Universal acclaim - based on 37 Critics What's this?

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1176 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: The time is our own, when rustlers have given way to drug runners and small towns have become free-fire zones. The story begins when Llewelyn Moss finds a pickup truck surrounded by a sentry of dead men. A load of heroin and 2 million dollars in cash are still in the back. When Moss takes the money, he sets off a chain reaction of catastrophic violence that not even the law, in the person of aging, disillusioned Sheriff Bell, can contain. As Moss tries to evade his pursuers--in particular, a mysterious mastermind who flips coins for human lives--the film simultaneously strips down the American crime drama and broadens its concerns to encompass themes as ancient as the Bible and as bloodily contemporary as this morning's headline. (Miramax) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 1 out of 37
  1. 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.
  2. Reviewed by: Don R. Lewis
    A return to form for the Coen Brothers and, while I feel the film will annoy and frustrate the masses, it will be looked back upon as one of the truly great movies of the first part of this new decade.
  3. 100
    The ultimate vision here is of a hard world in which civilization is the aberration, and the things we fear are always waiting for an excuse to make life normal again.
  4. Feels positively Greek in its magnitude, a lament about fate, age, time and life.
  5. 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.
  6. If the structure is a tad out of whack, "No Country" does not lack for action or suspense. Some of the scenes of Chigurh's stalking of Moss are nearly unbearably tense. Bring your worry beads.
  7. A very well-made genre exercise, but I can’t understand why it’s been accorded so much importance, unless it’s because it strokes some ideological impulse.

See all 37 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Jan 26, 2013
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have a problem with almost all of the reviews on the site from critics to users. This movie is a philosophical exercise and like most philosophy needs to be critically evaluated multiple times before an adequate understanding can be achieved. The movie is about the conflict between natural uncertainty and the human desire for certainty. The villain (Bardem) uses his knowledge of these facts to his advantage throughout the movie, i.e. flipping coins to determine outcomes with the intention of making his actions seem random, and at a meta level ends up falling into the the human fallacy of certainty. Once the viewer realizes this it is obvious the Cohen brothers tailor the final 30 minutes of the movie to reinforce the fact that no one has full control. The conversation with Moss's wife illustrates his situation perfectly. He does not need to kill her. He feels compelled by his method to carry out the process to his predetermined end. She refuses to play into his false belief that he is the master of this anarchy and points out the fact that he is there by his own choice. After the house he gets injured in a car accident reinforcing his lack of control. This ties in perfectly with the final scenes with Jones from the conversation with the old deputy to the final scene with his wife. In his dream he feels comfortable on his own because he knows his father will be there when needed. Then he woke up. Watch the movie a few more times and you will realize a multitude of interactions and conversations that are there to enrich this message. I love movies like this because the replay value is endless. Expand
  2. Jan 25, 2014
    In this film we get to see the Coen brothers' version of a true psychopath. We follow two story lines until they converge and become one. Chigurh (Javier Bardem) is a lunatic who has no conscience whatsoever. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is the man who we root for, even though he is far from being a saint. But the fact that he doesn't kill people over nothing certainly gives him an edge over his opponents in gaining our sympathy.

    Moss finds a ridiculous amount of money in the desert and decides to keep it. Two sets of sides then follow him around the country as he outwits them at every step. Chigurh is called in and joins the chase, but he has his own agenda, which is to say none that can be understood by a sane man. Needless to say, we get to see a whole lot of shootouts and deaths and close calls.

    Chigurh was the most enduring character from the bunch. He has two weapons he puts to deadly use at every occasion. A psychopath in every sense of the word, he looks for quarrels in nothing that would suggest to offend a normal person.

    Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is an aging sheriff. He quips and jokes with a poker face. I thoroughly enjoyed his peculiar sense of humour. Always trying to do the right thing, he feels that he isn't upto the task of apprehending these criminals who have suddenly decided to make the territory under his jurisdiction their battlefield. The title of the movie is probably about him.

    There were more than a few memorable scenes of violence and gore. The art direction depicted the time splendidly with the costume and cars and cafes. The cinematography captured the beautiful bleak landscape of the southern wilderness with finesse. The open plains and deserts certainly felt like a character unto itself.

    The first hour and a half nailed the action, suspense and dialogue with a craftsman's precision, and had not one scene that threatened to slow the pace. Despite the entertaining pace, every one of the main characters was well developed and distinct. The gunfights seemed realistic. People actually got injured and had no ability to dodge the bullets. There were a few scenes with conversations reflecting upon the changing times in terms of the violence being perpetrated. Some of the older audience may have felt nostalgic for a bit around this time. The film had the quality that takes the viewers imperceptibly from scene to scene.

    I've always wondered how action sequences would feel like without supporting score to pump our adrenaline, and relying solely on content. They felt raw and genuine. Coen brothers showed us how they should be done. But if I made a film, I would have some music in the scenes about reflection and resolution.

    Unlike the other great films in the genre of crime/thriller, this one chose to show what was happening only during the present. There was literally no transtion of time. In that it was like Raiders of the Lost Ark. But that movie had an extended cop-out ending.

    The minute the main story ends abruptly, we move into a five minute interlude which felt forced and left me restless. There were no visible stakes and instead there were some conversations that were kind of conclusory remarks about what had taken place before. Everything before this had me absorbed in the narrative and that scene had nothing to do with anything that we were already shown. As the pacing was breakneck before this, some of the audience may have felt it to be more dragging even when the film returns to the main story. The extraction of a message or theme should be left entirely to the audience. I would have respected the Coens a lot more if they had the sense to know what should be left out. But since that scene wasn't long, I won't be harsh. But this blunder in editing took away from the strengths of the movie and thus the film failed to leave a lasting impression. The last scene was retainable but forgettable.
  3. Oct 1, 2010
    My favorite movie. A misunderstood masterpiece. As complex as it is simple. As vague as it is clear. I have seen it eight times and it never gets old.
  4. Dec 21, 2012
    The complexity appears in simple tension, but is crafted so well and delivered so uniquely that the result is unusually amazing. In major plot points, this film is completely unpredictable, and its final statement pins on the title. Expand
  5. Jan 5, 2012
    Javier Bardem really makes this film, His performance is not only haunting but its amazing. His supporting cast is good as well. The film is interesting ,as is the plot, but I just cant put it up there with other top films. Its the performances that make this film and it shows through out. Expand
  6. Feb 3, 2011
    A bit slow, but one of the best movies of 2007. Javier Bardem is absolutely great, and I can say with much confidence that this is role of his life. His accent is perfect, if u dont know him from previous movies, u would think he is born american. He plays psychopath with no sense of humanity or regret, and he does it so good. 4 stars. Expand
  7. Aug 29, 2010
    I thought this movie was such a waste of time that I have gone out of my way to write a review. As it is based on a fictional work (book) there seems to be no logical sence for brutal violence then for pure entertainment. I don't find brutal and senseless violence entertaining. I do not find it artistic or enriching or in any way psychologically interesting.
    The movie did not have the riveting plot or entertainment value of Silence of the Lambs or Pulp Fiction. It did not have strong characters such as Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugative whith it's suspence. There was no witty dialogue or great music.
    In my opinion the movie lacked everything in quality. The ending was a total letdown as if someone who was working on the ending just handed it in unfinished and left.
    72 people were murdered in Mexico last week - do people find that entertaining? I understand that art is up to interpretation but just as there are great works of art there are really poor ones. A broken lightbulb on a wet floor at the Guggenheim that is exhibited for a month draws reaction and it is weak - just because something is new and has not been done before does not mean that it is great art and good. Awarding this piece of dung with an academy award takes away from all the great productions which have been awarded in the past and cheats the public into thinking that any junk, no matter how bad it is will be great and worth enduring and spending your money on just because it was awarded and got great reviews. This movie is one of the worst ever and a disgrace to have been awarded. Javier Bardem Bardem is a good actor in many things - not an academy award winner in this one. The Coen brothers should pay me back for my time wasted watching their junk but I will know better in the future. I am watching every Best Picture Academy Award winner and about 60% of the way through, this is by far the worst movie. Had it not been on the list I would not have bothered to watch it until the end.
    Don't waste your time or money. Sensless violence can be had daily on the news.

See all 572 User Reviews

Related Articles

  1. Ranked: The Best and Worst Director Duos

    Ranked: The Best and Worst Director Duos Image
    Published: July 25, 2012
    This week, directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris return with a follow-up to indie hit "Little Miss Sunshine." As we see inside, director pairings are increasingly common, though some (like Dayton and Faris) turn out better work than others.
  2. Ranked: The Best and Worst Westerns of the Past 25 Years

    Ranked: The Best and Worst Westerns of the Past 25 Years Image
    Published: June 15, 2010
    "Jonah Hex" (opening Friday) is, among other things, a western -- a genre that seems uncommon these days. But the past 25 years have seen a number of great examples of the genre, as well as a failure or two. Find out which westerns made our list(s).
  3. Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade

    Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade Image
    Published: January 3, 2010
    Dozens of film critics have made their lists of the best films of the past ten years, and we've tallied the results.
  4. Ten Years of Metacritic: The Best (and Worst) Movies of the Decade

    Ten Years of Metacritic: The Best (and Worst) Movies of the Decade Image
    Published: December 17, 2009
    Our best of the decade coverage continues with a look at the past ten years in cinema. While the decade's best-reviewed movie may not have been a commercial blockbuster (or even in English), our lists turn up plenty of recognizable names in addition to obscure gems you may have missed.