Miramax Films | Release Date: November 9, 2007
7.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1466 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,115
Mixed:
167
Negative:
184
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
ChrisSOCMay 17, 2008
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
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.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
mgJan 21, 2008
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
MarkRJan 20, 2008
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
4
JackBMar 2, 2008
The first 90 minutes of this film had me on the edge of my seat. Then within 5 minutes and two scenes, everything that had been building up was ruined by an incredibly poor and ill constructed twist. After watching Broken Flowers, which also The first 90 minutes of this film had me on the edge of my seat. Then within 5 minutes and two scenes, everything that had been building up was ruined by an incredibly poor and ill constructed twist. After watching Broken Flowers, which also had no ending, i must say im becoming somewhat disillusioned by the film industry at this moment in time. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
EmmaG.Feb 19, 2008
It's a well done movie, that's all. I don't understand why it's getting so many awards, there have been better movies this year (Eastern Promises, for example).
1 of 1 users found this helpful
4
ScraperFeb 18, 2015
I'm tired of being "turned on my ear." I understand, Coens, that not every movie is going to be a happy ending, but when I realize that everyone is doomed in the first ten-twenty minutes of the movie, it's kinda tough to build up hope inI'm tired of being "turned on my ear." I understand, Coens, that not every movie is going to be a happy ending, but when I realize that everyone is doomed in the first ten-twenty minutes of the movie, it's kinda tough to build up hope in anyone accomplishing anything.

The runner runs. The hunter hunts. The meek wife frets. And Tommy Lee Jones is too old for this ****

I get it.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
BobS.Sep 2, 2008
The ending sucked, because there wasn't one. The whole movie is a set-up for a non-existent ending. It's like driving two hours to go to a theme park only to find a big hole in the ground. If that sounds like your kind of thing The ending sucked, because there wasn't one. The whole movie is a set-up for a non-existent ending. It's like driving two hours to go to a theme park only to find a big hole in the ground. If that sounds like your kind of thing then I strongly suggest seeing this movie. Expand
5 of 10 users found this helpful
6
JamesNWAOct 15, 2010
A good movie but there is some parts to it that should of been thought over a bit more by the Coen brothers such as the fact we see Anton Chigurh kill a load of people, but we never see him kill Llewelyn Moss, who is one of the mainA good movie but there is some parts to it that should of been thought over a bit more by the Coen brothers such as the fact we see Anton Chigurh kill a load of people, but we never see him kill Llewelyn Moss, who is one of the main characters of the film. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
6
billMar 20, 2008
Overrated! If you can stomach the violence the first half of this movie is interesting. The second half is extremely boring. The acting is excellent throughout but the story goes nowhere. Best Picture? - give me a break.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
5
ReviewCriticFeb 19, 2012
The Coen Brothers weakest movie, No Country for Old Men, is a suspenseful and well-done cat and mouse thriller. However, the only thing GREAT about it is Javier Bardem. Is it a good movie? Yes. Is it a Best Picture movie? No.
3 of 10 users found this helpful37
All this user's reviews
6
JalexDiamondMar 30, 2008
Definitely not a terrible film, but it seems like a hodgepodge of good ideas which are executed well in and of themselves. Unfortunately, it is ONLY in and of themselves that they are so well executed. The film does not connect well on any Definitely not a terrible film, but it seems like a hodgepodge of good ideas which are executed well in and of themselves. Unfortunately, it is ONLY in and of themselves that they are so well executed. The film does not connect well on any level by the final scenes. And, many things are simply not explained. Now, I don't desire to simply be spoon-fed answers by a film, but i watched this film 4 times in a row and looked it up on the internet so I might understand. But, alas, the answers needed to complete this riveting-until-the-end film are simply not there. Also, something of note is Javier Bardem's performance. It has been raved about, but it is not a truly great performance. Chigurh is an interesting character, a different character, but the performance is rather simple overall. His dialogue proves that he is a madman, but not a chilling one. Just a murderer who kills people because he is a madman. His psyche seems too cyclical and bland to make this as good a performance as it should be. Overall, it's an interesting watch, but nothing close to the best film of 2007. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
DaviddDec 7, 2007
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
NKFeb 3, 2008
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
SteveS.Mar 25, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
LaurenceE.Jul 6, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
TrickyHFeb 3, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
TomDNov 8, 2008
The acting was great by everyone. the story was good until the end way to many holes that were not filled in it reminded me of the soprano's ending not giving you the closer the movie deserve.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
DamienArkinsJan 4, 2008
The Anthony Lane review in the New Yorker is remarkably accurate and insightful in my opinion. He actually does not give a score but I think 6 is closer to the 7 that metacritic ascribed him.

Yes, film criticism is a subjective thing but I
The Anthony Lane review in the New Yorker is remarkably accurate and insightful in my opinion. He actually does not give a score but I think 6 is closer to the 7 that metacritic ascribed him.

Yes, film criticism is a subjective thing but I would argue to the ends of the earth that this is not a 10/10 film.. In fact I would say that 7 is as far as anyone who values originality and passion in their filmmaking could possibly give it!

**Spoiler Alert**

I think the worst moment of the film is the car crash. I felt that we were meant to be taken by surprise but the clumsy editing back and forth to the green light took away any surprise value..

Also the death of Woody Harrelson's character seemed unbelievable and redundant.. He know's who he is dealing with yet he was killed like a nobody civilian.. It's like the film deals with cliches but want's to make serious points about violence, greed etc.. Chigurh was a caricature and cliche of a serial killer.. and I would argue that most of the film was also cliche..
I did enjoy the dog chasing moss down the river.. The dog had more character development than Chigurh..
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
LoccusD.Aug 14, 2008
This is the movie all the critics are having a fit about? Solid performances, but one of the slowest paced and boring movies I've seen in recent memory.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
WVDec 23, 2008
A dark fantasy born of a story tellers imagination. Coined "real" by people who watch movies for a living, and licked up by peasants who are afraid they can't see the kings new outfit. The message is simple, it's been told a A dark fantasy born of a story tellers imagination. Coined "real" by people who watch movies for a living, and licked up by peasants who are afraid they can't see the kings new outfit. The message is simple, it's been told a million times; good guys never win, and those that sell their souls to the devil end up being rock and roll stars. Big whoop. Now walk out your front door and open your eyes - that is reality. Come back inside and place No country for old men in your DVD player - that's fantasy. Learn the difference. Anyone can write a story, by its very nature it is CONTRIVED; random segments of reality warped into a narrative. In this story the bad guy wins, and a true hero is a dead one, and all that other 'arty' romanticised BS. Yes BS... Contrived things like coin flipping... can anyone else smell a two faced bat? Just because it's "different" doesn't make it good. If I deficate on a canvas its still shit, even it it smells like art. And N.C. if you are so incredibly intelligent why don't you read some books, or write your own movie. Your mind is more active sleeping than watching the tube. It's not dumb people who don't get the movie, most people get the stupid movie. The real dumb ones are people who make a big deal about "getting it"; congratulations, the king is pleased that you say you cant see his penis; here's a noddy badge. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
JasonS.Apr 16, 2008
All 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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
MarleneJul 14, 2008
I was on the edge of my seat until the end. What was that? I had to get the book from the library ton read the last 1/4 to fill in the details of the sheriff's life and why he seemed to be the main character at the end.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
NickR.Nov 24, 2008
I agree that this film was supposed to be more realistic and without a protagonist to root for, but by the end i cant ignore the urge that the criminal should have died. The same thing happened in The Departed; all the protagonists died. But I agree that this film was supposed to be more realistic and without a protagonist to root for, but by the end i cant ignore the urge that the criminal should have died. The same thing happened in The Departed; all the protagonists died. But at least it finished the story w the mole being shot. Im not saying that No Country For old men is a bad movie b/c the acting was great i just didnt like the movie Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
schmageggeyJan 22, 2014
After just seeing the Coen Brother's masterpiece "Inside Llewyn Davis" I decided to go back and re-watch some of their previous movies. I started with No Country for Old Men. I have tried very hard to enjoy this movie and see what all theAfter just seeing the Coen Brother's masterpiece "Inside Llewyn Davis" I decided to go back and re-watch some of their previous movies. I started with No Country for Old Men. I have tried very hard to enjoy this movie and see what all the fuss is about but I can't. It is a great looking movie and some interesting scenes especially the shootout where Llewellyn and Anton first butt heads, but that's about it. First off, I thought Anton Chigurh was a terrible character. Everyone says how menacing he is, but he's just ridiculous. Secondly, I don't get Tommy Lee Jones significance. His character doesn't do a damn thing in the whole movie and serves virtually no purpose. Josh Brolin did a really good job as per usual, but besides that, the movie is just bland and overblown to be something it obviously isn't. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
yudi15Oct 19, 2012
i think it is d hollywood's one of the most overrated movie of all time and does not deserve to win an oscar for best picture.. although bardem's acting was very good.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
jmydizonDec 5, 2011
I can see why critics claimed this movie to be an instant classic, but it's a movie with too much drag. The big ups for this movie was the superb acting from the cast, especially Javier Bardem who showed us the real psycho side of a serialI can see why critics claimed this movie to be an instant classic, but it's a movie with too much drag. The big ups for this movie was the superb acting from the cast, especially Javier Bardem who showed us the real psycho side of a serial killer. The fact that this movie doesn't have any composed music until the credits shows it's power. It's as if composed music isn't needed. The problem is that the scenes make you want to see what's going to happen next, then as the movie progresses it's as if you're taking a mid afternoon nap. It's a movie that when it ends you'll go like, "What? that's it? Well that was a big waste of time." The story is strong, but not strong enough for some people to understand what's going on in the film. I do recommend watching this, it's good, but good in a way that you have to sit and watch too much silence. Otherwise, decent movie, I'll still claim it to be one of the Coen brothers best. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
4
AnonymousMCJan 3, 2008
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 movieCinematography, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TimJan 4, 2008
"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"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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JamesW.Feb 18, 2008
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, 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MikeP.Feb 19, 2008
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 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 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful