Awesome film, a great re-visit of the Coens first naive masterpiece (Blood Simple) combined with all their work since. The scenery and cinematography are magnificent, and the character development is pitch-perfect. Thosee characters that demand development get it, and those that must remain a mystery are haunting. I did not read the book so I have no idea what the story was "supposed" to be, but the screenplay stands by itself as a complex, absorbing, mysterious, and ultimately satisfying tale. Not satisfying in the sense that all the circles were closed, by any means, by satisfying in that it made you think and enjoy doing your thinking. The actors' performances were spot on, and everything techincal about the movie was near-perfect.… Expand

Reading the reviews, there seems to be a clear divide between those who require their movie experience to be one where they can turn off their brains, go on autopilot and be spoonfed a neat little predictable package, and those who are bored by this approach and instead appreciate something with more depth and theme. The poor reviews, almost without exception, complain about gratuitous violence, the early demise of the protagonist and especially the ending, which they perceive as a non-ending. In my opinion, the ending was perfect and brought home the whole point of the movie. Any other "neat" ending that some folks seem to crave would have made this a completely different kind of movie - a movie of cheap, gratuitous violence - and I'm sure they would have loved it. Basically, if you need everything spelled out for you in obvious, simplistic terms - you will hate this movie. Most everyone else will love it.… Expand

Way over-rated. pointless, characters void of any interest; been done better many times before.

The review from the Onion gets it right in its tag-line above: ''NCFOM reminds us that civilization is the aberration'; ugliness and evil are the norm in our world. That said: What if the film had a conventional ending, a shootout between Brolin and Chigurgh; and one of them got the money-- or perhaps neither of them? The film would likely have resolved with a formulaic 'what is good?, what is evi? 'motif, probably thinking enough for most filmgoers. But that doesn't happen, and we are left with something much more difficult (or impossible) to digest. Jones will endure, like his father leading the way through the cold mountain pass, bearing the struggling, sputtering light into the unknown, into nothingness. And when our time comes, like Brolin's does (and Jones's will soon), none of us will see it coming. And the result? The world, with its default setting for ugliness, will continue to turn, unconcerned with us, or with our notions of good or evil and our struggles to define or contain either. And that's the message-- and it's bleak, no doubt. The film's draw for critics and other thinkers is this message, however; and it is precisely because it is far more sophisticated than a freshman philosophy resolution that would have left us questioning the nature of good and evil;or, heaven forbid, an ending that would have entailed the death of Chigurgh, the credits rolling on a final shot of a millionaire Brolin and his wife sipping Margaritas on a Mexican beach. The film's message is indeed nihilist, perhaps beyond nihilist; and it's great in the way that Macbeth is great, and for many of the same reasons.… Expand

Great film. Acting was incredible the story line was superb. I hate people commenting on the ending, the ending was extremly well done, it was how the story was supposed to end.

Rented the video for a dollar at a vending machine in the local drug store. It wasn't even worth the dollar.

Although the actors did a great job ... the plot had no substance or meaning due to a poorly written ending. I don't even think the Director could tell you what it meant. All i can figure out is they reached thier target budget and said "Alright ... let's end it here".

There's a fragile allegory lurking behind the scenes of this so called,alternative western and it's that of a human world loosing it's humanity,drifting away from values and ideals,surrendering to the fascinating corruption of money,violence and lust of power.In this pitch-dark universe of vulgarity,killers like Anton Chigurh rule supreme and the few humane existences left,like Sheriff Llewelyn Moss,struggle to proove humanity's evil urges are not native and spontaneous,though facts tend to proove them wrong.Hollywood endings have no space in such films!… Expand

Isn't it great that when people complain about this movie, it usually involves disdain at how well its rated? Excellent theme, excellent execution, brilliant film.

Unsatisfactory resolution? Unclear plot and character motivations? Only if you are incapable of thinking for yourself. This is not a movie that everyone will like (obviously) but it is a fantastic movie for those who are willing to think about what they've just seen. One of the strongest points of this film is the sound/music editing, notably the strong role of silence in sound//music editing in the film. In the absence of the usual barrage of sound, every click, scuff, and shuffle take on an unrivaled immediacy.… Expand

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

Umm... haven't seen it. I would, however, like to point out, that your prediction was completely wrong, M G. The film did exceptionally well at the box-office. Just because you didn't like it, don't assume that other people, who actually think when they watch a movie, won't.

This movie has to be the worst movie of the year and yet it gets acclaim from reviewers. When I go see a movie I want a good plot maybe a twist here and there and some action. You get all of that in this movie correction except the plot because the plot is totally dumb. Its so linear and when the main guy dies 3 quarters into the movie you stop caring bout the movie and start wondering why is this movie still going. It has its moments in the middle of the movie but thats bout it. Don't get me wrong the movie has some great acting but damn I don't go to the movies to be bored to death bout sumthing not relevent. Thats how I felt bout the ending like wtf!!!. Everyone in the thetear even the older folks were cursing this movie as a waste of time. And that is exactly what it was. So basically if you want to see a movie with great acting and a boring plot go see this movie. If not then see anything else but this please don't waste your hard earned cash on this crap.… Expand

When I watch a film, I expect to experience a series of emotional pulls throughout the movie, either from the characters, the setting, the storyline, or a combination of elements. While watching this movie, I felt distinctly flat, and became increasing disenchanted as the story went on. The characters were underdeveloped, and I never cared what happened to any of them. The sparseness of the set and the lack of a true score are both unique ideas, and in the right hands can be great stock for a masterful film; however, technique alone cannot carry a film, particularly if paired with ill-designed substance. For example, the movie is ridden with peculiar scenes that defy common sense and left me more distracted than engrossed. If we look at the scene where Llewelyn passed the suitcase of money through the duct to a different room, the question of purpose comes to mind. Recall, he did this prior to discovering the money was fitted with a tracking device. Thus, it wasn… Expand

The story works at a few levels and some folks were only looking at the basic plot and hence disliked the compressed narrative near the end. Some stories concern themselves with more than just the relating of plot. This movie is one of the more complicated movies. If you're looking for shooting action with a bad guy and a hero, you'll be disappointed and give this movie a low score.

My heart was in my throat from the very beginning of this movie and stayed there til the end. This was a definite Coen Bros. movie and possibly their best one yet. The fear that Bardem projected through the entire movie was so gripping that it needs to be seen twice - the monologues of Tommy Lee Jones (Sheriff Bell) were priceless - gave you the feeling that he was making them up trying to escape the overwhelming situation that was happening and he was helpless to correct it.… Expand

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.

The beging was great! had all the makings of a good movie......then it just flat out sucked. All of the plot just came to a crashing end, they didnt even show how the hotel scene went down. How can the main charicter just be cut out of a movie with no explination? And, just when you think you might get some get some little closer on the film, the damn credits come on. How anyone in there right mind would say this is the best movie of the year, I don't know. It was a horrible way to end a movie, and makes me think that I should be a director. Becasue anyone could do that and make millions of dollars. If all you have to do is make a few exciting shooting scenes and then roll the credits. Who would chose that as a job.… Expand

The Coen Brother's second perfect film. Acting, direction, cinematography, all exact.

Overrated, over-hyped, couldn't wait until it was over. Enough said.

Soooo stupid, soooo lame, soooo boring. Give me my 2 hours back. Soooo hollywood crap.

After reading most of the reviews given here, people start yapping about how crappy the ending was. Well, from my opinion, I thought the ending was neat. I overhear people walking out of the theatre saying, "where did the oscars come from.." or "that ending was awful." Well what did you expect, for Ed Tom Bell to catch Chigurh and arrest him and happily ever after. The ending of the film would basically end how it would in real life because people have to realize that the bad guy doesn't always win. And it was kind of strange, but people who hated the ending won't shutup about the fact that the film didn't turn out how you expected. Well, the Coen brothers surprise us with a weird ending. Do you think that the movie should've been neatly wrapped up with an expected ending? Apparently no, the Coen brothers ended it how it would in real life which was kind of cool from my point of view. I thought No Country was a very good movie with suspenseful moments and an exciting premice. It's neat how the title fits in with the story how its no country for old men. Though in the end, you actually cared about the characters and overall, No Country for Old Men was definitely worth my day.… Expand

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

A real thriller. The actors and the director did a great job. Why a 7? The ending was like "Let Anton Chigurh decide what happens next".

Anyone who rated this movie higher than five must be unaware that it has been made dozens of times before. Guy takes drug dealers money and drug dealer chases him - the only difference is the other movies actually had an ending. The Coen brothers borrowed a tired plot and the ending of "The Sopranos" and get an academy award? No wonder nobody watches that joke of an awards ceremony anymore.

Not a bad film, and since the film seems to be a faithful adaption of the novel then the actual ending couldn't change. It is a subtle ending which, to some that might have got gripped by the Chigurh Vs Moss scenes may have got lost on, the film's opening lines spoken by Sherriff Tom Bell are crucial, but I can reasonable imagine that after 2 and a half hours most viewers would be a pains to remember what was said! That aside the film was well made but not quite the perfect film that some here have held it up to be. There are a few plot holds and scenes which didn't make much sence and wouldn't really happen in reality although this could be a critism of the writer of the original novel. Spoilers: Why did Moss go back with water to the injured man in the truck? Assuming that he did manage to survive after Moss left him, water alone wouldn't save the man. When the Chigurh come calling on Moss, why did Moss, a man that goes hunting not take some sort of cover or different position rather than sit squarely oin the bed so that Chigurh wouldn't be able to get a clean shot off first? Woody Haroldson's character also seemed to be rather pointless. Moss's off screen demise was truely anticlimatic having followed the guy's trials for much of the movie. Was this decision to do Moss death offscreen just done in that manner just to be different and suprising... perhaps but it still was very anticlimatical all the same. In conclusion No Country For Old Men was good but could have been better.… Expand

A stunning piece of cinema, personally, I think it's one of the best movies of the decade. The superb acting, to the minimalist, yet deep narrative that forced you to watch it mindfully and last but not least the immense amount of symbolism and deeper meaning elevate it to heights I thought unreachable for today's mainstream cinema. The ending was superb, it got my mind racing, even if most questions were answered more or less. The final 20 minutes were far from boring either, the insights into Chigurh's fatalistic mindset, establishing his role as a quasi-angel-of-vengeance as well as the role of greed in the movie thrilled me. Highly recommended, even if I can't guarantee you'll like it - but that's how it is with art, it is discourse put into form. Where entertainment tries to please the masses, art seeks to challenge the mind.… Expand

Overrated movie, a not so good FARGO .

A VERY VERY bad movie. I have no idea how this movie won an Oscar. I contemplated multiple times during the movie of walking out, but I endured till the end in the hope that the end would salvage the movie. No such thing, the end leaves you with an even worse feeling. Horrible, horrible movie.

Could the guy with the lady do who only spoke what seemed to be five lines in the entire movie be any creepier! Although he didn't say much his presence in the movie was strong. Normally not the type of movie I would pick up but I am so glad I did. Make sure you see this movie. Yeah the movie feels like some things are left out or skipped but that is the style of this movie. Don';t score it down because everything isn't spelled out for you. I loved it. Best movie I have seen in a while.… Expand

Unsatisfying ending.

The only movie I've seen that really lets the viewer know what living in Texas is like. No one speaks English, the best you will get out of an average person is something close to Pidgin, Woody's character on Cheers is smarter than the local sheriff, there are guns always going off, every old person you meet thinks a hispanic in a suit is strange and there is at least one Anton Chigurh in every county. Very realistic!… Expand

Lean and mean, along with The Assassination of Jesse James my favourite film of last year. Both lensed by Roger Deakins coincidentally - or not, as his lonesome vistas and cool washes of colour add terrific intensity to both stories.

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.

Good. Excellent production values, steeped in a style that never grates. The film produces some very tense scenes. I would NOT call it A MASTERPIECE however. Despite all the off beat flourishes, it never manages to transcend its thriller origins and become something truly moving and inspirational. It does seem to try, however, especially with the last few scenes, but can't escape the trademark 'Coen bag of tricks,' and the typically stylized reality such tricks create. The ENDING had a few interesting and brave ideas, although I wouldn't give them the credit that some die hard fans are giving them here. I do not give them the credit, mainly because, SOME of the IDEA'S simply DON'T WORK when put on the big screen. Well, in context anyway. For example ---SPOILER ALERT--- Tommy Lee Jones speech at the end is nicely written and delivered, but is simply too low key to register, given all the style and excitement that has come before it. It feels like an ending to a different film. Josh Brolin's sudden departure did not sit well with me either. If the REST of the film was a bit more daring/experimental with its conceptions of genre and representation (perhaps even deconstructing it a bit instead of piling on the homage), I could have accepted his absence. Again, unfortunately, what preceded it is not that kind of film. From the beginning its grounded in bog standard thriller elements, and to take the protagonist out of that so suddenly, after such a bond has been created with the audience, well, honestly its just plain rude to the viewer. We do not see him go, we do not get closure. Such daring ideas come too late, they leave you jarred, not moved.… Expand

inspiring, top movie I was glued to the screen wanting the main character to survive and ride off with the $$$.

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.

Who told Hollywood that in order to make an original movie nowadays you have to make it suck at the end? The movie was a 10 until the last act, but then it ended so god-awful it actually deserves a negative score for failing so hard!

Great film, most enjoyable movie I've watched all year.

This movie was well made and was one of a very few movies that really knows how to build suspense and tension through quiet. Unfortunately, it is certainly not one of the all time great movies. It's basically the Terminator when you come down to it.

Good performances, interesting enough characters with a nice tone of its own. I was really enjoying it, feeling the tension build and build and then whoosh the cohens whip the rug out from under you and as you sit there lying on your back going "Hey what the hell happened?" the two brothers pull down their pants and take a nice big steaming dump on your face. While shouting "Ha Ha fuck you consumer, fuck you. You want closure? You want an ending that is in some way satisfying to the viewer? You want to at least have a final denouement between one of the protagonists and the psycho? Fuck you moron eat our filth!!" That's how I felt anyway. A film that could have been great totally destroyed by the most horrendous "bait and switch" I've ever had the misfortune to see. In a word "Disgusting".… Expand

The worst movie I have ever seen, this is saying a lot seeing as I am a film student, have watched Birth Of A Nation and can usually enjoy ANY type of movie for one reason or another. No character development, boring characters (No the killer is not scary), jumpy plot and useless sound track (I have heard people call the silence tense, watch The Hurt Locker for a good example of that) NCFOM is just boring. If you like it and write good reviews for this film maybe you should actually watch it first.… Expand

Best American movie of the year, no doubt. Great contribution to the Western genre. NOT a Coen "black comedy," though, so I wish some critics would start reading it for the tragic contemplation about evil that it was written and directed to be.

Fantastic film on all levels. However the only reason I am voting is to let DWilly know that the film takes play in 1980. Therefore the lead character would have been in Vietnam just at the right time. Pay a little more attention next time. Coens, out!

Ridiculously good. 'No Country' will get under your skin and stay there; the Coen brothers' best since "Fargo."

Great filmmaking loved the philosophical musings at the end by the sheriff exceeds whatever genre expectations

Good movie, but the ranking needs to go down because of the ending, no way it should be 8.0 more like 5 or 6.

Brilliant. One of the best films this year. Barden will lead a slew of Academy Award nominations.

This movie makes the list of all time promising films that derail into crap. I know the critical numbers are high because the filmmaking is very strong (apart from using Josh Brolin, who just isn't up to the task, nevermind being repeatedly referred to in this contemporary setting as a Viet Nam vet, which would have put him in combat at around age five), but you can't, not only jerk the rug out from underneath your audience, but then go at them with a baseball bat as the story becomes devoid of clarity, humanity or point.… Expand

The Coen Brothers get serious. With "No Country for Old Men", Joel and Ethan Coen answer critics' charges that they favor style over substance. The stylized(read: witty) dialogue is still there, but this time, the regional characters seem less like unwitting punchlines for urbanites to laugh at. When a deputy laughs, then checks himself, after the sheriff(Tommy Lee Jones) makes a pithy comment about a newspaper article, there's the unmistakable feel that the Coen Brothers are performing a mea culpa, an admission of self-awareness that they do sometimes treat rural folks a bit unfairly. Make no mistake: "No Country for Old Men" is not "O Brother Where Art Thou". Although Jones has occasional fits of long-windedness that stops the film cold in its tracks, "No Country for Old Men" is mostly engrossing, droll(not ha-ha funny) and bloody.… Expand

The end of the movie was honestly the most awkward experience I have ever had at the movies. People of all ages and levels of maturity were left dumbfounded. We all sat there looking at the screen waiting for the film to resume, but it never did. This movie is getting great reviews and I in no doubt assume it to be a bad story. I do in fact claim that this film is a terrible representation of that story. It left me bored and lost, when it should have left me in a spot where I am not having to try to understand what the hell the point is. For the majority of movie goers I would recommend seeing a film that presents itself to the audience, unless of course they are just looking for a cool gun.… Expand

"No Country for Old Men" is a masterpiece. It is the Coen brothers' best movie, and it only gets better with repeated viewings.

The user rating tells the real story about this movie. While it has it's moments, and Javier Bardem is nothing short of brilliant, the third act falls flat on it's face. I didn't read the book, but I have to wonder how faithful the screenplay was?

I was prepared to like this movie more than I did. The timing dragged. I believe the Coen brothers wanted the spare words and images to say more than they did. I believe some critics and reviewers were mesmerized by the beautiful photography and were distracted from the rather fragmentary plot. I don't think its fragmentation spoke to me: the thriller portion of it and the philosophy didn't work together for me. I think the writing needed to be stronger.

I gave it an "8" on the strength of the cinematography which is gorgeous and the acting which is good. I thought a couple of the monologues could have been spoken in a way that was more meaningful...I felt a couple of them wandered..… Expand

An awesomely well directed, paced, and acted film on the tragic state of man. The film basically highlights the trouble we (as individuals or a society) get into when we try to satisfy our most unquenchable base motivations of greed and ego. Tommy Lee Jones, who plays an aging sheriff, seems frustrated by this merciless nonsensical "modern world" but soon realizes - hey this is just how us humans have been and always will be! In general, I feel the "evil" (Chiguhr) was portrayed as a little too extreme and simplistic. The films "beast of man" is simply too easy to identify. I would prefer a more subtle characterization of our most base instinct. For example out of control consumerism or blind patriotism instead of the cliched mass murderism. As the infamous Kaiser Soze once explained... "the most cunning thing the Devil every did was to convince us that he doesn't exist...".… Expand

Some of the most impressive dialogue within the last couple of years. Excellent performances all around; I especially liked Tommy Lee Jones. Extremely well shot. Superb film.

NO ENDING? POINTLESS?! TOO BLOODY?!!!! I am amazed when I see comments like these. If you wanted Die Hard, go see die hard. If you want a taught, complex, visually stunning, beautifully acted, thriller that also actually speaks to the complex realities of the present world, GO SEE THIS FILM! No, there's no big finish. Yes, the pace is slower than most action flicks. And, yes, character motivations are confusing, but not ill conceived. A great movie from start to finish. (I, personally, loved the ending(s)).… Expand

I think that people need to remember a couple of things about this movie: 1. Comparisons to 'Fargo' are invalid. 'Fargo' was written for the screen by the Coen brothers. This was an adaptation of someone else's work. Also, criticizing this movie for being excessively violent in one breath and saying that 'Fargo' was great in the next seems rather incongruous. 2. If you were expecting a tidy ending to this movie,for it be wrapped up with a bow or a shootout at the OK Corral, then you went to the wrong movie in the first place. That is not the typical style of neither the Coen brothers nor McCarthy. In other words, don't criticize a movie because you had unrealistic expectations of it. On the other hand, if you are looking for a movie that tells a story exceedingly well, with all of the elements of first rate film making, then this is definitely for you.… Expand

Awesome.

Just when I thought not a single notable movie would come out of 2007 the Coen brothers deliver a classic. Excellent movie. I haven't been so engaged at the movies since Lord of the Rings.

This movie was not only completely entertaining and engrossing but is what filmmaking should be - magical. Evil manifested in the character of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) couldn't be more chilling. The unconventional plot line was surprising and perfect for a movie like this. And for a movie about killing, it's surprisingly restrained. This could have been a graphic portrayal of what a man will do to get what he wants but it was far more effective to omit most of the brutal acts. I will see this again.… Expand

A devastating film. The idea that TLJ is wasted in this movie is utterly missing the point of his casting. He brings with him your assumptions of the idealistic sheriff of movies past and the Coen Brothers dismantle it expertly. The viewer is rendered as impotent as Sheriff Bell in the face of the pure formidable evil of Anton. I'm jealous of people who were cinema goers when Hitchcock was hitting his stride. Now less so.… Expand

The dialogue alone makes this movie worth watching. A very well written script.

I'm with Steve and M B on this one its like the Coen bros. are paying the review crew to suck their cocks; the only reason I give this Boring ass movie a 1 is for the cool ass Air gun and thats IT.

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.

Best adaptation of a book to film. It manages to deliver the masterful pacing and detail of Cormac McCarthy's novel while realizing the inferred tone, color, and character. In it's own right it's an expertly crafted, acted, and directed film. Casting deserves awards. The suspense was top quality, the jumps were deserved, and not a single thing was gratuitous.

As for the story, the plot, the bit that people seem to love or hate most, it is clearly a rarity. It never gives you what you expect, it never let's you rest and it certainly never lets you win. It's an amazing experience to read, and just as amazing on screen thanks to the Coens. It's something primal, it's something you're forced to internalize, and it's a reminder of your humanity. Writing and storytelling at it's bravest.

I don't know what lead poor souls into the theater expecting a happy ending. I like paying admission for a new experience. Sorry, your happy ending, predictable dialogue, and hokey thrill scenes are waiting for you in the next theater down.… Expand

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

The single greatest film I have ever seen. Anyone who does not like this film understands nothing about not only the art of film-making, but that medium's ability to mirror the most fundamental questions of humanity. This movie strikes at the very foundation of what it means to be human in ANY larger society, and questions the whole concept of "good and evil", or "right and wrong". For those who prefer more dramatic films such as "Independence Day", review THEM, and not movies that you most certainly fail to understand.… Expand

It's relatively easy to see why reviewers giving scores of 0 and 1 described the film as "disappointing", since it was devoid of any sense of resolution or redemption. It was, as many critics have said, one of the more bleak, nihilistic stories in a long time. I guess some people expect certain things from a film, and when their anticipations aren't met, well, the film must be bad. What an uninteresting moviegoing experience that must be. For me, when a film defies my expectations, I experience what's called "surprise" (ala when protagonist is killed 2/3 before end, when film stops abruptly and bad guy wins, etc), a generally positive and entertaining experience, which forces me to re-think what have seen so far and/or expect to see, and makes me wonder what the purpose of such a cinematic twist could be. I believe this is the crucial moment where audiences split: being asked to think too much. As the credits rolled at the showing I saw, a loud guy in front of me told his girlfriend, "How do you pick these movies? Jesus Christ, you pick the worst movies." It irritated me, but it didn't surprise me. It's almost seems that for a given cultural product within art or film to be outstanding, the majority of the population has to really dislike it. And that's a shame. Even if the impeccable technical merits of the film were lost on someone, and the stellar writing, direction and acting were all overlooked, one cannot deny that the ideology that the filmmakers present provides the viewer with one hell of a tough, haunting knot of questions to tease apart for hours and days later. That's what made it great for me, that the film kept going even after it ended. It wasn't neat and easy, but challenging and unsettling. If you need a film to assure you that everyone lived happily ever after, then please don't see this film. If you don't mind being entrusted with some of the moral and intellectual heft of a film to mill around on your own, and conclude on your own, like a grown-up, then you are in for a treat.… Expand

Well, as of today I've seen all five of the "best picture" nominees. I have to say that this one -- bleak and nasty and violent though it is -- strikes me as the best. I sympathize with those who find the violence pointless. Hard to disagree. Yet the story and the acting and the cinematography are brilliant and haunting and a revelation. Can't say enough about Tommy Lee Jones as the world-weary "old man" who is the insightful heart of the film. Josh Brolin is a wonder; Javier Bardem's performance is gripping. The movie stays with you the way great movies do.… Expand

Just because I don't like Wes Anderson, it doesn't mean I don't understand comedy. Just because I don't enjoy Coen Brothers movies, doesn't mean I don't understand unique American filmmaking. Overrated by film nerds, another Memento/Fight Club, I'm-smarter-about-films-than-you following. Watch it once then decide. But it's easy to win best picture when most films are crap competition nowadays anyhow. People real defensive about the ratings here need to get off their high horse. Not liking the Coen Brothers does not make you a movie heathen. Lighten up, it's not that good.… Expand

Great acting, direction, story, everything. Ending did kind of seem unfulfilled at first, but, later, I realized how meaningful it really is.

Pointless dark murderous humor was impressive and shocking to me in 1997, when I was 19... as were "deep cinematic messages." But now I require real plots, or at least character development in order to invest genuine interest in a film. Any 14 year old in the world could have thought up these plots and characters. And cool cinematography is for photographers - not filmmakers. This is why it's so hard to make good movies. And this is why the Coen Brothers are not good at it... unless you're a pseudo-intellectual film geek easily impressed by contrived brilliance and pretentious filmmaking.… Expand

The Best Buddy Comedy Since 'White Men Can't Jump'

There isn't much to say about this movie that hasn't been said already, but I feel the need to add to the parade of praise this movie has received. Harrelson is brilliant and hilarious in his role as a tough talking hit-man who get's in waaaayyyy over his head! And Josh Brolin, as the kind-hearted welder who just keeps showing up at the wrong place at the wrong time, kept the audience rolling with laughter throughout. Javier Bardem will almost certainly receive a Golden Globe nod for his portrayal of the coin-flipping killer who definitely woke up on the wrong side of the bed, desperate to find his stolen loot! This is a must see!… Expand

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'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

"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

I find it hilarious that people question the ending of this movie when they go to see something that is set up to be a sequel for money purposes and not look at the singular movie at work here. Amazing on every front. I saw this the first screening in my city and a lot of people didn't like the ending then I hear people that read the book give it praise... to understand the premise and meaning is to understand the movie. So well done but see it twice… Expand

The key to going to the movies is fairly simple, to be entertained. When the movie is good, you feel as though you are part of the cinematic landscape, and you move with the participants. When it stinks, you know you are watching a movie, and feel very far from the screen. After a spirited start, I found myself drifting back into my seat, and watching an arcade game unfold before me. Contrary to those who have professed their love for this film, and McCarthy, I found no redeeming value or statement from this film. I found myself more and more annoyed at the 'puppets with guns' dancing through a non-reactive society. There are many ways to communicate the theme of an indifferent society, but an uncaring Sheriff appeared more expositional than thematic, and by the last forty five minutes, I was left wondering if the three teenagers sitting behind me who had already walked out on this snoozer were rbighter than me. The Emporer had no clothes, and No country was missing a plot.… Expand

I understand and take into account how this film is an allegory for good and evil, and how evil is an unstoppable force, showed in the way that severe injuries obtained my chigurh are merely minor inconveniences. However there are many parts that i looked on at all levels and couldn't see any meaning or story in them. I appreciate the fact that this movie can be taken on a different level, however this level is just one, and only one level. Allegories such as Animal Farm can be taken on 3 levels - a childish story, a satire on the Russian Revolution, and a satire on revolution in general. However the reason this movie has got average user reviews is that No Country for Old Men can only be taken on one level, which is the allegory level. The people who gave this movie bad reviews cannot see the movie on this level. They see movies like they see crap hollywood rubbish - no attention to acting, just jokes and successful protagonists. This, is what I consider to be a major flaw in this potentially perfect film. At around 2 hours long, No Country for Old Men may continue to share its numerous messages, however it can be compared to sitting down for 2 hours learning about lessons in life and views on good and evil. The storyline is solid, but could be better, to avoid this lesson-learning process. To all those people wondering where the money went, Chigurh got it and its proved when he pays the boy 100 dollars for his shirt after the crash. Also, TO ALL THOSE CONCERNED WITH THE ENDING READ THIS. The ending is somewhat perfect. Yes you heard me. At 15 years old even I understand it. The story is another allegory for good and evil. The mountains being darkness, that envelop the good and surround it, almost cornering it. Bell is carrying the flame of good, but it is aging and is going to be extinguished as Bell is aging and is going to retire. Can everyone see my logic with the points i raised? Comments please… Expand

This movie didn't have much of a purpose, but still was an incredible movie. Full of suspenseful scenes that were incredibly well done. Some people might find the lack of a musical score a bad thing, but I think it added to the subtle intensity that was pretty consistent throughout the movie. The tension was broken up by occasional humor which was actually funny. Those of you who don't like seeing strong violence, brutal killings, some language, humorous mexican stereotypes, bowl-shaped haircuts, and a cranky old lady shouldn't see this movie. For everyone else: go see this and Sweeney Todd now!… Expand

This film was so gripping that it seemed life outside the theater walls melted way. It provokes so many questions as well. SPOILER I would love to hear theories on why Moss went back the crime scene. He barely looked at the dying Mexican man, let alone felt sympathy for him. Then, as he replays the day

Overall I enjoyed this movie, but given the hype I was a bit disappointed. The cinematography, acting, and dialogue was quite strong. But I thought plot felt awkwardly compressed, particularly towards the end. Also, I found the amount of bloodshed to be comically excessive in an otherwise serious and well adapted movie. I liked the film, but it is certainly not the Coens' best.

Nihilistic, dark, unstoppable, and calculated. At the penultimate snapshot of the film, we see a subliminal glimpse of what lies at the rotten core of contemporary society: blood money, power and purposive rationality of destruction. A bold and mind bending movie.

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.

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

Fargo in Texas. Didn't impress me a whole lot. Not nearly as good as Fargo. Some wars have less dead people!

A waste of a couple of hours. Sure the critics say it is great film didn't see the whole movie. It starts with a reasonably interesting overly violent movie and turns into mush. It seems it takes until the end of the movie for the director to learn that it is possible to explain a murder without showing it on screen.

great, great film; some will be turned off by the violence and the lack of "closure" in the ending, but i thought the ending was perfect

This movie actually excelled in areas except conclusion. While it's definitely not for everyone, I highly recommend this film. If you're a fan of mafia movies or other storylines that ooze violence and have often unexpected grim outcomes then you sit through this movie. With that said, the violence is not overly gory as some other films have sought out to be. The acting in this film is excellent and Bardem has landed a role that not only is worthy of Oscar but should be classified as one of the all-time great villains in movie history. The only reason I have it an 8, is this continued trend of the last five years to not conclude stories. Continuing to reference The Sopranos, why can't we bring things to a conclusion any longer? It's almost as if we're trying to leave things open for a sequel or something. While I appreciate that life doesn't come all wrapped up with a bow on top, stories usually do. It's called an ending and this movie would have earned a 10 if it had a solid one.… Expand

Violent & with no point! No way - no how is this movie worthy of any awards, individual actor awards or even as a "best movie" award. Pulp Fiction with a western theme to it, except much better use of actors in Pulp Fiction. Ridiculous and gorie movie....I hated seeing Tommy Lee Jones in such a horrible film. Were giving awards to men who act as pointless killers with "principal"...give me a break.… Expand

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

Let me summarize No Country for Old Men- 1st 1/3 of the movie is slow, boring, and dull. 2nd 1/3 of the movie is suspenseful, interesting, and exhilarating. And the 3rd 1/3 of No Country is depressing, pointless, and unsatisfying. Javier does a good job acting, and is a unique villain with some good dialogue and scenarios, but he is completely one dimensional. Honestly, Casey Affleck should win for best supporting actor, but because all the critics have there noses in No Country's crack that wont happen. Tommy Lee plays a completely wasted character and never does anything to help push the plot forward and in the end you will just wonder why he was even in the film to begin with other than to draw fans. The main character/protagonist does an adequate job but something off screen happens part of the way through the movie that doesn't make sense. I truly believe, as do a lot of reviewers here and everyone in the theatre with me, that this movie has one of the worst endings in the history of film. If you're not one of those people who stare at an abstract painting to simply figure out what its meaning is (like JG H pointed out below) then you are going to be left entirely disappointed once the credits start rolling. Or maybe you wont be disappointed and you will assume that there has to be more, and wait till the credits end to find out there isnt like many people in the theatre did. Critics are entirely wrong on this film. If you want to see an action movie go watch the bourne ultimatum, which by the way got an 84 overall rating on metacritic, if you want to see a western film go watch 3:10 to yuma where the characters have much more depth, and finally if you want to watch a movie that has beautiful camera work go watch the assassination of jesse james. This movie is not worthy of any of these high reviews. You will agree with my summary in the beginning, you will realize the critics just praise and worship everything the coen brothers do for absolutely no reason, and most importantly you will realize how horrible the ending is.… Expand

Oh please, all the people who are giving this horrible reviews are obviously not the kind of viewers who would ever be interested in this in the first place. How is it that people cannot realize that half of the movies on Metacritic with great reviews are going to be artistic or very non-mainstream. Look at chad for example: he lists alternate movies to go see, all of which are very mainstream marketable. And he himself even states the real reason many people don't like it by referencing abstract art: some people like it, others don't. The fact that No Country is NOT a mainstream film should tell people that it will not appeal to those more linear tastes. And I am continuously wondering how can so many people not get the ending? Even I, a 16 year old, thought the ending was brilliant. And though I don't really want to type out the symbolism here, I would hope that those people who hated the ending can at least figure it out from here: Take into mind that the movie is completely allegorical-- the villain represents all of the evil in the world and it's unwavering continuity; the protagonist who finds the money is man kind, being subdued by a force they are trying to desperately understand and can never really defeat; and the sheriff is the weary old generation, trying to make sense of everything as it happens (hence the title of the movie). Now think about the second dream the sheriff had, and interpret the words' meaning. It had me floored; I couldn't move from my seat for a few minutes. This is purely a movie of taste-- people are just mad that they went to watch a movie which wasn't in their own taste. And while I want to avoid insulting anyone's intelligence level, so as not to assume, but I think that many people just couldn't understand this. But for those of you who can see deeper into such allegories and the more artistic nature of movies, this will completely hypnotize you and leave you numb by the end. At least Tricky and N K recognized the quality of the film without having to like it.… Expand

I think it's quite fascinating how far the divide between those who can view cinema as an art form and those who cannot has become. A majority of the harsh critiques for this film cite how "slow" or "boring" the film is and/or how the film has no "ending." First off, I don't believe one should be able to cite their review of this film unless they know what "allegory" means. Another point I want to make - the main character in "Psycho," widely considered a masterpiece of cinema, was killed off halfway through the film. One doesn't need to see the "main character" make it through the film. This is NOT a formula film. Those who use the word "plot" should also not be allowed to review the film. Please, people, free your minds from formulaic thinking. And what's wrong with abstract art?!… Expand

1? Really? 1 is what my home videos deserve not the best picture of the year. Anyone who gives this movie less then an 8 doesn't even deserve to defend your position; you have no creative spirit and are more then likely stupid. I hate to be so blunt but seriously it doesn't even make sense to give this film a 1. You don't have to like it but, really, to give it 1 defies any and all purusuits of analysis and intellect.… Expand

There were some good parts... SOME, but the rest of it was just a let down. I really dont understand why this movie won so many awards.

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.

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