No Country for Old Men

User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1316 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. Mar 31, 2012
    4
    No 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.
  2. Mar 31, 2012
    6
    The first time I saw this movie I thought it was great. I was cringing to see what will happen next, but the second time I saw it...I lost all the feeling. I know that happens after the first time, but everything just seemed sucked out of it.
  3. May 26, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Nothing but a total disappointment. 2007 was a strong year for movies, so when this film won many Oscars I had very high expectations. This film failed to even somewhat meet them. This is a completely boring, pointless, unentertaining, waste of time. It started out pretty good, but with the exception of a few shootouts and great cinematography, this film is not good. The acting is good. However, Javier Bardem winning the Academy Award? Chigurh is one heck a villain, but I don't feel like any of the intensity of the character came from the acting. I feel like the character was written as a creepy guy, regardless of the performance. As for Josh Brolin's character, he had so little dialogue, it's nearly impossible to feel any interest in him whatsoever, then he dies. I did enjoy Tommy Lee Jones and Kelly Macdonald's performances though. The thing that is so unsettling about this film is the plot. It makes no sense. I get the beginning part with the money and I understand who's chasing who, but why? The plot just kind of starts without any information as to who the characters are and what their motives are for doing what they do. I'm all for movies that make you pay attention, but when it comes to the relevance of characters, it's important to back up with details. Woody Harrelson and Javier Bardem's characters almost seem irrelevant to the plot because so little is known about them. I'm sure it was done this way to create an element of surprise for intensity, but all it did was make this film make no sense. With all this being said, I feel this is a brilliantly made film. The cinematography is great. Certain scenes and the way they were shot really stand out. But, I strongly dislike this film! It did win Best Picture so you should see it for that, I guess. But for a true brilliant film of 2007, check out There Will Be Blood or Juno instead. Don't waste your time on this overrated mess! Expand
  4. Feb 18, 2015
    4
    I'm tired of being "turned on my ear." I understand, Coens, that not every movie is going to be a happy ending, but when I realize that everyone is doomed in the first ten-twenty minutes of the movie, it's kinda tough to build up hope in anyone accomplishing anything.

    The runner runs. The hunter hunts. The meek wife frets. And Tommy Lee Jones is too old for this ****

    I get it.
  5. Feb 19, 2012
    5
    The Coen Brothers weakest movie, No Country for Old Men, is a suspenseful and well-done cat and mouse thriller. However, the only thing GREAT about it is Javier Bardem. Is it a good movie? Yes. Is it a Best Picture movie? No.
  6. Aug 13, 2013
    6
    No es lo mejor de los hermanos, y esperaba mucho de esta película. Tampoco es mala, pero un 6 es la nota justa. Siempre están bien dirigidas, pero con esta en particular no me paso lo mismo que con otras de los hermanos. Me aburrí por momentos, pero rescato la magnífica actuación de Lee Jones y Bardem.
  7. Oct 15, 2010
    6
    A good movie but there is some parts to it that should of been thought over a bit more by the Coen brothers such as the fact we see Anton Chigurh kill a load of people, but we never see him kill Llewelyn Moss, who is one of the main characters of the film.
  8. Jan 22, 2014
    4
    After just seeing the Coen Brother's masterpiece "Inside Llewyn Davis" I decided to go back and re-watch some of their previous movies. I started with No Country for Old Men. I have tried very hard to enjoy this movie and see what all the fuss is about but I can't. It is a great looking movie and some interesting scenes especially the shootout where Llewellyn and Anton first butt heads,After just seeing the Coen Brother's masterpiece "Inside Llewyn Davis" I decided to go back and re-watch some of their previous movies. I started with No Country for Old Men. I have tried very hard to enjoy this movie and see what all the fuss is about but I can't. It is a great looking movie and some interesting scenes especially the shootout where Llewellyn and Anton first butt heads, but that's about it. First off, I thought Anton Chigurh was a terrible character. Everyone says how menacing he is, but he's just ridiculous. Secondly, I don't get Tommy Lee Jones significance. His character doesn't do a damn thing in the whole movie and serves virtually no purpose. Josh Brolin did a really good job as per usual, but besides that, the movie is just bland and overblown to be something it obviously isn't. Expand
  9. Oct 19, 2012
    5
    i think it is d hollywood's one of the most overrated movie of all time and does not deserve to win an oscar for best picture.. although bardem's acting was very good.
