- Studio: Miramax Films
- Release Date: Nov 9, 2007
User Score
7.3
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 995 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 744 out of 995
-
Mixed: 83 out of 995
-
Negative: 168 out of 995
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
DavidMarxDec 31, 20070
-
-
KeithHildebrandDec 31, 20072Very 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.
-
-
SusanDec 3, 20070I 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.
-
-
WillT.Dec 5, 20072A sadistic, ridiculously violent and pretentious waste of time. It has no relationship to real life and no meaning.
-
-
JoshSDec 6, 20071This 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.
-
-
LeonGDec 7, 20073
-
-
ButteredPopcornNov 28, 20082Nice 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.
-
-
RonaldG.Jan 22, 20081A psychopath who eventually kills nearly everyone in the movie doesn't do much for me.
-
-
TomDec 28, 20080Imagine 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.
-
-
JGHJan 26, 20082
-
-
LV.Feb 24, 20080This movie and every thing around it, is a very good example of how the American film industries has been in decay for the last few years.
-
-
christianFeb 24, 20080Complete pile of dookie.. The writers strike started 2/3 of the way in. Typical elitist Hollywood garbage. Just because you give this movie a 10 doesn't make you better than me.
-
-
ElaineN.Feb 26, 20080The only movie that I have seen that was WORST than this one was BELOVED!! You couldn't pay me to sit thru it again!! Are the Acadamy voters HIGH??????
-
-
JanN.Mar 14, 20084
-
-
GraMar 18, 20083
-
-
MikeI.Apr 14, 20084
-
-
JohnC.Apr 15, 20082One of the worst movies we've seen. It was terrible. How the heck it was nominated for anything is beyond me.
-
-
JasonS.Apr 16, 20084All I can say about this movie was the ending is a huge letdown. I realize that the Coens were aiming for symbolism and mystery in a dramatic finish, but it just didn't work for me.
-
-
CathiM.Apr 19, 20081Woody Harrelson was the best thing in the movie and that says it all.
-
-
JimM.Apr 22, 20084How did this win an academy award? What a horrible movie. No entertainment value whatsoever.
-
-
DenizY.Sep 13, 20084I'm not stupid, but this is just 120 minutes of some guy going around killing people with a bolt gun. It was boring, had the worst and most awkward ending in recent memory. Seriously, why do people like this movie? I don't think they get it either, they just believe it looks intelligent and so they play along. Retards, the lot of you!
-
-
ErickSep 13, 20084The only reason I'm giving this a 5 is because I watched it after "There Will Be Blood", which was even worse.. If there isn't a sequel to this then it is pointless.
-
-
ThomasWNov 6, 20091
-
-
ZacH.Sep 21, 20090Critics 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.
-
-
ToddG.Nov 19, 20073The first 2/3 of the movie are tight and very well done. The story just dies, and falls flat by the end. Such a shame. I don't understand why the critics fell all over themselves to give the "No Country" such good ratings. It is one of those things where they assume that because the Coen brothers have made good movies in the past, that they must be doing something right. NOT THE CASE here.
-
-
AlF.Nov 22, 20072This film is just "Fargo", set in Texas instead of Minnesota. Unfortunately, it has the violence of "Fargo" without the humorous moments or charming characters. The plot is completely implausable. The critics like it because it is different. To me, as a casual film viewer, it's just an exercise in excess from directors that are out to shock audiences with cheap violence.
-
-
JohnHoltDec 22, 20074Left me feeling like feeling like "what's the point?"
-
-
AMovieCriticDec 29, 20074
-
-
SylviaCDec 25, 20094
-
-
Oct 23, 20102This review contains spoilers, click expand to view.
-
90It’s a near masterpiece.
-
100Joel and Ethan Coen's adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel is an indisputably great movie, at this point the year's very best.
-
90It'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.