User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1297 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. ewenm.
    Mar 8, 2008
    3
    Way over-rated. pointless, characters void of any interest; been done better many times before.
  2. JacoboN.
    Apr 20, 2008
    3
    Overrated movie, a not so good FARGO .
  3. KrisKelley
    Apr 6, 2008
    3
    Unsatisfying ending.
  4. DC
    Apr 30, 2009
    3
    Good performances, interesting enough characters with a nice tone of its own. I was really enjoying it, feeling the tension build and build and then whoosh the cohens whip the rug out from under you and as you sit there lying on your back going "Hey what the hell happened?" the two brothers pull down their pants and take a nice big steaming dump on your face. While shouting "Ha Ha fuck Good performances, interesting enough characters with a nice tone of its own. I was really enjoying it, feeling the tension build and build and then whoosh the cohens whip the rug out from under you and as you sit there lying on your back going "Hey what the hell happened?" the two brothers pull down their pants and take a nice big steaming dump on your face. While shouting "Ha Ha fuck you consumer, fuck you. You want closure? You want an ending that is in some way satisfying to the viewer? You want to at least have a final denouement between one of the protagonists and the psycho? Fuck you moron eat our filth!!" That's how I felt anyway. A film that could have been great totally destroyed by the most horrendous "bait and switch" I've ever had the misfortune to see. In a word "Disgusting". Expand
  5. DWilly
    Nov 9, 2007
    3
    This movie makes the list of all time promising films that derail into crap. I know the critical numbers are high because the filmmaking is very strong (apart from using Josh Brolin, who just isn't up to the task, nevermind being repeatedly referred to in this contemporary setting as a Viet Nam vet, which would have put him in combat at around age five), but you can't, not only This movie makes the list of all time promising films that derail into crap. I know the critical numbers are high because the filmmaking is very strong (apart from using Josh Brolin, who just isn't up to the task, nevermind being repeatedly referred to in this contemporary setting as a Viet Nam vet, which would have put him in combat at around age five), but you can't, not only jerk the rug out from underneath your audience, but then go at them with a baseball bat as the story becomes devoid of clarity, humanity or point. Expand
  6. MattB
    Dec 14, 2007
    3
    The end of the movie was honestly the most awkward experience I have ever had at the movies. People of all ages and levels of maturity were left dumbfounded. We all sat there looking at the screen waiting for the film to resume, but it never did. This movie is getting great reviews and I in no doubt assume it to be a bad story. I do in fact claim that this film is a terrible The end of the movie was honestly the most awkward experience I have ever had at the movies. People of all ages and levels of maturity were left dumbfounded. We all sat there looking at the screen waiting for the film to resume, but it never did. This movie is getting great reviews and I in no doubt assume it to be a bad story. I do in fact claim that this film is a terrible representation of that story. It left me bored and lost, when it should have left me in a spot where I am not having to try to understand what the hell the point is. For the majority of movie goers I would recommend seeing a film that presents itself to the audience, unless of course they are just looking for a cool gun. Expand
  7. 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
  8. 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!!
  9. TedT.
    Apr 13, 2008
    3
    What was all the hype about???? You must be kidding me. This was shot like something from the 70's. If thats what turned you on..then watch something from the 70's. I'm still scratching my head over why I heard so many people say "best movie I've seen" are you serious? This was nothing more than...nothing.
  10. LeoM.
    Apr 13, 2008
    3
    Plodding display of meaningless violence. No redeeming qualities at all.
  11. GARYA.
    Feb 21, 2009
    3
    Obscure, but without depth.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. PriyanthT.
    Jan 31, 2008
    3
    Slow and boring. Too much of editing.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. JP
    Apr 4, 2008
    3
    Violent & nihilist, beautifully done but ultimately pointless.
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. JohnD.
    Oct 27, 2008
    3
    Intriguing but not a movie I would say was enjoyable. The acting was incredibly good but the ending left me with no closure which I so desperately was looking for in a movie that was convoluted in many ways. Too many unanswered questions for me and I would not recommend this movie and do not understand all the hype it has received.
  33. Gra
    Mar 18, 2008
    3
    All I saw was a film filled with unintentionally hilarious moments and awkward, confused symbolism. It seems to me like people have had the wool pulled over their eyes with this one. It's all very well to say 'you just don't get it', but i am yet to read anything describing exactly what there was 'to get'. Don't get me wrong, I like films with a message, All I saw was a film filled with unintentionally hilarious moments and awkward, confused symbolism. It seems to me like people have had the wool pulled over their eyes with this one. It's all very well to say 'you just don't get it', but i am yet to read anything describing exactly what there was 'to get'. Don't get me wrong, I like films with a message, but there's a difference between ambiguity and nonsense. Expand
  34. ToddG.
    Nov 19, 2007
    3
    The 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.