  10. Nov 30, 2014
    4
    An excellent movie until the expected showdown is denied to the viewer. I know a big, action packed finale is a cliche but we should get something as an alternative that's equally as satisfying. Instead, the viewer gets nothing. We turn up after it's all happened, Tommy Lee Jones sits down and morosely, whitters on for what seems like an eternity. Bardem gets a mildly interesting sceneAn excellent movie until the expected showdown is denied to the viewer. I know a big, action packed finale is a cliche but we should get something as an alternative that's equally as satisfying. Instead, the viewer gets nothing. We turn up after it's all happened, Tommy Lee Jones sits down and morosely, whitters on for what seems like an eternity. Bardem gets a mildly interesting scene at the end but it's little compensation. Expand
  11. Dec 5, 2011
    5
    I can see why critics claimed this movie to be an instant classic, but it's a movie with too much drag. The big ups for this movie was the superb acting from the cast, especially Javier Bardem who showed us the real psycho side of a serial killer. The fact that this movie doesn't have any composed music until the credits shows it's power. It's as if composed music isn't needed. The problemI can see why critics claimed this movie to be an instant classic, but it's a movie with too much drag. The big ups for this movie was the superb acting from the cast, especially Javier Bardem who showed us the real psycho side of a serial killer. The fact that this movie doesn't have any composed music until the credits shows it's power. It's as if composed music isn't needed. The problem is that the scenes make you want to see what's going to happen next, then as the movie progresses it's as if you're taking a mid afternoon nap. It's a movie that when it ends you'll go like, "What? that's it? Well that was a big waste of time." The story is strong, but not strong enough for some people to understand what's going on in the film. I do recommend watching this, it's good, but good in a way that you have to sit and watch too much silence. Otherwise, decent movie, I'll still claim it to be one of the Coen brothers best. Expand
  12. JalexDiamond
    Mar 30, 2008
    6
    Definitely not a terrible film, but it seems like a hodgepodge of good ideas which are executed well in and of themselves. Unfortunately, it is ONLY in and of themselves that they are so well executed. The film does not connect well on any level by the final scenes. And, many things are simply not explained. Now, I don't desire to simply be spoon-fed answers by a film, but i watched Definitely not a terrible film, but it seems like a hodgepodge of good ideas which are executed well in and of themselves. Unfortunately, it is ONLY in and of themselves that they are so well executed. The film does not connect well on any level by the final scenes. And, many things are simply not explained. Now, I don't desire to simply be spoon-fed answers by a film, but i watched this film 4 times in a row and looked it up on the internet so I might understand. But, alas, the answers needed to complete this riveting-until-the-end film are simply not there. Also, something of note is Javier Bardem's performance. It has been raved about, but it is not a truly great performance. Chigurh is an interesting character, a different character, but the performance is rather simple overall. His dialogue proves that he is a madman, but not a chilling one. Just a murderer who kills people because he is a madman. His psyche seems too cyclical and bland to make this as good a performance as it should be. Overall, it's an interesting watch, but nothing close to the best film of 2007. Expand
  13. Davidd
    Dec 7, 2007
    5
    I am not going to speak for the movie so much because everything good and bad that has already been said about it. I just what to just say how just ridiculous some people are to blame Metacritic for a rating a movie has. "i am not going to trust metacritic again". What?!! You dopes do realize that metacritic just basically accumulates all the scores from the real critics, don't you? I am not going to speak for the movie so much because everything good and bad that has already been said about it. I just what to just say how just ridiculous some people are to blame Metacritic for a rating a movie has. "i am not going to trust metacritic again". What?!! You dopes do realize that metacritic just basically accumulates all the scores from the real critics, don't you? They don't rate anything! hint hint, Bruce T. SIGH! Expand
  14. NK
    Feb 3, 2008
    6
    For me, Stephen Hunter (Washington Post) has hit the nail on the head. I appreciate what the Coen's are doing, I just don't care for it.
  15. SteveS.
    Mar 25, 2008
    5
    This must be the most highly over-rated movie of 2007. Violence was just gratuitous after a while. The plot goes awry half way through: after the transponder in the money bag is discarded, how does Javier track his prey?? I just did not see that at all; it just becomes a tactic (by the directors) to kill more people. And the ending... what was that all about?? The sheriff retires, the This must be the most highly over-rated movie of 2007. Violence was just gratuitous after a while. The plot goes awry half way through: after the transponder in the money bag is discarded, how does Javier track his prey?? I just did not see that at all; it just becomes a tactic (by the directors) to kill more people. And the ending... what was that all about?? The sheriff retires, the villain walks away (without the money), so what was the point of the movie?? This was a major disappointment for me after all the hype. Expand
  16. ChrisSOC
    May 17, 2008
    6
    Some interesting characters..... after that it is a story that has little point, and is one of the most overrated films of all time.

    What is it with film critics and their "best movie I've seen this year," both the top movies of 2007 I've seen kind of suck. Acadamy worthy acting, but light years from acanamy worthy movie.
  17. LaurenceE.
    Jul 6, 2008
    4
    I 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.
  18. mg
    Jan 21, 2008
    6
    awesome middle, brimming with tension and brilliant acting. crap last half hour though and a real let down was when you don't even see llewelyn die. Really it's crap from there on out.
  19. MarkR
    Jan 20, 2008
    6
    This seems to be a love it or hate it kind of movie. I experienced neither emotion. But I'm not sure that I understand what all the critical fuss is about. I like the Coen Bros. and their films. I love serious and artistic films. I even went to one of the best film schools in the country and studied film criticism. And yet this film left me cold. One thing that bothers me about many This seems to be a love it or hate it kind of movie. I experienced neither emotion. But I'm not sure that I understand what all the critical fuss is about. I like the Coen Bros. and their films. I love serious and artistic films. I even went to one of the best film schools in the country and studied film criticism. And yet this film left me cold. One thing that bothers me about many of the comments posted here by those who loved the film is the inference that you must be an idiot if don't like it, that you must only appreciate mindless action films if you don't love No Country for Old Men. As I stated above, I know a lot about film and appreciate films of all kind and I'm certainly not an idiot (for a career I publish and editor a well regarded independent music and entertainment magazine, if that means anything), and yet I can't get behind No Country for Old Men as one of the absolute best films of the year. The basic premise/plot (stolen drug money and the assassin on the trail of the money) has been done many times before. But obviously the Coen Bros. twist the conventions of the genre in somewhat interesting ways. I found the movie engaging for the first two-thirds or three-fourths, but then it lost me. The final ending itself did nothing for me what-so-ever. Based on the Oscar contenders that I've seen thus far this year, I'd much prefer that There Will Be Blood or Atonement win best picture, two films that affected me emotionally much more than No Country for Old Men did. From an intellectual perspective I could appreciate No Country for Old Men, although I still don't understand why so many critics and audience members seem to have such undying love for it, but I truly feel that both Atonement and There Will Be Blood are better made films in all facets. Still, you should definitely see this one for yourself and form your own opinion either way. Expand
  20. AnonymousMC
    Jan 3, 2008
    4
    Cinematography, Directing, Casting, Art Direction, Acting, and other technical aspects are all spot on. Even the writing is superb. The movie has some incredible dialog and more than a few scenes that shine. It's just that the movie doesn't take you anywhere and leaves you wondering why the Coen's bothered. I saw the film opening day because I am a fan of the Coen'sCinematography, Directing, Casting, Art Direction, Acting, and other technical aspects are all spot on. Even the writing is superb. The movie has some incredible dialog and more than a few scenes that shine. It's just that the movie doesn't take you anywhere and leaves you wondering why the Coen's bothered. I saw the film opening day because I am a fan of the Coen's but was confused and disappointed by the movie. I honestly felt that I had missed something in the movie (and, in fairness, perhaps I did). I was going to ask my very astute freind who attended with me to explain the movie to me, when he turned to me and said, "let's stay through the credits to see if there's another short scene that will tell us what this movie was about. "
    The movie to me was like a father who promises his child a trip to Disneyworld and then takes time to get the kid excited by showing him pictures of Disneyworld, telling him about Disneyworld, introducing him to the cartoon characters he'll meet at Disneyworld, even going so far as to put him into the car, luggage and all, to leave for Disneyworld, and then at the last moment says, "we're not really going to go to Disneyworld."
    That's what the movie did for me. It's not just that it made me hope for something I didn't get - it's worse than that - it's that it gave me every reason to hope and then dropped me flat on my face. The very things that are so right about this movie are what make it all the more disappointing in the end. It just seemed like a cruel joke on the viewer rather than a bad movie.
    Never-the-less, the pictures of the Disneyworld it showed where high-def, color corrected glossies, and they looked really nice.
    Expand
  21. Tim
    Jan 4, 2008
    6
    "What's the point?" indeed. I've been rolling the events and characters in this movie around in my head for the past hour, and I really don't think this movie was that great. I enjoyed it, to some degree, but all the hype about how brilliant it is seems like just a lot of hype. Nothing was revelatory about the way this film handled it's themes and I was not powerfully"What's the point?" indeed. I've been rolling the events and characters in this movie around in my head for the past hour, and I really don't think this movie was that great. I enjoyed it, to some degree, but all the hype about how brilliant it is seems like just a lot of hype. Nothing was revelatory about the way this film handled it's themes and I was not powerfully affected at any point during the movie. Finally, this movie is so frikkin' violent that it becomes blase at some point. I didn't think the violence was implemented in a way that gave it some sort of profound meaning either. All that being said, the performances are excellent and it's fairly enjoyable to watch. Expand
  22. JamesW.
    Feb 18, 2008
    5
    Great acting all around. Great story until the end where they forgot to tie up any loose ends. News flash to the cinematic snobs -- a movie can have a hidden underlying meaning AND an ending -- they aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, it would take more movie-making skill to include both.
  23. MikeP.
    Feb 19, 2008
    6
    I personally think this move is overrated but it looks like it will get best picture which is fine I guess since many people including friends of mine loved it, the movie is above average as far as I am concerned but I am not one of the many people who was touched and thought it was great
  24. MikeM.
    Feb 23, 2008
    5
    Fargo in Texas. Didn't impress me a whole lot. Not nearly as good as Fargo. Some wars have less dead people!
  25. TrickyH
    Feb 3, 2008
    4
    This movie seems to be yet another vehicle for the cinema elite to demonstrate how much smarter they are than the rest of us. Take zaja's comments below. The guy in the cinema that didn't like the movie was not just a guy but a "loud guy": an oaf. Likewise, to understand this movie you have to think "like a grown up." By deduction, if you don't like the movie you must be This movie seems to be yet another vehicle for the cinema elite to demonstrate how much smarter they are than the rest of us. Take zaja's comments below. The guy in the cinema that didn't like the movie was not just a guy but a "loud guy": an oaf. Likewise, to understand this movie you have to think "like a grown up." By deduction, if you don't like the movie you must be childlike. Zaja's main point seems to be that the movie is great because it breaks out of the conventional stereotype, ironically he/she can't seem to break his/her own thinking away from typecasting individuals based on their response to this movie. When we play the moviegame we invest in a story by suspending our disbelief. We are prepared to overlook shortcomings in the way the story is told for the sake of the story itself. This movie requires a sizeable investment: there are significant plot holes, improbable scenarios and incredulous character actions (hint: when you find a psychopath sitting in your bedroom don't sit down beside him but make a run for the door.) When we play this game we have a right to expect a return on our investment. Unfortunately, when it comes time for payback in this movie, we find that the storyteller has skipped town leaving us with a plot deficit. So to all the critics who "got this movie," I got it too - I just didn't like what I got. It left me with the same uneasy feeling I get when someone puts their hand out to shake and then pulls it away at the last moment as a joke. Expand
  26. GK.
    Mar 1, 2008
    5
    Love the cohen brothers movies.....but this movie absolutely is not Academy Award material. Script holes, continuity, who's who, so many flaws it hard to count them all up. Look forward to better movies from the Cohens.
  27. manresaxxx
    Mar 15, 2008
    6
    As a Filmmaking graduate I adored Coen's because of their unusual style in editing and storytelling.But I must say that it was not the excessive show off of the violence that makes the film superficial, but it is the self-conciousness that Coen's always use, but this time I think is failed.The unconsciousness is exaggerated so much that you can see it everywhere from lightning As a Filmmaking graduate I adored Coen's because of their unusual style in editing and storytelling.But I must say that it was not the excessive show off of the violence that makes the film superficial, but it is the self-conciousness that Coen's always use, but this time I think is failed.The unconsciousness is exaggerated so much that you can see it everywhere from lightning to the dialogs.The cold-mysterious and distancing atmosphere of the film of course, done by purpose, But the film is not either a western or a film noir.and I dont really understand the critics talking about Western Noir,because there is no such genre. There are only 11 major Genres and some sub- cathegories.And I think those who say that this film is Film noir, didnt even watch Billy Wilder.Every Genre has its own elements and nobody can call a western as Film Noir depending on some lightning preferences.are they trying to ?NVENT a non- existing genre by mixing some weak proofs ? Expand
  28. elenakarpova
    Mar 18, 2008
    4
    I dont see what all these people are waving to..But we all should consider why oscar Committee gave it an oscar, which I think , Like everything in america jewish lobbie works a lot.Except its cinematic measures, the movie is a crap and actually does not deserve an Oscar.No one sane or non-jewish can say that it was a masterpiece. Coens in the past, did better movies to be nomited asI dont see what all these people are waving to..But we all should consider why oscar Committee gave it an oscar, which I think , Like everything in america jewish lobbie works a lot.Except its cinematic measures, the movie is a crap and actually does not deserve an Oscar.No one sane or non-jewish can say that it was a masterpiece. Coens in the past, did better movies to be nomited as masterpieces like Fargo. Expand
  29. RichardP.
    Mar 24, 2008
    5
    In Yeats' "Sailing to Byzantium" that opens with the line, "That is no country for old men," I am reminded of the fleeing antelope in one of the early scenes of the movie, and the last lines of Ed Tom Bell : "I seen he was carryin' fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. 'Bout the color of the moon. And in the dream I In Yeats' "Sailing to Byzantium" that opens with the line, "That is no country for old men," I am reminded of the fleeing antelope in one of the early scenes of the movie, and the last lines of Ed Tom Bell : "I seen he was carryin' fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. 'Bout the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin' on ahead and he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. And then I woke up. " . . . echoing strangely in Yeats' poem: "O sages standing in God's holy fire As in the gold mosaic of a wall, Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre, And be the singing-masters of my soul. Consume my heart away; sick with desire And fastened to a dying animal It knows not what it is; and gather me Into the artifice of eternity." . . . make of it what you will. Expand
  30. Carol
    Mar 28, 2008
    6
    I generally like the coen's work, try to get past the violence and nihilism. But, I just couldn't get past it on this one. The one redeeming point I took from the film is the poignancy of the overall message- along with age comes a realization and possibly acceptance of those things that you no longer understand and the liberation that comes iwth that realization.
  31. JackB
    Mar 2, 2008
    4
    The 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.
  32. DavidH.
    Mar 30, 2008
    6
    Disappointing. Although the movie is fast paced and beautifully filmed, it's nihilist message left me cold. I thought Kelly McDonald was very good.
  33. TS
    Mar 6, 2008
    5
    I must admit I'm baffled by the critical success of this movie, and I'm generally a Coen Bros. fan. I just don't get it. I'll admit that the chase between Bardem and Brolin is exciting, but that's about it. Best Picture??! Somebody please explain the point of it all. Didn't resonate for me, and every time one of the characters (mostly Tommy Lee Jones) started I must admit I'm baffled by the critical success of this movie, and I'm generally a Coen Bros. fan. I just don't get it. I'll admit that the chase between Bardem and Brolin is exciting, but that's about it. Best Picture??! Somebody please explain the point of it all. Didn't resonate for me, and every time one of the characters (mostly Tommy Lee Jones) started off on an inteminable blah-blah-blah, I contemplated the wax in my ears and waited. Expand
  34. DavidStone
    Apr 6, 2008
    6
    Despite excellent cinematography and a strong cast, the film's plot meanders to a very unsatisfying end. While it's understood that Good doesn't always triumphant over Evil, the requisite show down between Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) and Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) doesn't happen. Failing that, you would have expected a showdown between Chigurh and Sheriff Bell (TommyDespite excellent cinematography and a strong cast, the film's plot meanders to a very unsatisfying end. While it's understood that Good doesn't always triumphant over Evil, the requisite show down between Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) and Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) doesn't happen. Failing that, you would have expected a showdown between Chigurh and Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Again this doesn't happen. What about Woody Harrelson's early, pathetic exit? I guess the Coen Brothers wanted to break the Hollywood Movie stereotype. For me, this existential ending simply didn't work. Expand
  35. TedK.
    Jun 20, 2008
    4
    This was a good chase movie until a dramatic shift marred the last third or so. The "ending"--if one can even call it that--was one of the worst I've ever seen. The emperor's-new-clothes crowd like to mock you as a simpleton if you don't appreciate how "deep and thought-provoking" the ending is--all the while failing to say what makes it so deep or thought-provoking. This was a good chase movie until a dramatic shift marred the last third or so. The "ending"--if one can even call it that--was one of the worst I've ever seen. The emperor's-new-clothes crowd like to mock you as a simpleton if you don't appreciate how "deep and thought-provoking" the ending is--all the while failing to say what makes it so deep or thought-provoking. Non-elitists know better. Expand
  36. PaulS.
    Jul 10, 2008
    6
    Really slow, a bit unrealistic, could have been shorter.
  37. JoeA.
    Sep 5, 2008
    6
    Possibly the worst ending to a movie ever. One user compared it to winning the lottery only to find out it was a joke, a perfect analogy. I would have given this movie a 10 rating if it had an ending!
  38. AnonymousMC
    Feb 3, 2009
    4
    Probably the most overrated film of the year. I'm not gonna be harsh like G cash but I also won't defend the movie. I was bored for most of the film. As well, the ending left things out that needed to be resolved, questions that remained unanswered. I was at no time entertained during the film, even with some fantastic acting by Javier Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones. I really wantedProbably the most overrated film of the year. I'm not gonna be harsh like G cash but I also won't defend the movie. I was bored for most of the film. As well, the ending left things out that needed to be resolved, questions that remained unanswered. I was at no time entertained during the film, even with some fantastic acting by Javier Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones. I really wanted to like this movie...but I didn't. Expand
  39. denimb
    Jun 18, 2010
    6
    90% of the movie was fantastic, but the end is so bad(it has no happy end).
  40. NormD.
    Nov 14, 2007
    6
    More proof of the cluelessness of critics. Film takes one idea and beats it to death- sorry for the pun. Audience with me was sorely disaappointed-- booing at end.
  41. RobertI.
    Nov 17, 2007
    5
    Highly overrated. Substitutes smartass wisecracks for dialogue that might cause authentic frisson. Tommy Lee Jones cracks his role open like a golden egg, with hard-bitten stoicism as wizened as his face. Otherwise, what a disappointment.
  42. DougR.
    Nov 19, 2007
    4
    would have scored it much higher, but for the ending... i won't spoil it here, but thought it was ridiculous in the extreme... a really terrific movie, right up to the point where it chooses to become a truly lousy one.
  43. RobertH.
    Nov 22, 2007
    5
    A well-made but essentially boring movie. i wasted my time. The Coen brothers still can't top Fargo.
  44. ChrisP.
    Nov 25, 2007
    5
    empty. an empty movie. not a single note of score throughout the entire movie, which I guess is an artsy way for the Coen bro to portray the stark emptiness and violence of a disillusioned American landscape. the point of the whole movie as i took it is that we are a violent nation, we were founded in violence, and always will be violent. it isn't any better or worse off than it was empty. an empty movie. not a single note of score throughout the entire movie, which I guess is an artsy way for the Coen bro to portray the stark emptiness and violence of a disillusioned American landscape. the point of the whole movie as i took it is that we are a violent nation, we were founded in violence, and always will be violent. it isn't any better or worse off than it was in the good ole days, the days that many pine for as being a better time to live....no so, says the coens. we've always been homicidal maniacs. so if thats the lesson you want driven home, go see this movie. great villain, no question, but overall i was just expecting the movie to pick-up or GO somewhere...which it never does. (spoiler alert) and how the hell can you as directors let the audience miss out on a scene where your main character gets offed?! you can't cheat us out like that. no conclusion in the end, the movie just ended in a frustrating fade to black alla sopranos. i realize this is a movie for a more intuned thinking audience but i got just as much thought provoked out of beowulf, and THAT was immensely more entertaining! Expand
  45. ArielG
    Dec 29, 2007
    5
    I'll admit I got suckered into this movie because of all the positive critic reviews. After watching the movie, I was left feeling disappointed and felt that the movie was highly over-rated. The acting was solid, especially from Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin. I was literally scared of Bardem's portrayal of the Anton character. The dialogue and the characters were quite good.I'll admit I got suckered into this movie because of all the positive critic reviews. After watching the movie, I was left feeling disappointed and felt that the movie was highly over-rated. The acting was solid, especially from Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin. I was literally scared of Bardem's portrayal of the Anton character. The dialogue and the characters were quite good. However the pacing was very uneven though, tense and suspenseful one moment followed by long drawn out scenes which added nothing to the main storyline. For most of it, the movie just dragged on and on. Running at more than 2 hours, I felt that the script could've bit tightened up a bit more, which would've made it more watchable. Also the abruptly ending, the disjointed storylines, and the suspense that resulted in no pay off, left me and a few others in the theatre disappointed. The Coen bros have made classic movies that have reached cult status, like Fargo, Miller's Crossing and Big Lebowski. Then there are the movies they've made which aren't so great, like as Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. I'm afraid No Country For Old Men fits into the latter category. It's not that bad, but it's certainly not as good as critics have made it out to be, definitely not the best of 2007, not by a long shot. Expand
  46. MikeF.
    Dec 4, 2007
    4
    I love the Coen Brothers and looked forward to this movie, especially because of the trailers and the critics' reviews. I had faith that all of the stuff that I was watching throughout the movie would turn into a spectacular ending. It did not. I cannot believe that anyone would give this movie anything more than a 7. It had its witty moments, but the ending ruined it for me. I haved I love the Coen Brothers and looked forward to this movie, especially because of the trailers and the critics' reviews. I had faith that all of the stuff that I was watching throughout the movie would turn into a spectacular ending. It did not. I cannot believe that anyone would give this movie anything more than a 7. It had its witty moments, but the ending ruined it for me. I haved watched O Brother Where Art Thou, Millers Crossing, Fargo, and Raising Arizona many times. When I see one of them on as I'm channel surfing, I almost always stop. I will never watch a single scene of No Country again. Expand
  47. Jwh
    Dec 4, 2007
    5
    Tense and taut. But with plot holes you could drive a truck through. Everyone in the movie (especially bad guys) has sonar/radar and are bloodhounds. The first half of the movie, it makes sense and is explained... the second half, everyone mystically can track everyone else and it is crap. The ending is so-so trying to make a simple point about Tommy Lee Jone's character and Tense and taut. But with plot holes you could drive a truck through. Everyone in the movie (especially bad guys) has sonar/radar and are bloodhounds. The first half of the movie, it makes sense and is explained... the second half, everyone mystically can track everyone else and it is crap. The ending is so-so trying to make a simple point about Tommy Lee Jone's character and pretending it is "artistic." Over-rated. Hyped. Pretentious. I can see why a lot of the critics liked it. Expand
  48. RobertC.
    Dec 7, 2007
    6
    Based on all the glowing reviews of this film I was a bit disappointed with it. There are some great performances, the story is engaging and very thought provoking but the ending is a BIG letdown. This would have been a much better film for me had the ending been better. So, do not expect a satisfying ending. I realize the movie is based on a novel and the ending may be faithful to the Based on all the glowing reviews of this film I was a bit disappointed with it. There are some great performances, the story is engaging and very thought provoking but the ending is a BIG letdown. This would have been a much better film for me had the ending been better. So, do not expect a satisfying ending. I realize the movie is based on a novel and the ending may be faithful to the book but it doesn't work for me. You have been fore warned! Expand
  49. JeffA
    Jan 10, 2008
    5
    What I liked about NCOM Javier Bardem could be the greatest villain of all time. He stole every scene and basically redefined evil. Acting performances and cinematography was outstanding. First half of the movie was intense and just seemed to keep building up. Now the bad stuff So many flaws that I don't know where to start. The film leaves so many questions unanswered. No character What I liked about NCOM Javier Bardem could be the greatest villain of all time. He stole every scene and basically redefined evil. Acting performances and cinematography was outstanding. First half of the movie was intense and just seemed to keep building up. Now the bad stuff So many flaws that I don't know where to start. The film leaves so many questions unanswered. No character development whatsoever. There are scenes and characters in the film that just lead us astray and have no business being in the final cut. The lead is actually killed off screen after following his every move for 2/3 of the film. WTF? More plotholes than swiss cheese. Now its considered the greatest film of the decade. Greatest thing since sliced bread since the critics don't understand it. Could be the most overrated movie of all time. It stands at #23 of all time on the IMDB list as I write this. I'd like to add that its the only film on this incredible list that lacks an ending. Believe me, I wanted to love this movie. Mislead once again by the critics. They are all in together to rob us of our hard earned cash. Expand
  50. LloydM.
    Jan 12, 2008
    4
    The movie was engaging, but every movie needs a beginning, middle and end. This movie had no ending. This may be a critics dream, but it left me and several others who went, wondering what was the point of this movie and why did we waste time and money to leave frustrated.
  51. TomD
    Nov 8, 2008
    5
    The acting was great by everyone. the story was good until the end way to many holes that were not filled in it reminded me of the soprano's ending not giving you the closer the movie deserve.
  52. erics
    Jan 4, 2008
    5
    Tommy Lee Jone's character was well thought out, you could actually feel the struggles he was going through. The rest of the characters though were very weak...the entire movie you are asking yourself WHY?! Too much violence for violence's sake, especially given the ending. The ending did give you pause, and is perhaps worth discussion, but fell short in the context of theTommy Lee Jone's character was well thought out, you could actually feel the struggles he was going through. The rest of the characters though were very weak...the entire movie you are asking yourself WHY?! Too much violence for violence's sake, especially given the ending. The ending did give you pause, and is perhaps worth discussion, but fell short in the context of the entire move. Expand
  53. DamienArkins
    Jan 4, 2008
    6
    The Anthony Lane review in the New Yorker is remarkably accurate and insightful in my opinion. He actually does not give a score but I think 6 is closer to the 7 that metacritic ascribed him.

    Yes, film criticism is a subjective thing but I would argue to the ends of the earth that this is not a 10/10 film.. In fact I would say that 7 is as far as anyone who values originality and
    The Anthony Lane review in the New Yorker is remarkably accurate and insightful in my opinion. He actually does not give a score but I think 6 is closer to the 7 that metacritic ascribed him.

    Yes, film criticism is a subjective thing but I would argue to the ends of the earth that this is not a 10/10 film.. In fact I would say that 7 is as far as anyone who values originality and passion in their filmmaking could possibly give it!

    **Spoiler Alert**

    I think the worst moment of the film is the car crash. I felt that we were meant to be taken by surprise but the clumsy editing back and forth to the green light took away any surprise value..

    Also the death of Woody Harrelson's character seemed unbelievable and redundant.. He know's who he is dealing with yet he was killed like a nobody civilian.. It's like the film deals with cliches but want's to make serious points about violence, greed etc.. Chigurh was a caricature and cliche of a serial killer.. and I would argue that most of the film was also cliche..
    I did enjoy the dog chasing moss down the river.. The dog had more character development than Chigurh..
    Expand
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. bill
    Mar 20, 2008
    6
    Overrated! If you can stomach the violence the first half of this movie is interesting. The second half is extremely boring. The acting is excellent throughout but the story goes nowhere. Best Picture? - give me a break.
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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.
  62. LoccusD.
    Aug 14, 2008
    5
    This is the movie all the critics are having a fit about? Solid performances, but one of the slowest paced and boring movies I've seen in recent memory.
  63. 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
  64. BobS.
    Sep 2, 2008
    5
    The ending sucked, because there wasn't one. The whole movie is a set-up for a non-existent ending. It's like driving two hours to go to a theme park only to find a big hole in the ground. If that sounds like your kind of thing then I strongly suggest seeing this movie.
  65. 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.
  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. 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. Expand
  69. 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
  70. 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.
  71. 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.
  72. KellerD.
    Nov 27, 2007
    6
    I live out in that part of the world, Far West Texas they call it. I love BLOOD SIMPLE (to me one of the finest movies ever made). I went to see it with great excitement and anticipation and . . . I have to agree with Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post, I just didn't like it very much. But I'm going back tomorrow for another try.
  73. batasablind
    Nov 29, 2007
    5
    ... All style and no substance.
    A rather overrated film ... sure the technique is good ... but the story is absolutely idiotic. It is a western adapted for the 21st century ... horses have been replaced by trucks and cars ... otherwise everything is same ... sharp shooters who never miss ... big hats ... smart one liners ... same unintelligible dialogue.
    A guy who goes around with big
    ... All style and no substance.
    A rather overrated film ... sure the technique is good ... but the story is absolutely idiotic. It is a western adapted for the 21st century ... horses have been replaced by trucks and cars ... otherwise everything is same ... sharp shooters who never miss ... big hats ... smart one liners ... same unintelligible dialogue.

    A guy who goes around with big guns and air cylinders ... and no one seems to notice him ... in and out without any problem ... knows where everyone is going to be ... kills and leaves and comes and kills ... and no one can catch him ... even though this guy can barely walk ... only in Texas.

    ... well if you have not seen a western in a long time then may be you should see it ... but leave your brain at home.
    Expand
  74. ColeM
    Dec 1, 2007
    4
    I have no idea what sort of hallucinogenic drugs the critics were using when they viewed this movie, but after this, I really have to rethink the merit of such reviews when deciding on a movie see and pay a large sum of money to do so. I expected a masterpiece of visual/auditory storytelling, but what I got was a mediocore movie at best. Sure it was suspensful, sure it got a reaction out I have no idea what sort of hallucinogenic drugs the critics were using when they viewed this movie, but after this, I really have to rethink the merit of such reviews when deciding on a movie see and pay a large sum of money to do so. I expected a masterpiece of visual/auditory storytelling, but what I got was a mediocore movie at best. Sure it was suspensful, sure it got a reaction out of me, but the movie was so full of holes, so full of pointless scenes that did nothing to advance the plot, so full of issues left unresolved, I was angry with the abrupt cut to the credits. A absolutely pathetic disappointment. Expand
  75. BozoR.
    Dec 1, 2007
    4
    I don't go through my day & at the end ask what was meant by that. Same thing should be said about movies. I want a movie to entertain me, not confuse me. Was the hero a man portrayed as almost the devil himself who walks away at he end. Up until the end of the movie I was totally into the story and wanting it to continue, then off a cliff it went, I've got a bald spot from I don't go through my day & at the end ask what was meant by that. Same thing should be said about movies. I want a movie to entertain me, not confuse me. Was the hero a man portrayed as almost the devil himself who walks away at he end. Up until the end of the movie I was totally into the story and wanting it to continue, then off a cliff it went, I've got a bald spot from scratching my head. That was 'No way to end a movie'. Expand
  76. DanielW
    Dec 12, 2007
    6
    Can't understand the critical consensus here. Where is the unbridled fun of Lebowski or the brilliant character portrayals of Fargo? I found Miller's Crossing and Blood Simple much more menacing than this. The violence proceeded in this movie with a leaden inevitability and predictability that made me want to flee the theater.
  77. JamesChirayath
    Dec 15, 2007
    5
    Like most people, I go to the movies to be entertained. This means that no matter how good a movie is it must have an ending! This movie does not have one (Ala Matrix II). Everyone in the movie theater was disappointed with the ending. Don't waste your money on this one. Thanks.
  78. MarcK.
    Dec 8, 2007
    6
    Well-crafted, and Bardem deserves the Oscar. But the pace was often excruciatingly slow, and the film just didn't have any soul. At this point in their career, it seems that every film made by the Coen brothers gets high ratings. So for me, it's just a question of seeing it, and going from there. I think I tend to like most, but not all of their films that use humor. Fargo and Well-crafted, and Bardem deserves the Oscar. But the pace was often excruciatingly slow, and the film just didn't have any soul. At this point in their career, it seems that every film made by the Coen brothers gets high ratings. So for me, it's just a question of seeing it, and going from there. I think I tend to like most, but not all of their films that use humor. Fargo and Raisin' Arizona are my favorites, but I hated O Brother Where Art Thou, and didn't care for Barton Fink. Go figure. Expand
  79. AnonymousMC
    Jan 11, 2008
    5
    I'm honestly really surprised at the overwhelming critical acclaim this film has garnered. No Country for Old Men tried so hard to be deeply meaningful that it ended up coming across as completely disingenous. Going into this film with such high expectations, I left feeling like I'd just endured a deliberately plodding, brooding world absent of any of the poignance that peopleI'm honestly really surprised at the overwhelming critical acclaim this film has garnered. No Country for Old Men tried so hard to be deeply meaningful that it ended up coming across as completely disingenous. Going into this film with such high expectations, I left feeling like I'd just endured a deliberately plodding, brooding world absent of any of the poignance that people had promised I would see. The Coens are incredibly talented filmmakers and there's plenty of composition here to be had, but ultimately I found little more than a beautiful, flimsy facade. I guess No Country for Old Men was no country for old me. Expand
  80. WV
    Dec 23, 2008
    5
    A dark fantasy born of a story tellers imagination. Coined "real" by people who watch movies for a living, and licked up by peasants who are afraid they can't see the kings new outfit. The message is simple, it's been told a million times; good guys never win, and those that sell their souls to the devil end up being rock and roll stars. Big whoop. Now walk out your front door A dark fantasy born of a story tellers imagination. Coined "real" by people who watch movies for a living, and licked up by peasants who are afraid they can't see the kings new outfit. The message is simple, it's been told a million times; good guys never win, and those that sell their souls to the devil end up being rock and roll stars. Big whoop. Now walk out your front door and open your eyes - that is reality. Come back inside and place No country for old men in your DVD player - that's fantasy. Learn the difference. Anyone can write a story, by its very nature it is CONTRIVED; random segments of reality warped into a narrative. In this story the bad guy wins, and a true hero is a dead one, and all that other 'arty' romanticised BS. Yes BS... Contrived things like coin flipping... can anyone else smell a two faced bat? Just because it's "different" doesn't make it good. If I deficate on a canvas its still shit, even it it smells like art. And N.C. if you are so incredibly intelligent why don't you read some books, or write your own movie. Your mind is more active sleeping than watching the tube. It's not dumb people who don't get the movie, most people get the stupid movie. The real dumb ones are people who make a big deal about "getting it"; congratulations, the king is pleased that you say you cant see his penis; here's a noddy badge. Expand
  81. EmmaG.
    Feb 19, 2008
    6
    It's a well done movie, that's all. I don't understand why it's getting so many awards, there have been better movies this year (Eastern Promises, for example).
  82. MichaelL.
    Feb 21, 2008
    5
    A Quentin Tarantino wannabe. It's an ok film but if it's a Oscar contender, its been a bad year for movies.
  83. JanN.
    Mar 14, 2008
    4
    I didn't dislike this film I didn't like it either... It starts very good, and feels alright, until about 1 1/2 hours when the "hero" dies and nothing interesting happens for the next 30 mins, and at the end you feel like the movie should have been an hour longer. You sit there with a large mouth just wondering what the hell happened! The best in this film is the comments from I didn't dislike this film I didn't like it either... It starts very good, and feels alright, until about 1 1/2 hours when the "hero" dies and nothing interesting happens for the next 30 mins, and at the end you feel like the movie should have been an hour longer. You sit there with a large mouth just wondering what the hell happened! The best in this film is the comments from that crazy killer Anton was it? It just makes me laugh. And the shooting scenes is realistic not like any "Hollywood" action movie. Overall this film is for killing time not spending... Expand
  84. Zeynepsenel
    Mar 15, 2008
    5
    Well, I spent 4 years to gradutae on a sinema school and I dont believe those who gave this movie 10, they must be Jewish like oscar nominee comitee or they must not have a movie taste like "Nebojsa".. I cant believe that the critics say it is western Noir.what is western? what is Film noir? Do they know these terms really? I think those critics dont know what they say.. They can notWell, I spent 4 years to gradutae on a sinema school and I dont believe those who gave this movie 10, they must be Jewish like oscar nominee comitee or they must not have a movie taste like "Nebojsa".. I cant believe that the critics say it is western Noir.what is western? what is Film noir? Do they know these terms really? I think those critics dont know what they say.. They can not nobody can say it is a noir by only depending a few lightning preferences.Do they try to create a crossbred"genre" except the remaining 11? What they cannot define is in this movie coens used Self-consiousness which is very popular for 50 years in new cinema approach. It is not NOIR.. The self consiousness..do they know what is it? I think they dont.. Expand
  85. zeynopsenol
    Mar 15, 2008
    5
    Well, I spent 4 years to gradutae on a sinema school and I dont believe those who gave this movie 10, they must be Jewish like oscar nominee comitee or they must not have a movie taste like "Nebojsa".. I cant believe that the critics say it is western Noir.what is western? what is Film noir? Do they know these terms really? I think those critics dont know what they say.. They can notWell, I spent 4 years to gradutae on a sinema school and I dont believe those who gave this movie 10, they must be Jewish like oscar nominee comitee or they must not have a movie taste like "Nebojsa".. I cant believe that the critics say it is western Noir.what is western? what is Film noir? Do they know these terms really? I think those critics dont know what they say.. They can not nobody can say it is a noir by only depending a few lightning preferences.Do they try to create a crossbred"genre" except the remaining 11? What they cannot define is in this movie coens used Self-consiousness which is very popular for 50 years in new cinema approach. It is not NOIR.. The self consiousness..do they know what is it? I think they dont.. Expand
  86. SteveK.
    Mar 25, 2008
    6
    I fancy myself a half-way intelligent person and I have to say. I just didn't get it. The first hour and 40 minutes or so was brilliant story-telling and great character development. I loved the dialogue and the creepiness of Javier Bardem's character. The last 20 minutes devolve incoherently into literally nothing. I've never seen anything like it in a movie. I literally I fancy myself a half-way intelligent person and I have to say. I just didn't get it. The first hour and 40 minutes or so was brilliant story-telling and great character development. I loved the dialogue and the creepiness of Javier Bardem's character. The last 20 minutes devolve incoherently into literally nothing. I've never seen anything like it in a movie. I literally felt cheated. Maybe it's profound and deep. and maybe the point is there was no point. But maybe the point is that the Coen Brothers were trying too hard, and this movie is a tad overrated. Expand
  87. MikeI.
    Apr 14, 2008
    4
    This movie is so overrated it's not even funny. The first hour was phenomenal, but the ending was so disappointing, I can hardly express it in words. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PAYOFF IN THIS MOVIE!!! I've decided that this movie is for the depressed, passive aggressive people in life. You know...the type that always has to talk about how terrible and depressing life is, and that no This movie is so overrated it's not even funny. The first hour was phenomenal, but the ending was so disappointing, I can hardly express it in words. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PAYOFF IN THIS MOVIE!!! I've decided that this movie is for the depressed, passive aggressive people in life. You know...the type that always has to talk about how terrible and depressing life is, and that no matter how hard they try, something terrible will happen to them in the end. I, for one, prefer the traditional "terrible things happen, but the human spirit will always find a way to triumph" model. Here's my gripe: The movie didn't take me anywhere! At the end, I did not feel like I had gone for an interesting journey. All I was left with were profound metaphors and boring monologues. "The Departed", which I did not find to be all that profound, TOOK ME FOR A RIDE!!! "Crash" was both profound and it took you for a ride. I'd rather be taken for a ride and feel something at the end of the movie. The credits rolled on NCFOM and I seriously said "That's it! What the f--- was that?!" I can imagine the "high brow" avant garde independent film crowd reading my review and thinking this movie "went over my head", but I will leave you with a quote from the review of Stephen Hunter of The Washington Post: "People don't go to the movies for the irony. They go for the satisfaction." That quote sums this movie up. The craft is amazing, the acting superb, the cinematography beautiful, the editing stylish, but I FELT EMPTY AND UNSATISFIED AT THE END!!! Expand
  88. JasonS.
    Apr 16, 2008
    4
    All 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.
  89. JimM.
    Apr 22, 2008
    4
    How did this win an academy award? What a horrible movie. No entertainment value whatsoever.
  90. Marlene
    Jul 14, 2008
    5
    I was on the edge of my seat until the end. What was that? I had to get the book from the library ton read the last 1/4 to fill in the details of the sheriff's life and why he seemed to be the main character at the end.
  91. TonyB.
    Jul 27, 2008
    6
    For all of its brilliant individual scenes, superb acting, cinematography, editing, production design and sound recording, this is one of the more overrated films of recent memory. The ending, far too abrupt for its own good, makes little sense. Did any of the critics who were so ecstatic about it, and often so pretentious in their praise, realize that for the plot to work, we have toFor all of its brilliant individual scenes, superb acting, cinematography, editing, production design and sound recording, this is one of the more overrated films of recent memory. The ending, far too abrupt for its own good, makes little sense. Did any of the critics who were so ecstatic about it, and often so pretentious in their praise, realize that for the plot to work, we have to assume that most of the population of southwestern Texas is deaf, blind or both? Expand
  92. DenizY.
    Sep 13, 2008
    4
    I'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!
  93. Erick
    Sep 13, 2008
    4
    The 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.
  94. HerbB.w
    Sep 29, 2009
    6
    If the ability to create intense feelings makes a movie great then this is a great movie. However, the feelings created are that human life has no value and the world is incredibly bleak. Chills one to the bone.
  95. ETay
    Nov 13, 2007
    5
    I really don't see what all the hype is about? There is very little story arc and zero character development. The movie is nothing more than schlock horror dressed up as a cult film because of great casting and beautiful cinematography. Note to female viewers all but 2 of the great reviews are by men; it is hugely violent and when the movie obscurely ends you are left feeling
  96. what
    Nov 21, 2007
    6
    A little bit boring.... the first movie in a long time i've seen where the audience actually 'booooos' afterward. i actually stayed but the people i went with left as soon as the popcorn was gone because they couldn't take it anymore.
  97. Brad
    Nov 26, 2007
    5
    Sure, the Coen brothers did a skillful job conveying Cormac McCarthy's message. Hooray for them. Boo on McCarthy, though. I don't see any value in a story as hopeless and bleak as this one, a story that goes as far as making the most talented, intelligent, and charming character -- the only character without a "fatal" flaw -- a sadistic psychopath.
  98. ScotS.
    Dec 14, 2007
    5
    If you're trying to decide whether to see this movie, I recommend reading all the reader feedback below, good and bad: they are all correct. This is the kind of movie that different people will appreciate (or not) completely differently, so find a reviewer you identify with, and trust their rating. Depending on who you are, missing this movie might be a huge mistake, or seeing this If you're trying to decide whether to see this movie, I recommend reading all the reader feedback below, good and bad: they are all correct. This is the kind of movie that different people will appreciate (or not) completely differently, so find a reviewer you identify with, and trust their rating. Depending on who you are, missing this movie might be a huge mistake, or seeing this movie might be a huge mistake (the latter is not easily reversible, sadly for me). Expand
  99. ManuN.
    Dec 18, 2007
    6
    I thought the acting was great. The pace of the movie was inconsistent, and the ending was very unsatisfying.
  100. JohnHolt
    Dec 22, 2007
    4
    Left me feeling like feeling like "what's the point?"
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.