No Country for Old Men

User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1410 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

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

User Reviews

  1. 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
  2. SeanA.
    Mar 27, 2008
    1
    The only reason I'm giving this movie a 1 is because the last 30 minutes is so confusing and then the movie just ends. You don't know what happened to the the hero or the villian. The first hour in a half are some of the best film making I've seen. Too bad it has no ending.
  3. ArmondA.
    Apr 10, 2008
    0
    Does anyone remember "Barton Fink" ? The Coen Brothers are heartless masters of style, and even when I like one of their films I wish I didn't. In the case of the critically acclaimed but audience-detested "Barton Fink" I faced no internal conflict--my heart and my head were in perfect agreement. And so it is with "No Country". It's a nasty film with nothing to say and an ugly Does anyone remember "Barton Fink" ? The Coen Brothers are heartless masters of style, and even when I like one of their films I wish I didn't. In the case of the critically acclaimed but audience-detested "Barton Fink" I faced no internal conflict--my heart and my head were in perfect agreement. And so it is with "No Country". It's a nasty film with nothing to say and an ugly way of saying it. Expand
  4. MiKE
    Apr 10, 2008
    0
    Wow! What a disappointment this turned out to be! Pointless, unreal, boring, and a terrible ending!
  5. Dr.Wayne
    Apr 14, 2008
    2
    One of the worst movies I've seen. You can talk about all the 'hidden' meaning all you want. It was not interesting, was very simple, just a simple double cross ... big deal. It's worth a 2 only because Tommy Lee was in it. Don't try to build up some idiotic intrigue ... there was none.
  6. JP
    Apr 4, 2008
    3
    Violent & nihilist, beautifully done but ultimately pointless.
  7. JackZ.
    Jun 30, 2008
    0
    The acting is perfect, the camera work excellent, but unfortunately the source material is so diabolically terrible there was little chance of this film being any good, unless some major reworking was done. An abysmal movie which seems intent on mocking and insulting the viewer, promising closure but then ripping it away like some kind of failed orgasm. The main character is killed The acting is perfect, the camera work excellent, but unfortunately the source material is so diabolically terrible there was little chance of this film being any good, unless some major reworking was done. An abysmal movie which seems intent on mocking and insulting the viewer, promising closure but then ripping it away like some kind of failed orgasm. The main character is killed half-way through, and the last ten minutes of film seem totally absent. Did the makers have any grasp of how to tell a story? This film is an insult to anyone with the mental faculties to understand what a story is, and the fact it has garnered so much praise shocks and disappoints me. Ignore the hype, you'd find more satisfaction from viewing spasmodically undulating pictures of winos flashed on screen in time the noise made from industrial machinery. This film is the equivalent of if halfway through Star Wars, Luke decided he wanted to become a gardener, and then for the next sixty minutes you watched as he built a shed on a grassy lawn. Out of context, ridiculous, stupid, pointless, lacking any kind of sense, and hopelessly disappointing. Why would anyone make half a film and then decide to derail it in such an indescribably idiotic fashion?! WHY?! Expand
  8. gcash
    Jan 3, 2009
    1
    This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. There was pointless killing with no sense of direction of the movie plot. I will never rent or buy a coen brothers film again!!!!
  9. Sam
    Oct 4, 2009
    0
    I saw this movie because of all the hype surrounding it and needless to say i was disappointed. It was too long, violent and slow in its execution and left me puzzled and disappointed.
  10. JarekD.
    Aug 24, 2009
    0
    One of the worst movies I've ever seen.
  11. JohnH
    Aug 5, 2009
    2
    Weak film. Begins well and peters out. The central performances are laughable. I guess it was their year for the Oscar, but they've made much better.
  12. NeilK.
    Nov 18, 2007
    2
    What a pretentious and pointless movie. Yes, yes, the camera angles and acting were all fine, but it completely lacked any sense of direction or purpose as well as any surprises or twists. The only message the movie seemed to have was, "We're the Coen brothers, look how great we are." Don't waste your money.
  13. Angela
    Nov 19, 2007
    0
    Boring, slow and graphic, gory pointless scenes. Don't waste your time.
  14. JamesL.
    Nov 20, 2007
    3
    The second most disappointing and over rated film of the year after "Eastern Promises". This film is simply bloody carnage scenes, one ater another, disguised as a morality tale. "Natural Born Killers" was this graphically violent but at least it had a message. The only message I received was that the Coen brothers can stage a brutal murder scene numerous times without any real plot, The second most disappointing and over rated film of the year after "Eastern Promises". This film is simply bloody carnage scenes, one ater another, disguised as a morality tale. "Natural Born Killers" was this graphically violent but at least it had a message. The only message I received was that the Coen brothers can stage a brutal murder scene numerous times without any real plot, suspense or character development. Tommy Lee Jones looked and acted as if he was embarrassed to be in this soory spectable. The critics who are lavishing the extraordinary praise should be embarrassed as well. Expand
  15. Paul
    Nov 23, 2007
    1
    This movie was one of the worst I had ever seen. It is bloody and gory and sadistic. I gave it at least one point for a little of the dialogue.
  16. JoeBlow
    Nov 24, 2007
    3
    Great acting. Great cinematography. Horribly pretentcious and self important false advertising. Teases with the promise of greatness but in the end only pees in your cornflakes. I got the point, the message, whatever. Who cares. I want to some sort of payoff or sense of satisfaction. A very skillfully executed dissapointment.
  17. BTBerry
    Nov 25, 2007
    3
    This movie is so violent it made me sick. Moviegoers in general are somewhat inured to all the violence in movies these days but this film's realism was over the top for me. The last 15 minutes of the film were horrible and people shouted and boo'd at the abrupt ending. The only reason I gave it 3 points was that the characters were interesting enough to watch to the end. The This movie is so violent it made me sick. Moviegoers in general are somewhat inured to all the violence in movies these days but this film's realism was over the top for me. The last 15 minutes of the film were horrible and people shouted and boo'd at the abrupt ending. The only reason I gave it 3 points was that the characters were interesting enough to watch to the end. The movie really never made it's point (at least to me) though when you got to the finish. Expand
  18. RJM.
    Nov 26, 2007
    1
    It's really quite incredible the nut-busting the critics did over this one. it's just a silly movie. I agree with the guys before me who call it a really bad version of Fargo. the movie is entertaining, but really only in the sense that you're waiting for something entertaining to happen. even the would-be entertaining moments, like the dude's escape from his motel It's really quite incredible the nut-busting the critics did over this one. it's just a silly movie. I agree with the guys before me who call it a really bad version of Fargo. the movie is entertaining, but really only in the sense that you're waiting for something entertaining to happen. even the would-be entertaining moments, like the dude's escape from his motel room onto the street, are just drug out and emasculated of all their intensity. that's what this movie is, come to think of it: a limp penis. a limp penis trying pathetically to get hard. Expand
  19. DD
    Dec 2, 2007
    2
    A cacophony of horrible violence for no apparent reason. It's simply a poor cross b/t Fargo and the bounty hunting element of Raising Arizona. The main killer is not sympathetic, he's just a psychopath. I love Fargo, Raising Arizona, and Miller's Crossing. I dislike this film. Please see another one. It's dull. It doesn't have a climax. People are killed A cacophony of horrible violence for no apparent reason. It's simply a poor cross b/t Fargo and the bounty hunting element of Raising Arizona. The main killer is not sympathetic, he's just a psychopath. I love Fargo, Raising Arizona, and Miller's Crossing. I dislike this film. Please see another one. It's dull. It doesn't have a climax. People are killed needlessly. I feel like i need a shower to wash off the blood from the movie. The only redeeming quality is how it teaches one how to survive multiple injuries. It's a bit of a survivalist video. Expand
  20. TeresaTuttle
    Dec 27, 2007
    3
    Just because something is different does not mean it's good. In the beginning I thought I would enjoy this movie, but by the end I realized this was 2.5 hours of my life I will never get back. The plot had moments of complete derailment and it had no end. Sorry, but I hated it.
  21. JeffreyAnonquerin
    Dec 30, 2007
    2
    If this movie had been entitled "This Movie Is A Metaphor For The Presidency Of George W. Bush" I might have forced myself to sign on. Indeed, if there had been any point ot the movie at all. It is, undoubtedly, very precise edge-of-your-seat filmmaking. But to what end? Do we simply glorify violence? Is relentless amoral violence the essence of our civilization? Or even if it is, isIf this movie had been entitled "This Movie Is A Metaphor For The Presidency Of George W. Bush" I might have forced myself to sign on. Indeed, if there had been any point ot the movie at all. It is, undoubtedly, very precise edge-of-your-seat filmmaking. But to what end? Do we simply glorify violence? Is relentless amoral violence the essence of our civilization? Or even if it is, is it enough to simply SHOW it without comment, smirking on the sidelines? This film is over-rated by sycophantic critics who need to have above-it-all heroes of cynicism to fill in the empty foreground of their own nihilistic lives. Unfortunately, maybe they themselves are more like the dregs of society portrayed than they realize. Being so jaded is how they accomplish such a pompous feat. Films like Juno or The Great Debaters deserve much more attention than this empty intensity. Expand
  22. KeithHildebrand
    Dec 31, 2007
    2
    Very disipointing esspecially the ending. Started out very good with stong characters until all were killed off with sensless violence. Ending with evil winning and a stupid ending which left you empty. It has been a long time sense I have been in the theator where the patrons showed there dissapointment at the end.
  23. Susan
    Dec 3, 2007
    0
    I can't believe I wasted 2 plus hours on this movie. It was pointless violence and there was no ending whatsoever. I could not believe my eyes when the opening credits rolled. I wish I could have my time and money back.
  24. WillT.
    Dec 5, 2007
    2
    A sadistic, ridiculously violent and pretentious waste of time. It has no relationship to real life and no meaning.
  25. JoshS
    Dec 6, 2007
    1
    This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It started out with good promise, but got worse and worse as time went on. There is no story development and no ending.
  26. LeonG
    Dec 7, 2007
    3
    I have one thing to say about this movie, "The Emperor's New Clothes." True, the acting was good, the dialog was real but the substance wasn't there. Listening to someone drone on about nothing does not make a good movie. Honest people, not trying to feel superior to us less insightful and intellectual people, will freely admit that the Emperor is not wearing clothes. This movie I have one thing to say about this movie, "The Emperor's New Clothes." True, the acting was good, the dialog was real but the substance wasn't there. Listening to someone drone on about nothing does not make a good movie. Honest people, not trying to feel superior to us less insightful and intellectual people, will freely admit that the Emperor is not wearing clothes. This movie is not worth the time or the money. Expand
  27. ButteredPopcorn
    Nov 28, 2008
    2
    Nice acting that was unfortunately wasted on this film that seemed to say nothing. Agree with all the others who said this was a waste of time, and the ending could of only have been worse if i cared enough to want to figure it out.
  28. RonaldG.
    Jan 22, 2008
    1
    A psychopath who eventually kills nearly everyone in the movie doesn't do much for me.
  29. Tom
    Dec 28, 2008
    0
    Imagine an episode of "Popeye the Sailor Man" but with real actors and barrelfuls of tomato ketchup. That's "No Country for Old Men". Pathetic and shallow despite excellent photography.
  30. JGH
    Jan 26, 2008
    2
    Those who rate this movie in the 7-10 category have either got to be KIDDING! ... paid critics --- or people who spend time analyzing the deeper meaning of an abstract painting --- only to discover it was created by dipping a dog's tail in paint and allowing him to wave it against a canvas --- This middle of the movie has some good suspense held together by good actors --- but, Those who rate this movie in the 7-10 category have either got to be KIDDING! ... paid critics --- or people who spend time analyzing the deeper meaning of an abstract painting --- only to discover it was created by dipping a dog's tail in paint and allowing him to wave it against a canvas --- This middle of the movie has some good suspense held together by good actors --- but, overall, the plot and story meander pointlessly through gratuitously violence until abruptly slamming to a finish that leaves viewers wondering if the editors broke the film three-fourths of the way through ... and never bothered to splice the ending back on! Expand
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.