Miramax Films | Release Date: November 9, 2007
7.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1546 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,190
Mixed:
172
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
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
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
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
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
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
6
manresaxxxMar 15, 2008
As a Filmmaking graduate I adored Coen's because of their unusual style in editing and storytelling.But I must say that it was not the excessive show off of the violence that makes the film superficial, but it is the self-conciousness As a Filmmaking graduate I adored Coen's because of their unusual style in editing and storytelling.But I must say that it was not the excessive show off of the violence that makes the film superficial, but it is the self-conciousness that Coen's always use, but this time I think is failed.The unconsciousness is exaggerated so much that you can see it everywhere from lightning to the dialogs.The cold-mysterious and distancing atmosphere of the film of course, done by purpose, But the film is not either a western or a film noir.and I dont really understand the critics talking about Western Noir,because there is no such genre. There are only 11 major Genres and some sub- cathegories.And I think those who say that this film is Film noir, didnt even watch Billy Wilder.Every Genre has its own elements and nobody can call a western as Film Noir depending on some lightning preferences.are they trying to ?NVENT a non- existing genre by mixing some weak proofs ? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
CarolMar 28, 2008
I generally like the coen's work, try to get past the violence and nihilism. But, I just couldn't get past it on this one. The one redeeming point I took from the film is the poignancy of the overall message- along with age comes a I generally like the coen's work, try to get past the violence and nihilism. But, I just couldn't get past it on this one. The one redeeming point I took from the film is the poignancy of the overall message- along with age comes a realization and possibly acceptance of those things that you no longer understand and the liberation that comes iwth that realization. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DavidH.Mar 30, 2008
Disappointing. Although the movie is fast paced and beautifully filmed, it's nihilist message left me cold. I thought Kelly McDonald was very good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DavidStoneApr 6, 2008
Despite excellent cinematography and a strong cast, the film's plot meanders to a very unsatisfying end. While it's understood that Good doesn't always triumphant over Evil, the requisite show down between Llewelyn Moss (JoshDespite excellent cinematography and a strong cast, the film's plot meanders to a very unsatisfying end. While it's understood that Good doesn't always triumphant over Evil, the requisite show down between Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) and Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) doesn't happen. Failing that, you would have expected a showdown between Chigurh and Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Again this doesn't happen. What about Woody Harrelson's early, pathetic exit? I guess the Coen Brothers wanted to break the Hollywood Movie stereotype. For me, this existential ending simply didn't work. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PaulS.Jul 10, 2008
Really slow, a bit unrealistic, could have been shorter.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JoeA.Sep 5, 2008
Possibly the worst ending to a movie ever. One user compared it to winning the lottery only to find out it was a joke, a perfect analogy. I would have given this movie a 10 rating if it had an ending!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
denimbJun 18, 2010
90% of the movie was fantastic, but the end is so bad(it has no happy end).
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
NormD.Nov 14, 2007
More proof of the cluelessness of critics. Film takes one idea and beats it to death- sorry for the pun. Audience with me was sorely disaappointed-- booing at end.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RobertC.Dec 7, 2007
Based on all the glowing reviews of this film I was a bit disappointed with it. There are some great performances, the story is engaging and very thought provoking but the ending is a BIG letdown. This would have been a much better film for Based on all the glowing reviews of this film I was a bit disappointed with it. There are some great performances, the story is engaging and very thought provoking but the ending is a BIG letdown. This would have been a much better film for me had the ending been better. So, do not expect a satisfying ending. I realize the movie is based on a novel and the ending may be faithful to the book but it doesn't work for me. You have been fore warned! Expand
0 of 0 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
6
PeterK.Mar 12, 2008
This movie is engrossing, with an emphasis on violence that is so strong that one loses track of some of the fine acting. A much more elemental performance by Tommy Lee Jones can be seen in the nearly altogether ignored film In the Valley of This movie is engrossing, with an emphasis on violence that is so strong that one loses track of some of the fine acting. A much more elemental performance by Tommy Lee Jones can be seen in the nearly altogether ignored film In the Valley of Elah, which has a tragic plot rivaling anything by Sophocles and which shocks, mesmerizes and horrifies the audience with its powerful dramatic irony. No Country for Old Men is an OK movie but In the Valley of Elah is one of the best pieces of writing and acting (almost solely carried by Jones) in a decade. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
6
MattP.Apr 13, 2008
I may be "that guy," but I just don't get this movie. The first hour and a half are spent following what the audience suspects is the main character, Lewelyn Moss, until he just ups and dies at the hands of Mexican drug dealers (a scene I may be "that guy," but I just don't get this movie. The first hour and a half are spent following what the audience suspects is the main character, Lewelyn Moss, until he just ups and dies at the hands of Mexican drug dealers (a scene shot in my hometown of Albuquerque by the way) at suddenly the movie just pulls the parking brake and and turns right around, focusing on Bell. Why waste the first hour and a half of the movie by shaking the left hand, saying hey look at this look at this, moving said hand to punch you the face, then kicking you in the shin and spit on you. It made me feel stupid, thinking that the movie might follow the character that had been the focus of the film: you start to build up emotions and feelings for Moss, then they are shooed away with out any thought for the audience, only to stroke the Coens ego. I'm usually a fan of the Coens, Fargo rocks, and the Big Lebowski is the funniest movie ever, but NCFOM is just cheap. It "subverts" film genres by not really following one certain one, but it cheats the audience out of any real satisfaction. I get the whole evil is coming, we are all doomed, don't even try to be a good human being because your actions will just go for naught and you will die lonely with a big Hispanic Mary Lou Renton standing over you, but god, how snooty. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
GerhardL.Apr 2, 2008
The well matched Brolin and Bardem are great as the anti-hero and psycho killer exchanging wits and bullets. This, plus a few entertaining set pieces make for an interesting first half and set this film well on its way to being one of the The well matched Brolin and Bardem are great as the anti-hero and psycho killer exchanging wits and bullets. This, plus a few entertaining set pieces make for an interesting first half and set this film well on its way to being one of the year's best. Unfortunately, this is overshadowed by the Coens' shameless bid for academy awards by attempting to turn what has been up until the last 25 minutes a fairly linear and slow moving chase thriller into something more meaningful than it really is. An attempt that falls flat on its face as the film twists and turns horribly in a pathetic undertaking of audience 'shock and awe', which promptly flings the films two most engaging characters out of the picture. While Brolin's premature death can be taken on the chin, after all we've seen this before, you can't help wondering, as Bardem's mophead f**ks off unchallenged into the suburban sunset, why Tommy Lee Jones' two-dimensional, wise-cracking sheriff has suddenly become the centre piece of a film you were just starting to like and now you're not so sure. After all, you'd thought this film was about a Vietnam vet, a psycho and a big bag of money, but you were wrong. Actually, it's about an old fart in a tool shed, a bad dream and five Oscars, stupid. It's not about failing to comprehend or appreciate what the Coens are trying to do, but instead admitting that firstly, this just doesn't work for me and secondly, the disappointing realisation that this film's ending is equivalent to shitting a nice, new pair of pants. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MattR.May 17, 2008
An excellent first half gives way to an abysmal end to both the main character and the movie itself. The movie begins as an excellent thriller and dissolves into a confused and unlikeable discussion of good and evil. Brilliant performances An excellent first half gives way to an abysmal end to both the main character and the movie itself. The movie begins as an excellent thriller and dissolves into a confused and unlikeable discussion of good and evil. Brilliant performances and dismal set pieces can't save this movie from ultimately coming off as something that succeeds extremely well at first and then lapses into thoughtful territory that should have been left out. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RENov 17, 2007
I was enjoying the hell out of this movie until the Coens apparently deemed me, and every other audience member, unworthy of seeing it. I "get it" and everything, but when the film ended and the lights came up, I felt cheated. It's a shame.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AmandaM.Nov 25, 2007
After seeing this one, I realized yet again that I'm just not that big a fan of the Coen Bros. more serious movies - "MIllers Crossing" (which people love), "Man Who Wasn't There" and now "No Country..." just leave me cold. Bone After seeing this one, I realized yet again that I'm just not that big a fan of the Coen Bros. more serious movies - "MIllers Crossing" (which people love), "Man Who Wasn't There" and now "No Country..." just leave me cold. Bone cold. While I admire their restraint and ability to generate incredible tension, it's just not an enjoyable or stimulating experience. The film is so awash in nihilism, that when you get to the end, it's impossible not to wonder what the point was. The film is expertly executed - clearly the made the film they wanted to make. It just doesn't happen to be a film I wanted to see. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KellerD.Nov 27, 2007
I live out in that part of the world, Far West Texas they call it. I love BLOOD SIMPLE (to me one of the finest movies ever made). I went to see it with great excitement and anticipation and . . . I have to agree with Stephen Hunter of the I live out in that part of the world, Far West Texas they call it. I love BLOOD SIMPLE (to me one of the finest movies ever made). I went to see it with great excitement and anticipation and . . . I have to agree with Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post, I just didn't like it very much. But I'm going back tomorrow for another try. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DanielWDec 12, 2007
Can't understand the critical consensus here. Where is the unbridled fun of Lebowski or the brilliant character portrayals of Fargo? I found Miller's Crossing and Blood Simple much more menacing than this. The violence proceeded in Can't understand the critical consensus here. Where is the unbridled fun of Lebowski or the brilliant character portrayals of Fargo? I found Miller's Crossing and Blood Simple much more menacing than this. The violence proceeded in this movie with a leaden inevitability and predictability that made me want to flee the theater. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MarcK.Dec 8, 2007
Well-crafted, and Bardem deserves the Oscar. But the pace was often excruciatingly slow, and the film just didn't have any soul. At this point in their career, it seems that every film made by the Coen brothers gets high ratings. So for Well-crafted, and Bardem deserves the Oscar. But the pace was often excruciatingly slow, and the film just didn't have any soul. At this point in their career, it seems that every film made by the Coen brothers gets high ratings. So for me, it's just a question of seeing it, and going from there. I think I tend to like most, but not all of their films that use humor. Fargo and Raisin' Arizona are my favorites, but I hated O Brother Where Art Thou, and didn't care for Barton Fink. Go figure. Expand
0 of 0 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
6
SteveK.Mar 25, 2008
I fancy myself a half-way intelligent person and I have to say. I just didn't get it. The first hour and 40 minutes or so was brilliant story-telling and great character development. I loved the dialogue and the creepiness of Javier I fancy myself a half-way intelligent person and I have to say. I just didn't get it. The first hour and 40 minutes or so was brilliant story-telling and great character development. I loved the dialogue and the creepiness of Javier Bardem's character. The last 20 minutes devolve incoherently into literally nothing. I've never seen anything like it in a movie. I literally felt cheated. Maybe it's profound and deep. and maybe the point is there was no point. But maybe the point is that the Coen Brothers were trying too hard, and this movie is a tad overrated. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TonyB.Jul 27, 2008
For all of its brilliant individual scenes, superb acting, cinematography, editing, production design and sound recording, this is one of the more overrated films of recent memory. The ending, far too abrupt for its own good, makes littleFor all of its brilliant individual scenes, superb acting, cinematography, editing, production design and sound recording, this is one of the more overrated films of recent memory. The ending, far too abrupt for its own good, makes little sense. Did any of the critics who were so ecstatic about it, and often so pretentious in their praise, realize that for the plot to work, we have to assume that most of the population of southwestern Texas is deaf, blind or both? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful