No Country for Old Men

User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1358 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
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. JillE.
    Nov 22, 2007
    1
    I hated this movie and I am a Cormac McCarthy fan! A better title would have been Two Weeks in the Life of a Psychopath. Great cast but extremely violent with no point that I could see. Hope to get it out of my mind soon.
  2. MicheleC.
    Nov 22, 2007
    0
    This was the most boring movie I have ever viewed -- a total waste of money -- which is saying a lot, because I have seen some really bad flicks. I started to walk out -- I noticed four people did just that -- but felt I should give the film a chance. It started flat; it ended flat. I couldn't wait to get home and express my disappointment here.
  3. MG.
    Nov 24, 2007
    1
    Do yourself a favor and don't trust the hype. While some of the scenes are great and oddly humorous, the movie is horrendously long and unsatisfying and in the end. In fact, it doesn't "end", it just stops, and most frustratingly so. None of the storylines are concluded, none of the issues resolved. The main character is killed OFF CAMERA about 20 minutes before the movie's Do yourself a favor and don't trust the hype. While some of the scenes are great and oddly humorous, the movie is horrendously long and unsatisfying and in the end. In fact, it doesn't "end", it just stops, and most frustratingly so. None of the storylines are concluded, none of the issues resolved. The main character is killed OFF CAMERA about 20 minutes before the movie's over, which turns that time into a meandering, unfocused and pointless mess. And let's not forget the scene before the credits roll, which is just about as necessary as herpes... or ebola. Those are two hours and 27 minutes I won't ever get back, in addition to the $8.75 I spent on it. I want my money, and more importantly, my time back. I feel robbed. And cheated. I fail to see the genius in it. It was just a self-congratulatory and massively dissatisfying movie experience, which doesn't have much to do with genius and a lot to do with hackness. My prediction: it'll tank at the box office, and for good reason. It's long, it's pointless, and it's poorly executed. Period. Expand
  4. JamesC.
    Nov 20, 2007
    2
    Somebody has on no clothes and it ain't me. A groan inducing film that has lines only a writer who has not left his house in 20 years could write. Cliche after cliche are hurled at us expecting us to think it's brilliant writing . Don't be fooled by the critical repsonse. Ask yourself when you leave the theater, "Would I tell someone to go see this?" The answer should be no Somebody has on no clothes and it ain't me. A groan inducing film that has lines only a writer who has not left his house in 20 years could write. Cliche after cliche are hurled at us expecting us to think it's brilliant writing . Don't be fooled by the critical repsonse. Ask yourself when you leave the theater, "Would I tell someone to go see this?" The answer should be no , and don't be afraid that people may think you don't know a good film from a bad one. This is what they call a bad one. The 2 stars are for the worst haircut ever in a film worn by Bardeem. Gobble Gobble. Expand
  5. toosinbeymen
    Dec 26, 2007
    0
    The film "No country for Old Men" was recommended by the metacritic as a great movie. I'm sorry but it was a completely gratuitous blood porn giving a pass to gross police incompetence of the "lone wolf" sheriff and his "country wisdom". The affect of this genre on our society is to view this casual brutality as the norm and sensible.
    With all respect, your judgement is flawed.
    The film "No country for Old Men" was recommended by the metacritic as a great movie. I'm sorry but it was a completely gratuitous blood porn giving a pass to gross police incompetence of the "lone wolf" sheriff and his "country wisdom". The affect of this genre on our society is to view this casual brutality as the norm and sensible.
    With all respect, your judgement is flawed. Please, I encourage you to come back to earth, read some real literature, listen to Bach, pay attention to a string of good films to get your judgement back. But it's not just you.

    Obviously the US film industry has sunk to this very low standard and is blindly stoking anxiety so high that we can barely recognize it for what it is; it's become so integral to our society.

    Rolling Stone, Variety, Village Voice, Roger Ebert, Christian Science Monitor, the Onion, Premiere, USA Today, SF Chronicle, Boston Globe, LA Times, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Time, Miami Herald, Baltimore Sun, Seattle Post-Intelligencer all gave it a maximum rating of 100 in metacritic.com like it was Shakespeare or Tolstoy. This is how warped we are as a society. This is how deep our numbness to wholesale death goes.

    What should be called a low budget horror film is called "the most ambitious and impressive ... in at least a decade" by Salon and "for formalists ... it's pure heaven" NY Times. "I haven't seen a stronger or better American movie all year" Christian Science Monitor. "An indisputably great movie, at this point the year's very best" Rolling Stone.

    When we use these words for this kind of film, small wonder the world thinks we're killers without remorse.
    Expand
  6. BruceT.
    Dec 5, 2007
    0
    The most violent, pointless movie I have ever suffered through. I guess they must pay you for the rating? I'll never trust meta-critic by itself again. I've liked other Coen Bros. movies.
  7. TimH.
    Dec 5, 2007
    2
    This movie represents nothing more that gratuitous violence and nihilistic nonsense masquerading as high art. I can't believe the critics were so taken in. This doesn't come even close to Fargo which was fantastic. It's only the Coen brothers superstar status that allows them to market this crap. It's like Picasso doodling on a napkin and calling it art.
  8. DenisM.
    Dec 7, 2007
    2
    Inspired acting and cinematography, but in the end, I felt as simply a voyeur in a West Texas drug culture slaughterhouse. Not up to Fargo.
  9. BillW.
    Dec 9, 2007
    3
    Magnificently executed and imagined with humor and brilliant pacing. Performances were terrific. I hated it. At least they didn't kill and children or animals. But the blood and violence were depressing and disgusting. At the end, the only catharsis for me was a glorious re-acquaintance with the fact that even the worst experiences are finite. I left the theatre angry and needing Magnificently executed and imagined with humor and brilliant pacing. Performances were terrific. I hated it. At least they didn't kill and children or animals. But the blood and violence were depressing and disgusting. At the end, the only catharsis for me was a glorious re-acquaintance with the fact that even the worst experiences are finite. I left the theatre angry and needing both a shower and a keyboard with which to warn others. Expand
  10. Lev
    Jan 11, 2008
    3
    This movie is a good example of how an idea deteriorates through the creative process. It's worse still in this case as the screenplay is adapted from a novel. As much as I appreciate the ideas and themes, be they McCarthy's or the Coens', the movie does not convey them well enough to warrant the fawning of most reviewers. It's commendable in terms of filmmaking craft This movie is a good example of how an idea deteriorates through the creative process. It's worse still in this case as the screenplay is adapted from a novel. As much as I appreciate the ideas and themes, be they McCarthy's or the Coens', the movie does not convey them well enough to warrant the fawning of most reviewers. It's commendable in terms of filmmaking craft insofar as the cinematography, dialogue, and acting are skillfully executed. As a whole, however, it doesn't work. It's not enough to rely on ideas to hold these elements together because the whole thing ends up being an intellectual excercise. It requires an emotive line of action as well, which isn't completely absent but poorly drawn this movie. That's why viewers can be bewildered at the end. It's an abrupt end because you don't feel as though anything has led you to it. We can call it clever and subversive because it means something beyond the film itself. It's not good enough, especially as it's by the same guys that made The Big Lebowski, which is almost flawless in all respects. The rave reviews aren't warranted; there's a hysteria around movies like these (abstract humour, unconventional, nihilistic, well shot) that's really frustrating, especially when we rely on critics for insightful judgements. And I agree with Larry T.: the pretentious laughter was the worst part. Expand
  11. RK
    Jan 12, 2008
    3
    Anytime the antagonist walks away after killing everyone that has any decency about them, it makes me wonder why it made it to the screen in the first place. Oh wait a minute, we live it America and this is what real life really is all about. Bad people killing good, honest decent, hard working people. Let's glorify the villians so they can sleep well at night knowing they have put Anytime the antagonist walks away after killing everyone that has any decency about them, it makes me wonder why it made it to the screen in the first place. Oh wait a minute, we live it America and this is what real life really is all about. Bad people killing good, honest decent, hard working people. Let's glorify the villians so they can sleep well at night knowing they have put another notch in their gun. The only reason I went to see the movie is because of TLJ. I feel like this was a bait and switch. He was useless in his character and his tremendous talents wasted in this movie. Expand
  12. MB
    Jan 15, 2008
    3
    I have to admit I was excited to see this movie, however that only hightened my disappointment. This was an unengaging story of no signifigance that will not be enjoyed by anyone hoping to be entertained. yeah it was different, but I could not care less.
  13. Steve
    Jan 18, 2008
    0
    I can not believe anyone likes No Country for Old Men. It is so unbelievably hailed as some kind of great movie that it makes me wonder who is paying off the reviewers or if the reviewers are real people. I bet this review will be burried big time! The plot goes no where but to a dead end! If you go, I will bet that you will regret having spent your good money on this violent junk while I can not believe anyone likes No Country for Old Men. It is so unbelievably hailed as some kind of great movie that it makes me wonder who is paying off the reviewers or if the reviewers are real people. I bet this review will be burried big time! The plot goes no where but to a dead end! If you go, I will bet that you will regret having spent your good money on this violent junk while there are so many better movies you could have gone to see. Believe me, I am a real person not on the take. I give this kone a big ZERO. Expand
  14. sedw.
    Jan 23, 2008
    1
    Most UN-satisfying movie experience. Have seem something like this done better in Fargo. It leaves a lot of loose ends, does not follow through with the characters (lead character dies unexpectedly with no followup on that). Don't know what happened to his wife. Bad guy walks away. And the last hope, the Sherif, quits his job and ends the movie while talking about his dream.... Most UN-satisfying movie experience. Have seem something like this done better in Fargo. It leaves a lot of loose ends, does not follow through with the characters (lead character dies unexpectedly with no followup on that). Don't know what happened to his wife. Bad guy walks away. And the last hope, the Sherif, quits his job and ends the movie while talking about his dream.... Yawwwn. Please what's with all these high rating for this movie ?? Expand
  15. SibylP
    Jan 23, 2008
    1
    I thought it was really bad. The shots of the desert were boring after the first 3, though the DP is tops. If you are going to do tough guy dialogue about flipping a coin for your life, it better be wittier than that. The plot made no sense -- the guy wouldn't get water for the shot guy, but then brings it hours later--weak. The lines between the couple were pathetic--completely I thought it was really bad. The shots of the desert were boring after the first 3, though the DP is tops. If you are going to do tough guy dialogue about flipping a coin for your life, it better be wittier than that. The plot made no sense -- the guy wouldn't get water for the shot guy, but then brings it hours later--weak. The lines between the couple were pathetic--completely cliched. Bardun was so busy acting like he wasn't acting. Tommy Lee Jones totally milked the sad old sheriff thing. What a waste of $11.00. What's wrong with all those critics? Expand
  16. JeffA
    Jan 26, 2008
    3
    What I liked about NCOM Javier Bardem could be the greatest villain of all time. He stole every scene and basically redefined evil. Acting performances and cinematography was outstanding. First half of the movie was intense and just seemed to keep building up. Now the bad stuff So many flaws that I don't know where to start. The film leaves so many questions unanswered. No character What I liked about NCOM Javier Bardem could be the greatest villain of all time. He stole every scene and basically redefined evil. Acting performances and cinematography was outstanding. First half of the movie was intense and just seemed to keep building up. Now the bad stuff So many flaws that I don't know where to start. The film leaves so many questions unanswered. No character development whatsoever. There are scenes and characters in the film that just lead us astray and have no business being in the final cut. The lead is actually killed off screen after following his every move for 2/3 of the film. WTF? More plotholes than swiss cheese. Now its considered the greatest film of the decade. Greatest thing since sliced bread since the critics don't understand it. Could be the most overrated movie of all time. It stands at #23 of all time on the IMDB list as I write this. I'd like to add that its the only film on this incredible list that lacks an ending. Believe me, I wanted to love this movie. Mislead once again by the critics. They are all in together to rob us of our hard earned cash. Expand
  17. JohnH.
    Jan 26, 2008
    3
    Reasonably good drama and acting, but relatively pointless plot and story-line. The ending leaves viewers stunned - not sure whether to leave the theatre -- or wait for the movie to continue playing through to the end AFTER the credits.
  18. TrevorA.
    Jan 29, 2008
    1
    What a mess. The metaphors obliterate any chance of a coherent story. Can't comment on the significance of the final speech: I'd lost the will to listen to all the cliches by that point.
  19. PriyanthT.
    Jan 31, 2008
    3
    Slow and boring. Too much of editing.
  20. AnonymousMC
    Jan 3, 2008
    2
    Yeah, I know everyone says this is a thinker, and let me tell you I
  21. BruceW.
    Feb 10, 2008
    2
    This is the worst ending to a good movie that I've ever seen in my life. It started to fall apart when it showed the main character was dead, after that the movie sucked. But the movies was building greatly at first. Too bad any one would think this ending is artsy.
  22. DD.
    Feb 27, 2008
    2
    The least surprising movie the Cohen bothers have made. It
  23. KirkP
    Mar 13, 2008
    2
    At the start it had you going. But like another said same old movie just different angle. Where is the uniqueness Ok A compressed air can gun WooHoo!! The ending is suppose to be original why change something that works?
  24. linda
    Mar 14, 2008
    0
    Are you kidding? this is one of the best out of hollywood? truely sucked, what's the sequel gonna be called? no country for old women? can't remember the last movie i hated so much.
  25. AdamK.
    Mar 15, 2008
    3
    I didn't get it, I guess. A mildly exciting movie at parts, but mostly it was deadly boring and without any real ending.
  26. Sharyn
    Mar 15, 2008
    3
    why did I think it was a stupid movie full of stupid people who went through a series of events that made them look stupider? Was that the point? I could not suspend my disbelief because I just didn't think Brolin would be dumb enough to keep the money in its original case, not look for a trace, et cetera. I just kept going "why are they so stupid?" I thought the acting was great, why did I think it was a stupid movie full of stupid people who went through a series of events that made them look stupider? Was that the point? I could not suspend my disbelief because I just didn't think Brolin would be dumb enough to keep the money in its original case, not look for a trace, et cetera. I just kept going "why are they so stupid?" I thought the acting was great, but believable? No Way Even For Old Men. Expand
  27. MiltG.
    Mar 16, 2008
    1
    The Coen Bros should be brought in front of a congressional panel and be forced to give our money back for any movies or dvd purchase. Maybe Anton Shugar was on HGH or steroids with Roger Clemmons. That would explain the violence on Anton's part in the movie and heck, they were both in Texas right...? I believe the same screenplay writers for " The Grifters" wrote the ending for this The Coen Bros should be brought in front of a congressional panel and be forced to give our money back for any movies or dvd purchase. Maybe Anton Shugar was on HGH or steroids with Roger Clemmons. That would explain the violence on Anton's part in the movie and heck, they were both in Texas right...? I believe the same screenplay writers for " The Grifters" wrote the ending for this piece of trash. Hollywood and the Coen Bros. goosed the movie public in the foulest way and are laughing all the way to the bank! I feel so used. Expand
  28. DianaChertova
    Mar 19, 2008
    2
    I think those who doesnt "GET" are the ones who gave HIGH rating to this movie. They get what ? The violence or the stupid dialogs? There is nothing to get.and they just try to look intellectual by waving to a politically oscar winning film.To not to look stupdi, they say they understood something.What they undesrtood is nothing..
  29. JohnJ
    Mar 2, 2008
    2
    The only movie I have seen in my long, mostly pointless life, that had a worse ending than this was Gone Baby Gone. The Casey Affleck character should have been shot for ratting out that wonderful couple who were going to give that little girl a beautiful, loving upbringing. Instead he all but sealed her fate by giving her back to that lowlife, alcoholic, drug addicted slut of a mother The only movie I have seen in my long, mostly pointless life, that had a worse ending than this was Gone Baby Gone. The Casey Affleck character should have been shot for ratting out that wonderful couple who were going to give that little girl a beautiful, loving upbringing. Instead he all but sealed her fate by giving her back to that lowlife, alcoholic, drug addicted slut of a mother who in the final scene was going out to get high and herpes without a second thought for her daughter. But I digress. The ending of ncfom was not even an ending. You just have to hope that that bone sticking out of Anton's elbow might have given him some discomfort before killing another dozen or so people. Expand
  30. RMB.
    Mar 20, 2008
    3
    I don't understand why this show got such rave reviews. The plot line had all sorts of holes: Why was everyone walking or riding horses to the crime scene in the desert? There were five vehicles at the scene so there was obviously a road there. You would think locals and the sheriff would know their territory. Why was an experienced hunter walking in the desert with no water? If he I don't understand why this show got such rave reviews. The plot line had all sorts of holes: Why was everyone walking or riding horses to the crime scene in the desert? There were five vehicles at the scene so there was obviously a road there. You would think locals and the sheriff would know their territory. Why was an experienced hunter walking in the desert with no water? If he gives water to the guy in the truck, he doesn't return later and would avoid all the other problems. Why did he suddenly get a conscience and have to go back to the crime scene in the middle of the night? Again, if he stays home, there is no plot. In addition to the numerous plot problems, the ending was incomprehensible. A Simple Plan had the same basic plot and was a much better show. No Country does not come close to Fargo. Expand
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.