Miramax Films | Release Date: November 9, 2007
7.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1504 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,150
Mixed:
169
Negative:
185
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
1
RJM.Nov 26, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DDDec 2, 2007
A cacophony of horrible violence for no apparent reason. It's simply a poor cross b/t Fargo and the bounty hunting element of Raising Arizona. The main killer is not sympathetic, he's just a psychopath. I love Fargo, Raising A cacophony of horrible violence for no apparent reason. It's simply a poor cross b/t Fargo and the bounty hunting element of Raising Arizona. The main killer is not sympathetic, he's just a psychopath. I love Fargo, Raising Arizona, and Miller's Crossing. I dislike this film. Please see another one. It's dull. It doesn't have a climax. People are killed needlessly. I feel like i need a shower to wash off the blood from the movie. The only redeeming quality is how it teaches one how to survive multiple injuries. It's a bit of a survivalist video. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
TeresaTuttleDec 27, 2007
Just because something is different does not mean it's good. In the beginning I thought I would enjoy this movie, but by the end I realized this was 2.5 hours of my life I will never get back. The plot had moments of completeJust because something is different does not mean it's good. In the beginning I thought I would enjoy this movie, but by the end I realized this was 2.5 hours of my life I will never get back. The plot had moments of complete derailment and it had no end. Sorry, but I hated it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JeffreyAnonquerinDec 30, 2007
If this movie had been entitled "This Movie Is A Metaphor For The Presidency Of George W. Bush" I might have forced myself to sign on. Indeed, if there had been any point ot the movie at all. It is, undoubtedly, very preciseIf this movie had been entitled "This Movie Is A Metaphor For The Presidency Of George W. Bush" I might have forced myself to sign on. Indeed, if there had been any point ot the movie at all. It is, undoubtedly, very precise edge-of-your-seat filmmaking. But to what end? Do we simply glorify violence? Is relentless amoral violence the essence of our civilization? Or even if it is, is it enough to simply SHOW it without comment, smirking on the sidelines? This film is over-rated by sycophantic critics who need to have above-it-all heroes of cynicism to fill in the empty foreground of their own nihilistic lives. Unfortunately, maybe they themselves are more like the dregs of society portrayed than they realize. Being so jaded is how they accomplish such a pompous feat. Films like Juno or The Great Debaters deserve much more attention than this empty intensity. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DavidMarxDec 31, 2007
I will come out and say it, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. And I'm being completely honest about this. I will also come out and say that this is the scariest movie I have ever seen. And it is not like the kind of scary whereI will come out and say it, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. And I'm being completely honest about this. I will also come out and say that this is the scariest movie I have ever seen. And it is not like the kind of scary where you scream and then laugh with your friends. This is the kind of scary where you literally are considering leaving the theatre.
And I'm not saying that this movie was poorly made, don't get me wrong. The imagry and sense of emotion is paramount! But it had no climax and the plot was only visited every once and a while. You would think that the movie would end when ****SPOILERS**** Moss was killed by the Mexicans, but no, it continues with boring and seeminly irrelevent talking sequences with the police chief. I came out of it dissapointed and releived it ended.

Also, the ending sucked. ****SPOILERS***** After Moss died, the psychopath broke into Moss's wife's house and KILLS HER. Then as he's driving away he gets hit by another car, and guess what, HE WALKS AWAY. It's like giving a middle finger to everyone who managed to watch the whole thing.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
KeithHildebrandDec 31, 2007
Very disipointing esspecially the ending. Started out very good with stong characters until all were killed off with sensless violence. Ending with evil winning and a stupid ending which left you empty. It has been a long time sense I haveVery disipointing esspecially the ending. Started out very good with stong characters until all were killed off with sensless violence. Ending with evil winning and a stupid ending which left you empty. It has been a long time sense I have been in the theator where the patrons showed there dissapointment at the end. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SusanDec 3, 2007
I can't believe I wasted 2 plus hours on this movie. It was pointless violence and there was no ending whatsoever. I could not believe my eyes when the opening credits rolled. I wish I could have my time and money back.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
WillT.Dec 5, 2007
A sadistic, ridiculously violent and pretentious waste of time. It has no relationship to real life and no meaning.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JoshSDec 6, 2007
This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It started out with good promise, but got worse and worse as time went on. There is no story development and no ending.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
LeonGDec 7, 2007
I have one thing to say about this movie, "The Emperor's New Clothes." True, the acting was good, the dialog was real but the substance wasn't there. Listening to someone drone on about nothing does not make a good movie. Honest I have one thing to say about this movie, "The Emperor's New Clothes." True, the acting was good, the dialog was real but the substance wasn't there. Listening to someone drone on about nothing does not make a good movie. Honest people, not trying to feel superior to us less insightful and intellectual people, will freely admit that the Emperor is not wearing clothes. This movie is not worth the time or the money. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ButteredPopcornNov 28, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RonaldG.Jan 22, 2008
A psychopath who eventually kills nearly everyone in the movie doesn't do much for me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TomDec 28, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JGHJan 26, 2008
Those who rate this movie in the 7-10 category have either got to be KIDDING! ... paid critics --- or people who spend time analyzing the deeper meaning of an abstract painting --- only to discover it was created by dipping a dog's tail Those who rate this movie in the 7-10 category have either got to be KIDDING! ... paid critics --- or people who spend time analyzing the deeper meaning of an abstract painting --- only to discover it was created by dipping a dog's tail in paint and allowing him to wave it against a canvas --- This middle of the movie has some good suspense held together by good actors --- but, overall, the plot and story meander pointlessly through gratuitously violence until abruptly slamming to a finish that leaves viewers wondering if the editors broke the film three-fourths of the way through ... and never bothered to splice the ending back on! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JohnD.Oct 27, 2008
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 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. Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful
0
LV.Feb 24, 2008
This 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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
christianFeb 24, 2008
Complete 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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
ElaineN.Feb 26, 2008
The 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??????
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DougMar 14, 2008
Pointless 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.
1 of 3 users found this helpful
3
GraMar 18, 2008
All I saw was a film filled with unintentionally hilarious moments and awkward, confused symbolism. It seems to me like people have had the wool pulled over their eyes with this one. It's all very well to say 'you just don't All I saw was a film filled with unintentionally hilarious moments and awkward, confused symbolism. It seems to me like people have had the wool pulled over their eyes with this one. It's all very well to say 'you just don't get it', but i am yet to read anything describing exactly what there was 'to get'. Don't get me wrong, I like films with a message, but there's a difference between ambiguity and nonsense. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JohnC.Apr 15, 2008
One of the worst movies we've seen. It was terrible. How the heck it was nominated for anything is beyond me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
CathiM.Apr 19, 2008
Woody Harrelson was the best thing in the movie and that says it all.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ThomasWNov 6, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DaveDec 28, 2009
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 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful
0
ZacH.Sep 21, 2009
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
[Anonymous]Nov 14, 2007
I would like to point out that the reason for DWilly's confusion is probably because the book itself is confused. Moss is supposed to be 37 in the book, a Vietnam vet, yet people are described using cell phones. So something's not right.
1 of 3 users found this helpful
3
ToddG.Nov 19, 2007
The first 2/3 of the movie are tight and very well done. The story just dies, and falls flat by the end. Such a shame. I don't understand why the critics fell all over themselves to give the "No Country" such good ratings. It is one of The first 2/3 of the movie are tight and very well done. The story just dies, and falls flat by the end. Such a shame. I don't understand why the critics fell all over themselves to give the "No Country" such good ratings. It is one of those things where they assume that because the Coen brothers have made good movies in the past, that they must be doing something right. NOT THE CASE here. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
AlF.Nov 22, 2007
This film is just "Fargo", set in Texas instead of Minnesota. Unfortunately, it has the violence of "Fargo" without the humorous moments or charming characters. The plot is completely implausable. The critics like it because it is different. This film is just "Fargo", set in Texas instead of Minnesota. Unfortunately, it has the violence of "Fargo" without the humorous moments or charming characters. The plot is completely implausable. The critics like it because it is different. To me, as a casual film viewer, it's just an exercise in excess from directors that are out to shock audiences with cheap violence. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JiriAug 29, 2010
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 brutalI 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
1 of 11 users found this helpful110
All this user's reviews
2
maplejoeOct 23, 2010
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
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
0
RHWArguileAug 21, 2011
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.
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
2
NolaCerisFeb 26, 2013
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 filmSlow 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 Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
marcolevoJun 29, 2015
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews