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. GARYA.
    Feb 21, 2009
    3
    Obscure, but without depth.
  2. MS
    Jul 2, 2009
    3
    After what seemed to be a somewhat interesting cat and mouse movie hits a nice brick wall and I don't just mean the ending as some people did not understand. Plot: A serial killer trying to get back 2 mil in drug money. Money, killer, southwest USA - not much to understand and definitely not something you haven't seen before in a nice made for TV movie. But besides that point, After what seemed to be a somewhat interesting cat and mouse movie hits a nice brick wall and I don't just mean the ending as some people did not understand. Plot: A serial killer trying to get back 2 mil in drug money. Money, killer, southwest USA - not much to understand and definitely not something you haven't seen before in a nice made for TV movie. But besides that point, to remind you that Javier Bardem who is a good actor and a decent serial killer in this movie, won best supporting actor at the Academy's for literally walking around and into different hotel rooms and killing random people who we don't care about. Oh, ok - occasionally he would give some psychotic speech that a smart serial killer should do in these kind of movies, ya know, the speeches that try to justify why he's killing people. So here's a scene about an hour and a half into the movie (spoilers): A woman is seen trying to get moss to have a couple of beers with her. 30 seconds later, Sheriff Bell finds him in a puddle of blood. Oh, that's nice, just show the killer kill all the pointless human beings in the movie, but when it comes down to one of the main characters, just show him that he's dead. Then, the remainder (15 minutes or so) of the movie is of this Tommy Lee Jones cop character who all we know is a cop up to this point. This guy was only seen in about 3 or 4 scenes prior to this point and we are supposed to care about the fact that he cannot go out and catch this killer because he is to old. Oh he had 2 dreams that basically told him his "reality." Give me a break. Oh wait - we have to like this movie because there's symbolism because if movies have symbolism we have to love them and give them awards. "It's free will and chance that the killer goes around and kills people. It's morality, it's deep, it's dark, it's meaningful." Really? So in every other movie that you see that a guy kills somebody, you can't apply THESE SAME THEMES of free will and chance? Take some advice here, if you want symbolism, read a John Steinbeck book. If you want symbolism and murder, read Watchmen. At least it has a point and more than enough symbolism. I really do not like much of the Coen Brothers' movies, especially Fargo. Watching No Country for Old Men makes me even hate Fargo even more. The Coen Brothers want to portray how Tommy Lee Jones is too old to go out and catch this killer but in Fargo, a 7 month pregnant woman can shoot down a psycopath in a snowy day in North Dakota. Go figure out that logic. Expand
  3. FredB.
    Mar 23, 2008
    3
    Since the movie was so slooow and the plot somewhat confusing, at least we deserved a satisfying ending. But no, we are left with the key situation unresolved, our heads shaking with the disappointment of wasting two hours for what -- a lot of violence (between the slow parts) and a new way to kill people, which some idiot will now probably try to duplicate. It's not that the lack of Since the movie was so slooow and the plot somewhat confusing, at least we deserved a satisfying ending. But no, we are left with the key situation unresolved, our heads shaking with the disappointment of wasting two hours for what -- a lot of violence (between the slow parts) and a new way to kill people, which some idiot will now probably try to duplicate. It's not that the lack of resolution by itself was the downfall: as others have said, the rest of the movie just wasn't that interesting (primariy because it drags), so we need a good ending to save this movie. Don't waste your time or money. Expand
  4. JosephS.
    Apr 22, 2008
    3
    This movie had such promise for the first half, but derails somewhere along the way. If you enjoy movies that focus on quirky characters and symbolism far more than a good storyline and plot, than this might be for you. Extremely disappointing.
  5. JoeW.
    Nov 16, 2007
    0
    Boo!
  6. MattS.
    Nov 25, 2007
    3
    This movie punches you in the face with how horrible it is, mostly because of the praise it has received from the tongues of many critics. Does this movie have a moral? Sure it does. But this no a rant, or a sermon - it is a movie, and it has to function as one. That is where No Country stumbles. I have no sympathy for Moss; I could care less if he is injured or killed. The pacing is slow This movie punches you in the face with how horrible it is, mostly because of the praise it has received from the tongues of many critics. Does this movie have a moral? Sure it does. But this no a rant, or a sermon - it is a movie, and it has to function as one. That is where No Country stumbles. I have no sympathy for Moss; I could care less if he is injured or killed. The pacing is slow to the point absurdity, and it gives the movie a suffocatingly heavy feel. Which would be fine, if the moral complex, or a big emotional pay-off ever arrived. But it never does. Save your time - Instead of going to see No Country for Old Men, go listen to your grandmother talk about when that pretty high-school student was brutally murdered in 1920. You'd get the same point. Expand
  7. DavidMarx
    Dec 31, 2007
    0
    I will come out and say it, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. And I'm being completely honest about this. I will also come out and say that this is the scariest movie I have ever seen. And it is not like the kind of scary where you scream and then laugh with your friends. This is the kind of scary where you literally are considering leaving the theatre.
    And I'm not
    I will come out and say it, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. And I'm being completely honest about this. I will also come out and say that this is the scariest movie I have ever seen. And it is not like the kind of scary where you scream and then laugh with your friends. This is the kind of scary where you literally are considering leaving the theatre.
    And I'm not saying that this movie was poorly made, don't get me wrong. The imagry and sense of emotion is paramount! But it had no climax and the plot was only visited every once and a while. You would think that the movie would end when ****SPOILERS**** Moss was killed by the Mexicans, but no, it continues with boring and seeminly irrelevent talking sequences with the police chief. I came out of it dissapointed and releived it ended.

    Also, the ending sucked. ****SPOILERS***** After Moss died, the psychopath broke into Moss's wife's house and KILLS HER. Then as he's driving away he gets hit by another car, and guess what, HE WALKS AWAY. It's like giving a middle finger to everyone who managed to watch the whole thing.
    Expand
  8. 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.
  9. Oct 23, 2010
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie may be "a piece of art" and work on many different psychological levels but they clearly forgot that it had to make sense. This movie doesn't even have an ending, it just proves that psychopaths have the tendency to kill people when armed with a cattle gun and facing a bunch of morons who are so stupid they probably only just manage to dress themselves in the morning. For example the guy who was stopped by Bardem in a police car: When noticing that he had no badge or uniform and was carrying a cattle gun as a sidearm, he thought that listening to whatever he said (even to the point of getting shot in the face) was the best idea. Or Brolin bringing water back to a man who was clearly going to be dead and not even considering that people will look for the money. Never mind the fact that the movie went nowhere slowly and somehow no-one cares or fears a serial killer on the loose apart from 2 cops, they could have at least make it look like they cared about movie. Expand
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. DavidFoster
    Jan 3, 2008
    1
    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 whyPointless 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
  13. TomT
    Feb 24, 2008
    2
    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.
  14. MaureenF
    Feb 3, 2008
    1
    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 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
  15. chad
    Feb 4, 2008
    3
    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 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
  16. CoryG
    Mar 14, 2008
    1
    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.
  17. AaaB.
    Mar 16, 2008
    3
    Uhggg... I'd like my 2 hours back. Waaaaay over rated. I don't see what all the critics were raving about! This is an average movie AT BEST. There were maybe two tense scenes and the rest was useless filler. Unbelievable that this would get an Oscar. Hollywood is smokin' crack if this is the best film of the year!!
  18. Markus
    Mar 2, 2008
    1
    I just saw the movie last night with a few friends. We got excited only to be dismayed. I don't know what the critics are raving about. Feeling sorry for the Coen Brothers is more like it perhaps??. The movie was exciting for a while albeit horrificly bloody for the masses but the ending put it in the "Crummy" category as one of the worst movies of the year. Hollywood, like our I just saw the movie last night with a few friends. We got excited only to be dismayed. I don't know what the critics are raving about. Feeling sorry for the Coen Brothers is more like it perhaps??. The movie was exciting for a while albeit horrificly bloody for the masses but the ending put it in the "Crummy" category as one of the worst movies of the year. Hollywood, like our foreign policy these days, has gone blind in seeing through the muck. Save your mulla on this one. It Expand
  19. TheBest
    Mar 30, 2008
    0
    The movie was probably the worst i've seen, there was too little information on everything. There were times when some scenes they really didn't even need. The ending was horrible and the main guys death wasn't shown in the movie. You don't get to see what happened to the characters in the end.
  20. LeeC.
    Mar 30, 2008
    0
    This movie was one of the worst movies I have ever seen - I hated the ending and hated the multitude of "why's" left hanging at the end = why anybody would watch such abysmal drival is beyond me.
  21. AudreyC.
    Mar 3, 2008
    1
    When I spend my time watching cinema, I at best expect to see a complete and thought provoking piece of art. This work failed on both counts. The violence was for the most part pointless. Holes in the narrative dangled like nagging prepositions. The nonending simply confirmed my firm conviction that I had wasted valuable time that could have been better spent EVEN IN A LAUNDROMAT!!!
  22. aaron
    Mar 7, 2008
    1
    this movie was the biggist piece of pointless dribble ive ever seen, somehow a mentaly challenged cowboy 4 no good reason returns 2 the seen of a shoot out in the middle of the night,2 give water2 a guy who was nearlydead 8 hours ealier, gets away again then stays in town waiting 4 the killer,what the f--k. there was no real stoy and tommy lee jones seems 2 b there 2 dribble down his own this movie was the biggist piece of pointless dribble ive ever seen, somehow a mentaly challenged cowboy 4 no good reason returns 2 the seen of a shoot out in the middle of the night,2 give water2 a guy who was nearlydead 8 hours ealier, gets away again then stays in town waiting 4 the killer,what the f--k. there was no real stoy and tommy lee jones seems 2 b there 2 dribble down his own shirt in some lame attempt at wisdom, myself and everyone i watched it with was just left baffeld at 2 what the piont of this film was, waist of time. Expand
  23. LeoM.
    Apr 13, 2008
    3
    Plodding display of meaningless violence. No redeeming qualities at all.
  24. JonathanK.
    Apr 18, 2008
    1
    This movie was terrible. It was nothing more than an anti-climatic clusterf*ck that does nothing more than waste 2 hours of your time to feed you some message that the world is a terrible place.
  25. LWeeks
    Apr 25, 2008
    1
    I agree with Joseph S. and SK, how on earth did this movie get such rave reviews. It started out very entertaining, but by the end of the movie, I was ready to go to sleep. It seems as though they did not know how to end such a great beginning, so they just killed everyone off and said the heck with it. YUCK
  26. Michelle
    Apr 26, 2008
    2
    The movie had potential right up until you popped it into the dvd player. the story sounded good, execution sucked. You are left wondering why about too many things...Don't get me wrong I like movies that make you think and make you wonder but you need SOME details to why or else it's just pointless killing and it was so slow. I did not develop any feelings for any characters in The movie had potential right up until you popped it into the dvd player. the story sounded good, execution sucked. You are left wondering why about too many things...Don't get me wrong I like movies that make you think and make you wonder but you need SOME details to why or else it's just pointless killing and it was so slow. I did not develop any feelings for any characters in the film so I really didn't care if they lived or died. And since when does a good movie let the bad guy get away and as much as I love Tommy Lee, I can't believe he would play a character that can be classified only as a quitter. Awful waste of 2 hours! The only reason I didn't give it a 0 is because, again, it had potential and it had Tommy Lee Jones in it. Expand
  27. LindaW.
    Apr 26, 2008
    1
    The ending ruined the whole movie.
  28. KNob
    Sep 9, 2008
    1
    This movie started with an improbable story line that led no where. This was a total waste of time.
  29. Steve
    Jun 30, 2009
    2
    I just don't get it. Really i don't. The praise that this film got just baffles more and more i watch this film. Yes i have watched this more than once because like i said i just don't get it. I wanted to but i mean ....
    For starters this is porbably one of the best acted and directed films in recent times. Some of the action and suspense parts are genius. But
    I just don't get it. Really i don't. The praise that this film got just baffles more and more i watch this film. Yes i have watched this more than once because like i said i just don't get it. I wanted to but i mean ....
    For starters this is porbably one of the best acted and directed films in recent times. Some of the action and suspense parts are genius. But that's it, the movie is crippled with a ridiculous plot that just never goes anywhere. The main characters were completely dull and unfulfilling, as was the story, the plot progression, the ending. Some of the scenes were just completely void of sense.

    The worst example was the whole motel, hiding the briefcase incident. My god what on earth was that 10 minutes all about? he messes about, hides a briefcase in an air vent adjacent to the next room, and prepares with others means for an intrusion. NOTHING happens with this, it was the most pointless and iratating scene in movie history.
    Don't get me wrong i like movies with subtlety, i like movies that make you think about their meanings. Hell i mainly watch japanese movies and anime which are horrible for people that don't like figuring out things for themselves. But this movie was just complete nonsense. A well produced and atmospheric film with absolutely no substance what so ever.
    Expand
  30. DallinP
    Jul 13, 2009
    0
    A movie with no real characters, no closure, and just a little plot. The only thing that separates this fil from other dumb action films like shoot 'em up is shoot 'em up has enough action to keep you entertained solidly for two hours.
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.