Miramax Films | Release Date: November 9, 2007
7.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1504 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,150
Mixed:
169
Negative:
185
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)
3
ewenm.Mar 8, 2008
Way over-rated. pointless, characters void of any interest; been done better many times before.
2 of 6 users found this helpful
3
JacoboN.Apr 20, 2008
Overrated movie, a not so good FARGO .
3 of 7 users found this helpful
3
KrisKelleyApr 6, 2008
Unsatisfying ending.
4 of 8 users found this helpful
3
DCApr 30, 2009
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 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful
3
DWillyNov 9, 2007
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 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
2 of 7 users found this helpful
3
MattBDec 14, 2007
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 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful
3
chadFeb 4, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AaaB.Mar 16, 2008
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 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!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
TedT.Apr 13, 2008
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 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. Expand
3 of 7 users found this helpful
3
LeoM.Apr 13, 2008
Plodding display of meaningless violence. No redeeming qualities at all.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GARYA.Feb 21, 2009
Obscure, but without depth.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
MSJul 2, 2009
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, 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful
3
BillW.Dec 9, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
LevJan 11, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RKJan 12, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MBJan 15, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JeffAJan 26, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JohnH.Jan 26, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PriyanthT.Jan 31, 2008
Slow and boring. Too much of editing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AdamK.Mar 15, 2008
I didn't get it, I guess. A mildly exciting movie at parts, but mostly it was deadly boring and without any real ending.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
SharynMar 15, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RMB.Mar 20, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
FredB.Mar 23, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JosephS.Apr 22, 2008
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JPApr 4, 2008
Violent & nihilist, beautifully done but ultimately pointless.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JamesL.Nov 20, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JoeBlowNov 24, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
BTBerryNov 25, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MattS.Nov 25, 2007
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
TeresaTuttleDec 27, 2007
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 completeJust 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful