No Country for Old Men

User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1411 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. WillT.
    Dec 5, 2007
    2
    A sadistic, ridiculously violent and pretentious waste of time. It has no relationship to real life and no meaning.
  2. JoshS
    Dec 6, 2007
    1
    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.
  3. LeonG
    Dec 7, 2007
    3
    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 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
  4. ButteredPopcorn
    Nov 28, 2008
    2
    Nice acting that was unfortunately wasted on this film that seemed to say nothing. Agree with all the others who said this was a waste of time, and the ending could of only have been worse if i cared enough to want to figure it out.
  5. RonaldG.
    Jan 22, 2008
    1
    A psychopath who eventually kills nearly everyone in the movie doesn't do much for me.
  6. Tom
    Dec 28, 2008
    0
    Imagine an episode of "Popeye the Sailor Man" but with real actors and barrelfuls of tomato ketchup. That's "No Country for Old Men". Pathetic and shallow despite excellent photography.
  7. JGH
    Jan 26, 2008
    2
    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, 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
  8. JohnD.
    Oct 27, 2008
    3
    Intriguing but not a movie I would say was enjoyable. The acting was incredibly good but the ending left me with no closure which I so desperately was looking for in a movie that was convoluted in many ways. Too many unanswered questions for me and I would not recommend this movie and do not understand all the hype it has received.
  9. LV.
    Feb 24, 2008
    0
    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.
  10. christian
    Feb 24, 2008
    0
    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.
  11. ElaineN.
    Feb 26, 2008
    0
    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??????
  12. Doug
    Mar 14, 2008
    0
    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.
  13. Gra
    Mar 18, 2008
    3
    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, 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
  14. JohnC.
    Apr 15, 2008
    2
    One of the worst movies we've seen. It was terrible. How the heck it was nominated for anything is beyond me.
  15. CathiM.
    Apr 19, 2008
    1
    Woody Harrelson was the best thing in the movie and that says it all.
  16. ThomasW
    Nov 6, 2009
    1
    Sick, sad, and funny that nearly all critics are raving about this awkward, hurriedly composed, and absurd celebration of an evil guy who is never hampered by realism. e.g. no handcuffs behind back; able to reach top of office building carrying a long shotgun; not stopped by severe car wreck; plus Josh Brolen snuffed out - blink and you'll miss it. Riduculous script. Move overrated Sick, sad, and funny that nearly all critics are raving about this awkward, hurriedly composed, and absurd celebration of an evil guy who is never hampered by realism. e.g. no handcuffs behind back; able to reach top of office building carrying a long shotgun; not stopped by severe car wreck; plus Josh Brolen snuffed out - blink and you'll miss it. Riduculous script. Move overrated film I have ever seen. Expand
  17. Dave
    Dec 28, 2009
    0
    Horrid movie. What you have is a psychopath running amok, killing 3 random people before he even eats his breakfast. Meanwhile, out of all the law enforcement in the U.S., it seems that only one chronically depressed sheriff even cares to try to track the guy down... but apparently he isn't smart enough to look for fingerprints on that glass of milk. Somehow the critics were fooled Horrid movie. What you have is a psychopath running amok, killing 3 random people before he even eats his breakfast. Meanwhile, out of all the law enforcement in the U.S., it seems that only one chronically depressed sheriff even cares to try to track the guy down... but apparently he isn't smart enough to look for fingerprints on that glass of milk. Somehow the critics were fooled by the various displays of technical expertise into thinking this was a good movie. In reality, all these shining little aspects can't save the movie from its own dismal plot. Expand
  18. ZacH.
    Sep 21, 2009
    0
    Critics like boring movies this is one of them but the ending is no joke the worst ending to a movie of all time it ends with the cop talking about his dream.
  19. [Anonymous]
    Nov 14, 2007
    0
    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.
  20. ToddG.
    Nov 19, 2007
    3
    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.
  21. AlF.
    Nov 22, 2007
    2
    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.
  22. Aug 29, 2010
    0
    I thought this movie was such a waste of time that I have gone out of my way to write a review. As it is based on a fictional work (book) there seems to be no logical sence for brutal violence then for pure entertainment. I don't find brutal and senseless violence entertaining. I do not find it artistic or enriching or in any way psychologically interesting.
    The movie did not have the
    I thought this movie was such a waste of time that I have gone out of my way to write a review. As it is based on a fictional work (book) there seems to be no logical sence for brutal violence then for pure entertainment. I don't find brutal and senseless violence entertaining. I do not find it artistic or enriching or in any way psychologically interesting.
    The movie did not have the riveting plot or entertainment value of Silence of the Lambs or Pulp Fiction. It did not have strong characters such as Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugative whith it's suspence. There was no witty dialogue or great music.
    In my opinion the movie lacked everything in quality. The ending was a total letdown as if someone who was working on the ending just handed it in unfinished and left.
    72 people were murdered in Mexico last week - do people find that entertaining? I understand that art is up to interpretation but just as there are great works of art there are really poor ones. A broken lightbulb on a wet floor at the Guggenheim that is exhibited for a month draws reaction and it is weak - just because something is new and has not been done before does not mean that it is great art and good. Awarding this piece of dung with an academy award takes away from all the great productions which have been awarded in the past and cheats the public into thinking that any junk, no matter how bad it is will be great and worth enduring and spending your money on just because it was awarded and got great reviews. This movie is one of the worst ever and a disgrace to have been awarded. Javier Bardem Bardem is a good actor in many things - not an academy award winner in this one. The Coen brothers should pay me back for my time wasted watching their junk but I will know better in the future. I am watching every Best Picture Academy Award winner and about 60% of the way through, this is by far the worst movie. Had it not been on the list I would not have bothered to watch it until the end.
    Don't waste your time or money. Sensless violence can be had daily on the news.
    Expand
  23. Oct 23, 2010
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie may be "a piece of art" and work on many different psychological levels but they clearly forgot that it had to make sense. This movie doesn't even have an ending, it just proves that psychopaths have the tendency to kill people when armed with a cattle gun and facing a bunch of morons who are so stupid they probably only just manage to dress themselves in the morning. For example the guy who was stopped by Bardem in a police car: When noticing that he had no badge or uniform and was carrying a cattle gun as a sidearm, he thought that listening to whatever he said (even to the point of getting shot in the face) was the best idea. Or Brolin bringing water back to a man who was clearly going to be dead and not even considering that people will look for the money. Never mind the fact that the movie went nowhere slowly and somehow no-one cares or fears a serial killer on the loose apart from 2 cops, they could have at least make it look like they cared about movie. Expand
  24. Aug 21, 2011
    0
    I think they are ill. After about an hour one no longer cares who lives or dies. My own life experience is utterly at odds with what is shown. We are told that the theme is biblical. Tosh. I repeat: I think that the Coen brothers are ill.
  25. Aug 24, 2011
    0
    This film is a steaming pile of **** and one of the worst movies I have ever scene 0 out of 10
  26. Dec 29, 2015
    1
    This film was very boring, and with such a common and tired storyline. The whole movie things just happened without any rhyme or reason, all the characters were static, and the plot had no development. However, it was done pretty well, so it is not completely insufferable. It just works better as a novel, because much of what makes the novel great cannot be carried over onto the screen.
  27. Oct 7, 2012
    0
    This movie sucked. There's a reason why it lost money at the box office, and was winner at the least-watched Academy Awards of all time. That reason is this: it's boring, pretentious, and shoddily made.
  28. Feb 26, 2013
    2
    Slow paced and entirely unsatisfactory pretentious hipster bullcrap. So many things done wrong: pacing is slow, uneventful, crappy ending. It was 2013 when I saw this movie, so I guess analogy like "No country" is Mass Defect 3 of the film world would make sense
  29. May 19, 2013
    2
    the one thing i learned from this movie is that you can still get disappoint even if you are already disappoint which is exactly what happened to me before and after watching this movie.
    the only reason i watched it in the first place because of the Oscar for best picture in which the movie didn't deserve and here's why.
    the script was corny the screen play was silly the characters
    the one thing i learned from this movie is that you can still get disappoint even if you are already disappoint which is exactly what happened to me before and after watching this movie.
    the only reason i watched it in the first place because of the Oscar for best picture in which the movie didn't deserve and here's why.
    the script was corny the screen play was silly the characters were stupid and the directing was normal and there isn't a music and a moral afterward.
    some how the producer/directer was able be lazy in terms of screen play and people weren't able to recognize that but if you do you will notice that there isn't a dialog which might be the laziest way to produce a movie with only few good scene and a huge gap between them.
    in terms of Javier Bardem performance anyone would be able to do that cause there isn't a default standard way to play his role anyone could fill that role and play it his own way and you won't complain about it trust me.
    Expand
  30. Jun 29, 2015
    0
    Terrible movie! It's boring, empty, pretentious, too long and full of stupid characters. The plot is ridiculous, there is no progression and no ending. Movie that hasn't nothing to say, only a huge waste of time.
  31. Oct 7, 2013
    2
    Javier Bardem deserves every award he got in this film. A dedicated and masterful performance. Movie-wise details though, the film grips my attention during tense chases between Llewelyn and Anton. Concept-wise, rather flat and I understand the ending but as a first watch experience, it is utterly disappointing. The book is a masterpiece and I commend the Coen Brothers for their attempt toJavier Bardem deserves every award he got in this film. A dedicated and masterful performance. Movie-wise details though, the film grips my attention during tense chases between Llewelyn and Anton. Concept-wise, rather flat and I understand the ending but as a first watch experience, it is utterly disappointing. The book is a masterpiece and I commend the Coen Brothers for their attempt to adapt the book, but as a book-to-movie, it just doesn't work. Expand
  32. Dec 9, 2014
    0
    Truly awful - unwatchable wooden acting and a mindless script only for kiddiwinkles without a brain.
    It's amazing that funding can be found for trash like this when so many deserving scripts go wanting...
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.