User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1127 Ratings

User score distribution:

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. Jan 22, 2014
    After just seeing the Coen Brother's masterpiece "Inside Llewyn Davis" I decided to go back and re-watch some of their previous movies. I started with No Country for Old Men. I have tried very hard to enjoy this movie and see what all the fuss is about but I can't. It is a great looking movie and some interesting scenes especially the shootout where Llewellyn and Anton first butt heads, but that's about it. First off, I thought Anton Chigurh was a terrible character. Everyone says how menacing he is, but he's just ridiculous. Secondly, I don't get Tommy Lee Jones significance. His character doesn't do a damn thing in the whole movie and serves virtually no purpose. Josh Brolin did a really good job as per usual, but besides that, the movie is just bland and overblown to be something it obviously isn't. Expand
  2. Oct 7, 2013
    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 to adapt the book, but as a book-to-movie, it just doesn't work. Expand
  3. May 26, 2013
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Nothing but a total disappointment. 2007 was a strong year for movies, so when this film won many Oscars I had very high expectations. This film failed to even somewhat meet them. This is a completely boring, pointless, unentertaining, waste of time. It started out pretty good, but with the exception of a few shootouts and great cinematography, this film is not good. The acting is good. However, Javier Bardem winning the Academy Award? Chigurh is one heck a villain, but I don't feel like any of the intensity of the character came from the acting. I feel like the character was written as a creepy guy, regardless of the performance. As for Josh Brolin's character, he had so little dialogue, it's nearly impossible to feel any interest in him whatsoever, then he dies. I did enjoy Tommy Lee Jones and Kelly Macdonald's performances though. The thing that is so unsettling about this film is the plot. It makes no sense. I get the beginning part with the money and I understand who's chasing who, but why? The plot just kind of starts without any information as to who the characters are and what their motives are for doing what they do. I'm all for movies that make you pay attention, but when it comes to the relevance of characters, it's important to back up with details. Woody Harrelson and Javier Bardem's characters almost seem irrelevant to the plot because so little is known about them. I'm sure it was done this way to create an element of surprise for intensity, but all it did was make this film make no sense. With all this being said, I feel this is a brilliantly made film. The cinematography is great. Certain scenes and the way they were shot really stand out. But, I strongly dislike this film! It did win Best Picture so you should see it for that, I guess. But for a true brilliant film of 2007, check out There Will Be Blood or Juno instead. Don't waste your time on this overrated mess! Expand
  4. May 19, 2013
    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.
  5. Feb 26, 2013
    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
  6. Oct 7, 2012
    This movie sucked. There's a reason why it lost money at the box office, and was winner at the least-watched Academy Awards of all time. That reason is this: it's boring, pretentious, and shoddily made.
  7. Mar 31, 2012
    No country for old man is the Cohen brothers weakest film. You see i need a score in a movie to help it move along, when this movie did not incorporate music it made it very boring in a lot of parts. pretty good acting with a few a good scenes though.
  8. Aug 24, 2011
    This film is a steaming pile of **** and one of the worst movies I have ever scene 0 out of 10
  9. Aug 21, 2011
    I think they are ill. After about an hour one no longer cares who lives or dies. My own life experience is utterly at odds with what is shown. We are told that the theme is biblical. Tosh. I repeat: I think that the Coen brothers are ill.
  10. Oct 23, 2010
    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
  11. 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.
  12. HughB
    Apr 18, 2010
    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
  13. Dave
    Dec 28, 2009
    Horrid movie. What you have is a psychopath running amok, killing 3 random people before he even eats his breakfast. Meanwhile, out of all the law enforcement in the U.S., it seems that only one chronically depressed sheriff even cares to try to track the guy down... but apparently he isn't smart enough to look for fingerprints on that glass of milk. Somehow the critics were fooled by the various displays of technical expertise into thinking this was a good movie. In reality, all these shining little aspects can't save the movie from its own dismal plot. Expand
  14. SylviaC
    Dec 25, 2009
    Pointless! Jones character superfulous to whatever little story line there was. No, there doesn't need to be a happy ending, evil can truimph over good and the downtrodden, but there was so much pointlessness! Why should anyone care about Jones' dilemma? He couldn't protect or stop the evil, and so what? What was the point of the Woody Harrelson character? The Coen Brothers pulled a fast one. I can't believe that this picture was the best picture as designated by the Academy. Because I thought I was missing something, I read the professional reviews. No additional insight to the so-called genius was given. Just a lot of mumbo-jumbo, because these critics don't want to be considered "uncool". And then these same critics make fun of Ron Howard's movie, "Angels & Demons". I don't think they "got " that one. After watching NCFOM, I'll not be taking much advice from critics or the Academy. Expand
  15. ThomasW
    Nov 6, 2009
    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
  16. Sam
    Oct 4, 2009
    I saw this movie because of all the hype surrounding it and needless to say i was disappointed. It was too long, violent and slow in its execution and left me puzzled and disappointed.
  17. ZacH.
    Sep 21, 2009
    Critics like boring movies this is one of them but the ending is no joke the worst ending to a movie of all time it ends with the cop talking about his dream.
  18. JarekD.
    Aug 24, 2009
    One of the worst movies I've ever seen.
  19. JohnH
    Aug 5, 2009
    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.
  20. JeffB.
    Jul 20, 2009
    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".
  21. DallinP
    Jul 13, 2009
    A movie with no real characters, no closure, and just a little plot. The only thing that separates this fil from other dumb action films like shoot 'em up is shoot 'em up has enough action to keep you entertained solidly for two hours.
  22. MS
    Jul 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, 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
  23. Steve
    Jun 30, 2009
    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.
  24. DC
    Apr 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 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
  25. GARYA.
    Feb 21, 2009
    Obscure, but without depth.
  26. AnonymousMC
    Feb 3, 2009
    Probably the most overrated film of the year. I'm not gonna be harsh like G cash but I also won't defend the movie. I was bored for most of the film. As well, the ending left things out that needed to be resolved, questions that remained unanswered. I was at no time entertained during the film, even with some fantastic acting by Javier Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones. I really wanted to like this movie...but I didn't. Expand
  27. Stung47000
    Jan 20, 2009
    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!
  28. gcash
    Jan 3, 2009
    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!!!!
  29. Tom
    Dec 28, 2008
    Imagine an episode of "Popeye the Sailor Man" but with real actors and barrelfuls of tomato ketchup. That's "No Country for Old Men". Pathetic and shallow despite excellent photography.
  30. ButteredPopcorn
    Nov 28, 2008
    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.

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.