  35. Rich
    Jan 28, 2008
    2
    This movie has to be the worst movie of the year and yet it gets acclaim from reviewers. When I go see a movie I want a good plot maybe a twist here and there and some action. You get all of that in this movie correction except the plot because the plot is totally dumb. Its so linear and when the main guy dies 3 quarters into the movie you stop caring bout the movie and start wonderingThis movie has to be the worst movie of the year and yet it gets acclaim from reviewers. When I go see a movie I want a good plot maybe a twist here and there and some action. You get all of that in this movie correction except the plot because the plot is totally dumb. Its so linear and when the main guy dies 3 quarters into the movie you stop caring bout the movie and start wondering why is this movie still going. It has its moments in the middle of the movie but thats bout it. Don't get me wrong the movie has some great acting but damn I don't go to the movies to be bored to death bout sumthing not relevent. Thats how I felt bout the ending like wtf!!!. Everyone in the thetear even the older folks were cursing this movie as a waste of time. And that is exactly what it was. So basically if you want to see a movie with great acting and a boring plot go see this movie. If not then see anything else but this please don't waste your hard earned cash on this crap. Expand
  36. blueenigma-blackgirl
    Feb 10, 2008
    2
    When I watch a film, I expect to experience a series of emotional pulls throughout the movie, either from the characters, the setting, the storyline, or a combination of elements. While watching this movie, I felt distinctly flat, and became increasing disenchanted as the story went on. The characters were underdeveloped, and I never cared what happened to any of them. The sparseness of When I watch a film, I expect to experience a series of emotional pulls throughout the movie, either from the characters, the setting, the storyline, or a combination of elements. While watching this movie, I felt distinctly flat, and became increasing disenchanted as the story went on. The characters were underdeveloped, and I never cared what happened to any of them. The sparseness of the set and the lack of a true score are both unique ideas, and in the right hands can be great stock for a masterful film; however, technique alone cannot carry a film, particularly if paired with ill-designed substance. For example, the movie is ridden with peculiar scenes that defy common sense and left me more distracted than engrossed. If we look at the scene where Llewelyn passed the suitcase of money through the duct to a different room, the question of purpose comes to mind. Recall, he did this prior to discovering the money was fitted with a tracking device. Thus, it wasn Expand
  37. FrankMonteleone
    Jan 7, 2008
    2
    The key to going to the movies is fairly simple, to be entertained. When the movie is good, you feel as though you are part of the cinematic landscape, and you move with the participants. When it stinks, you know you are watching a movie, and feel very far from the screen. After a spirited start, I found myself drifting back into my seat, and watching an arcade game unfold before me.The key to going to the movies is fairly simple, to be entertained. When the movie is good, you feel as though you are part of the cinematic landscape, and you move with the participants. When it stinks, you know you are watching a movie, and feel very far from the screen. After a spirited start, I found myself drifting back into my seat, and watching an arcade game unfold before me. Contrary to those who have professed their love for this film, and McCarthy, I found no redeeming value or statement from this film. I found myself more and more annoyed at the 'puppets with guns' dancing through a non-reactive society. There are many ways to communicate the theme of an indifferent society, but an uncaring Sheriff appeared more expositional than thematic, and by the last forty five minutes, I was left wondering if the three teenagers sitting behind me who had already walked out on this snoozer were rbighter than me. The Emporer had no clothes, and No country was missing a plot. Expand
  38. 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.
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. AnonymousMC
    Jan 3, 2008
    2
    Yeah, I know everyone says this is a thinker, and let me tell you I
  45. 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.
  46. DD.
    Feb 27, 2008
    2
    The least surprising movie the Cohen bothers have made. It
  47. 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?
  48. 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..
  49. 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
  50. 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.
  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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.
  56. WillT.
    Dec 5, 2007
    2
    A sadistic, ridiculously violent and pretentious waste of time. It has no relationship to real life and no meaning.
  57. 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.
  58. 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
  59. JohnC.
    Apr 15, 2008
    2
    One of the worst movies we've seen. It was terrible. How the heck it was nominated for anything is beyond me.
  60. AlF.
    Nov 22, 2007
    2
    This 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.
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. May 19, 2013
    2
    the one thing i learned from this movie is that you can still get disappoint even if you are already disappoint which is exactly what happened to me before and after watching this movie.
    the only reason i watched it in the first place because of the Oscar for best picture in which the movie didn't deserve and here's why.
    the script was corny the screen play was silly the characters
    the one thing i learned from this movie is that you can still get disappoint even if you are already disappoint which is exactly what happened to me before and after watching this movie.
    the only reason i watched it in the first place because of the Oscar for best picture in which the movie didn't deserve and here's why.
    the script was corny the screen play was silly the characters were stupid and the directing was normal and there isn't a music and a moral afterward.
    some how the producer/directer was able be lazy in terms of screen play and people weren't able to recognize that but if you do you will notice that there isn't a dialog which might be the laziest way to produce a movie with only few good scene and a huge gap between them.
    in terms of Javier Bardem performance anyone would be able to do that cause there isn't a default standard way to play his role anyone could fill that role and play it his own way and you won't complain about it trust me.
    Expand
  64. 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
  65. TinoR.
    May 3, 2008
    1
    Rented the video for a dollar at a vending machine in the local drug store. It wasn't even worth the dollar.
  66. AnonymousMC
    Feb 3, 2008
    1
    The beging was great! had all the makings of a good movie......then it just flat out sucked. All of the plot just came to a crashing end, they didnt even show how the hotel scene went down. How can the main charicter just be cut out of a movie with no explination? And, just when you think you might get some get some little closer on the film, the damn credits come on. How anyone in thereThe beging was great! had all the makings of a good movie......then it just flat out sucked. All of the plot just came to a crashing end, they didnt even show how the hotel scene went down. How can the main charicter just be cut out of a movie with no explination? And, just when you think you might get some get some little closer on the film, the damn credits come on. How anyone in there right mind would say this is the best movie of the year, I don't know. It was a horrible way to end a movie, and makes me think that I should be a director. Becasue anyone could do that and make millions of dollars. If all you have to do is make a few exciting shooting scenes and then roll the credits. Who would chose that as a job. Expand
  67. DavidS.
    Mar 13, 2008
    1
    Overrated, over-hyped, couldn't wait until it was over. Enough said.
  68. MikeSt.
    Mar 4, 2008
    1
    Anyone who rated this movie higher than five must be unaware that it has been made dozens of times before. Guy takes drug dealers money and drug dealer chases him - the only difference is the other movies actually had an ending. The Coen brothers borrowed a tired plot and the ending of "The Sopranos" and get an academy award? No wonder nobody watches that joke of an awards ceremony anymore.
  69. Joel
    Jan 20, 2008
    1
    I'm with Steve and M B on this one its like the Coen bros. are paying the review crew to suck their cocks; the only reason I give this Boring ass movie a 1 is for the cool ass Air gun and thats IT.
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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.
  73. 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
  74. 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!!!
  75. 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
  76. 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.
  77. 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
  78. LindaW.
    Apr 26, 2008
    1
    The ending ruined the whole movie.
  79. KNob
    Sep 9, 2008
    1
    This movie started with an improbable story line that led no where. This was a total waste of time.
  80. 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.
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. 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.
  85. 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
  86. 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.
  87. 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!!!!
  88. 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.
  89. 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
  90. 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.
  91. RonaldG.
    Jan 22, 2008
    1
    A psychopath who eventually kills nearly everyone in the movie doesn't do much for me.
  92. CathiM.
    Apr 19, 2008
    1
    Woody Harrelson was the best thing in the movie and that says it all.
  93. ThomasW
    Nov 6, 2009
    1
    Sick, sad, and funny that nearly all critics are raving about this awkward, hurriedly composed, and absurd celebration of an evil guy who is never hampered by realism. e.g. no handcuffs behind back; able to reach top of office building carrying a long shotgun; not stopped by severe car wreck; plus Josh Brolen snuffed out - blink and you'll miss it. Riduculous script. Move overrated Sick, sad, and funny that nearly all critics are raving about this awkward, hurriedly composed, and absurd celebration of an evil guy who is never hampered by realism. e.g. no handcuffs behind back; able to reach top of office building carrying a long shotgun; not stopped by severe car wreck; plus Josh Brolen snuffed out - blink and you'll miss it. Riduculous script. Move overrated film I have ever seen. Expand
  94. JeffB.
    Jul 20, 2009
    0
    Although the actors did a great job ... the plot had no substance or meaning due to a poorly written ending. I don't even think the Director could tell you what it meant. All i can figure out is they reached thier target budget and said "Alright ... let's end it here".
  95. Maggie
    Mar 15, 2008
    0
    Soooo stupid, soooo lame, soooo boring. Give me my 2 hours back. Soooo hollywood crap.
  96. SK
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    A VERY VERY bad movie. I have no idea how this movie won an Oscar. I contemplated multiple times during the movie of walking out, but I endured till the end in the hope that the end would salvage the movie. No such thing, the end leaves you with an even worse feeling. Horrible, horrible movie.
  97. Stung47000
    Jan 20, 2009
    0
    Who told Hollywood that in order to make an original movie nowadays you have to make it suck at the end? The movie was a 10 until the last act, but then it ended so god-awful it actually deserves a negative score for failing so hard!
  98. HughB
    Apr 18, 2010
    0
    The worst movie I have ever seen, this is saying a lot seeing as I am a film student, have watched Birth Of A Nation and can usually enjoy ANY type of movie for one reason or another. No character development, boring characters (No the killer is not scary), jumpy plot and useless sound track (I have heard people call the silence tense, watch The Hurt Locker for a good example of that) The worst movie I have ever seen, this is saying a lot seeing as I am a film student, have watched Birth Of A Nation and can usually enjoy ANY type of movie for one reason or another. No character development, boring characters (No the killer is not scary), jumpy plot and useless sound track (I have heard people call the silence tense, watch The Hurt Locker for a good example of that) NCFOM is just boring. If you like it and write good reviews for this film maybe you should actually watch it first. Expand
  99. KyleB.
    Nov 30, 2007
    0
    Good movie, but the ranking needs to go down because of the ending, no way it should be 8.0 more like 5 or 6.
  100. 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.
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.