before he even eats his breakfast. Meanwhile, out of all the law enforcement in the U.S., it seems that only one chronically depressed sheriff even cares to try to track the guy down... but apparently he isn't smart enough to look for fingerprints on that glass of milk. Somehow the critics were fooled by the various displays of technical expertise into thinking this was a good movie. In reality, all these shining little aspects can't save the movie from its own dismal plot. Expand
  13. ThomasW
    Nov 6, 2009
    1
    Sick, sad, and funny that nearly all critics are raving about this awkward, hurriedly composed, and absurd celebration of an evil guy who is never hampered by realism. e.g. no handcuffs behind back; able to reach top of office building carrying a long shotgun; not stopped by severe car wreck; plus Josh Brolen snuffed out - blink and you'll miss it. Riduculous script. Move overrated Sick, sad, and funny that nearly all critics are raving about this awkward, hurriedly composed, and absurd celebration of an evil guy who is never hampered by realism. e.g. no handcuffs behind back; able to reach top of office building carrying a long shotgun; not stopped by severe car wreck; plus Josh Brolen snuffed out - blink and you'll miss it. Riduculous script. Move overrated film I have ever seen. Expand
  14. 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.
  15. ZacH.
    Sep 21, 2009
    0
    Critics like boring movies this is one of them but the ending is no joke the worst ending to a movie of all time it ends with the cop talking about his dream.
  16. JarekD.
    Aug 24, 2009
    0
    One of the worst movies I've ever seen.
  17. 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.
  18. JeffB.
    Jul 20, 2009
    0
    Although 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".
  19. 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.
  20. MS
    Jul 2, 2009
    3
    After what seemed to be a somewhat interesting cat and mouse movie hits a nice brick wall and I don't just mean the ending as some people did not understand. Plot: A serial killer trying to get back 2 mil in drug money. Money, killer, southwest USA - not much to understand and definitely not something you haven't seen before in a nice made for TV movie. But besides that point, After what seemed to be a somewhat interesting cat and mouse movie hits a nice brick wall and I don't just mean the ending as some people did not understand. Plot: A serial killer trying to get back 2 mil in drug money. Money, killer, southwest USA - not much to understand and definitely not something you haven't seen before in a nice made for TV movie. But besides that point, to remind you that Javier Bardem who is a good actor and a decent serial killer in this movie, won best supporting actor at the Academy's for literally walking around and into different hotel rooms and killing random people who we don't care about. Oh, ok - occasionally he would give some psychotic speech that a smart serial killer should do in these kind of movies, ya know, the speeches that try to justify why he's killing people. So here's a scene about an hour and a half into the movie (spoilers): A woman is seen trying to get moss to have a couple of beers with her. 30 seconds later, Sheriff Bell finds him in a puddle of blood. Oh, that's nice, just show the killer kill all the pointless human beings in the movie, but when it comes down to one of the main characters, just show him that he's dead. Then, the remainder (15 minutes or so) of the movie is of this Tommy Lee Jones cop character who all we know is a cop up to this point. This guy was only seen in about 3 or 4 scenes prior to this point and we are supposed to care about the fact that he cannot go out and catch this killer because he is to old. Oh he had 2 dreams that basically told him his "reality." Give me a break. Oh wait - we have to like this movie because there's symbolism because if movies have symbolism we have to love them and give them awards. "It's free will and chance that the killer goes around and kills people. It's morality, it's deep, it's dark, it's meaningful." Really? So in every other movie that you see that a guy kills somebody, you can't apply THESE SAME THEMES of free will and chance? Take some advice here, if you want symbolism, read a John Steinbeck book. If you want symbolism and murder, read Watchmen. At least it has a point and more than enough symbolism. I really do not like much of the Coen Brothers' movies, especially Fargo. Watching No Country for Old Men makes me even hate Fargo even more. The Coen Brothers want to portray how Tommy Lee Jones is too old to go out and catch this killer but in Fargo, a 7 month pregnant woman can shoot down a psycopath in a snowy day in North Dakota. Go figure out that logic. Expand
  21. 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
  22. DC
    Apr 30, 2009
    3
    Good performances, interesting enough characters with a nice tone of its own. I was really enjoying it, feeling the tension build and build and then whoosh the cohens whip the rug out from under you and as you sit there lying on your back going "Hey what the hell happened?" the two brothers pull down their pants and take a nice big steaming dump on your face. While shouting "Ha Ha fuck Good performances, interesting enough characters with a nice tone of its own. I was really enjoying it, feeling the tension build and build and then whoosh the cohens whip the rug out from under you and as you sit there lying on your back going "Hey what the hell happened?" the two brothers pull down their pants and take a nice big steaming dump on your face. While shouting "Ha Ha fuck you consumer, fuck you. You want closure? You want an ending that is in some way satisfying to the viewer? You want to at least have a final denouement between one of the protagonists and the psycho? Fuck you moron eat our filth!!" That's how I felt anyway. A film that could have been great totally destroyed by the most horrendous "bait and switch" I've ever had the misfortune to see. In a word "Disgusting". Expand
  23. GARYA.
    Feb 21, 2009
    3
    Obscure, but without depth.
  24. Stung47000
    Jan 20, 2009
    0
    Who 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!
  25. 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!!!!
  26. Tom
    Dec 28, 2008
    0
    Imagine 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.
  27. ButteredPopcorn
    Nov 28, 2008
    2
    Nice 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.
  28. JohnD.
    Oct 27, 2008
    3
    Intriguing 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.
  29. KNob
    Sep 9, 2008
    1
    This movie started with an improbable story line that led no where. This was a total waste of time.
  30. 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
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.