|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 335)
|
|
 |
The level of appreciation of this movie is related to the needs of the individual viewer. If you think a realistic-styled, pessimistic movie about a calculated serial killer is valuable in opening your eyes to how the world can be then it's worth seeing. If you already get that and are looking for hope beyond how people can treat each other then skip it. You won't miss much.
5/10
12.1.2010 -
heron2004@ - age: 36-49
An absolute masterpiece. I just shake my head at how many people can't grasp the point of the story. Incredible acting by all. The Coen brothers capture the mood perfectly. The ending (yes, it was unusual - that's what makes it so powerful) was poignant and left me with a strange sadness that lingered long after the film was over. Though just a hair shy of 30, I felt like one of the "old men" after this. I sat in my theater seat in silence long after it ended. Few movies I have ever seen affected me this deeply. It doesn't surprise me the reviews on here are so polarized. In fact it's a bit ironic considering the movie's message. I fear for the world my kids will grow up in...
10/10
30.12.2009 -
craig_k@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I rarely give a movie a 10, but I have trouble finding fault in this one. Definitely not for everyone however; my wife did not like it at all. I saw it twice and it was even better the second time. Not since Hannibal Lecter (sp? ) has there been such a haunting and intriguing villain. I found the pace perfect, and contrary to a lot of people, I loved the ending. I am tired of neat and tidy dumbed-down endings. Don't people like to think anymore? Is this what 50 years of anesthetizing television viewing gets us? A populace that wants nothing more than to escape from the stresses of life by turning their minds off and watching car chases and silly Love stories? I guess a culture that elects Bush (twice!) is the logical end result of such a culture. But I digress... If you like to be challenged and are tired of predictable formulaic drivel, then give this movie a chance. Unless you are sensitive to violence. This movie is violent, but not overly so. I think it is a classic.
10/10
3.2.2009 -
enialbrelsyg@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Anyone who says that this movie was bad probaly expected a fairytale ending... well this was real and for that reason good. This movie does deserve an Oscar; great acting, amazing scenography and script. So for all of you that rate this movie poorly go watch Maid in Manhattan.
9/10
5.1.2009 -
kjakobiec@ - age: 26-35
One of the best movies I have ever seen. Javier Bardem brings a new definition to creepy. Josh Brolin was excellent as well. This will definitely become a classic.
10/10
20.10.2008 -
annacz11@ - age: 26-35
Best movie I've ever ever ever seen!!! Go see it now!!! :)
10/10
24.9.2008 -
kurtangle_fan@ - age: 26-35
I cant believe so many people didn't like this movie. Yes it was violent, but what movies aren't these days? The acting was incredible. It definitely deserved the oscar for best picture.
10/10
6.8.2008 -
royleka@ - age: 13-17
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
While I do not think this is worth an Oscar, the camera play, acting and the way the bad guy is portrayed in this movie is worth seeing. It shows you how someone can completely shut himself off from reality while he has a gun in his hands. Not bad.
7/10
31.7.2008 -
malakhov99@ - age: 18-25
The ending made no sense. It was really stupid overall - it didn't deserve 4 oscars. Way overrated.
1/10
31.7.2008 -
n,oved@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
Great Movie. Great performances. Great suspense. In my opinion, the ending wasn't that great.
8/10
15.7.2008 -
cenarock54@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
There is a reason why a movie wins best picture of the year. Usually it is very unique, as this Cohen Brothers picture was. It is really refreshing to know that everything that comes out of Hollywood isn't hogwash. This movie was very cool.
10/10
20.5.2008 -
riverdalekid@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Original, great acting, surprising story and non-stop suspense this film was ment to win best picture from the beginning.
10/10
17.5.2008 -
alec_f50@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
Slow, tedious and boring cloaked in the veil of artistic misdirection that so many of the academy favourites hide behind. It's almost as if the award nominations go to the most obscure bizarre films. Anything with action seems to be an automatic disqualier, along with anything that has a straight forward plot and doesn't rely on nauseating metaphors to almost tell a story. Senseless drivel that I'm sorry I wasted my time on.
4/10
10.5.2008 -
crooker41@ - age: 36-49
Coen brothers at their best and some great acting make this movie well worth watching…if you don’t scare easily.
9/10
21.4.2008 -
nekstrom@ - age: 26-35
Completely original and entertaining, very well acted and I loved the story. Javier Bardem is amazingly creepy as sociopath, very well acted.
9/10
17.4.2008 -
xtrastuf@ - age: 36-49
Oscar material... I think not. You can put any spin on it you want... you can see things there that aren't there... you can build up the acting as much as you want, but the truth is there is nothing redeeming about this waste of celluloid tape. It was a less than mediocre attempt at complexity... it fails miserably. Best actor... what a joke.
3/10
12.4.2008 -
lwd347@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
This garbage won the Oscar for best picture? I think the voters need to be drug tested or checked for a pulse. It was ok up till the point where Woody Harrelson comes into the movie. Than it turned into a 3 legged turtle race. Actually I think the turtle race would of moved along quicker then this garbage. Which grave did they dig this Javier Bardem from? The guy walks around like a zombie, he speaks like he just ate a box of taffy. I'll give credit to Josh Brolin he was descent, Kelly Macdonald who played his wife was a hottie to bad she wasn't in more scenes. It would of made the movie go by faster. Stay away from this one don't get sucked in from the oscar award. It gets my zzz award instead.
1/10
12.4.2008 -
lookatthestars@ - age: 36-49
I knew nothing about this movie going into the theatre and I wish it had stayed that way. What I learned upon leaving the theatre is that this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The plot was slow-paced and there was no soundtrack or background noise. All I could hear was the two people sitting several seats away chomping on chips, popcorn and whatever else they could get their hands on. I definitely cannot believe that this movie won an Oscar!!! If this is what the Coen Brothers are like, count me out next time!
2/10
10.4.2008 -
sarahsaddy@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Tommy Lee Jones brings a lot conviction to his role. I was surprised at the turn of events. It keeps you on your toes. I Love the photography in the movie, it's quite beautiful.
7/10
6.4.2008 -
annick,custeau@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Lots of readers here who should stick to "College Road Trip" and "Alien vs Predator" as it is obviously more their speed. LOL. No Country for Old Men, indeed. What has become of our society? I suggest reading the book by Cormac MacCarthy for those who can't figure out the meanings inferred in the Coen bros adaptation. There are more narrations in the novel from the Sheriff like the ones at the begging and end of the film. The narrations help to explain the meanings and morales behind the story. Surprised by the number of people who don't understand whatever 'no country for old men' could men in a movie where the killer is beyond the capabilities of the soon to be retired Sheriff. His predecessors could do their job without a gun, now he can't fathom the evil that exists in society today. Consequences, unpredictability of fate, life is messy etc. are all themes explored in this brilliant film.
10/10
3.4.2008 -
pamurray@ - age: 26-35
Amazing movie, had me on the edge of my seat through out...
10/10
1.4.2008 -
sk8t_or_die666@ - age: 13-17
What a waist of my hard earn money, time and energy to see something so disappointing. How in the world could it have won. Who in their right mind would vote for best movie.
1/10
25.3.2008 -
gidgesimpson@ - age: 36-49
Don't listen to any reviews based on a reaction to violence. We can expect these same people to boo Titus at theatre under the stars. A very engaging story which will cause anyone who enjoys good storytelling to be asking questions , and the dialogue was priceless at many times.
9/10
24.3.2008 -
natowar@ - age: 26-35
Slow, slow, slow. What ending? Bad piece of work. Too much hype by academy awards.
2/10
24.3.2008 -
gconnett@ - age: 50+
I hated this movie! It was boring! Tommy Lee Jones only had a small part! Almost the worst movie of the year!
2/10
22.3.2008 -
janinedave@ - age: 26-35
Way to much violence, title does not fit the movie.
1/10
22.3.2008 -
sderkatch@
Mexican mafia send a pro-killer to find a guy who found their money (2 millions) and, of corse, to take a money. Pro kills everything on his path. And so what?! What is so new and fresh in that?! Killing, killing, killing... Honestly, I don't see a point in this film and have no idea why it received so many Oscars...
3/10
21.3.2008 -
jovnik_cccc@ - age: 36-49
I like movies that make you think, but with this one, I didn't get the main idea of the film. Why is it called "No country for old men? ", what's the deal with Tommy Lee Jones' character? How are the two plots (T. L. Jones and the killer) related? Maybe the director should have made the movie easier to understand. The only thing that saves this film is the fantastic play by Javier Bardem - mysterious and terrifying.
6/10
20.3.2008 -
russian-g@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
Évidement, si on ne comprend pas le sens du film il sera difficile de l'apprécier... surtout la fin. Mais quel parallèle fait avec l'argent et l'humanisme! Tout de même, ce chef d'oeuvre ne vaut quand même en deçà de 7 tel que la majorité le prétende; ne serait-ce que pour les images et la qualité rare des acteurs.
9/10
20.3.2008 -
yannsunset@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Senseless violence, an inspiration for idiots to grab a gun and start shooting around Columbine style... !! I wonder what kind of sadistic minds created this piece of American "culture". An Oscar for the most insane murder category.
1/10
19.3.2008 -
visser@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
I went to see this movie right after my physiology midterm (what was I thinking? ) and I must say, I felt more nauseous watching this than writing the exam. I kind of expected what was installed for me since I knew the Coen Brothers normally like to inject anthropomorphic fallacy in ALL of their movies (I find it too played out already) along with an invincible "evil" character that terrorize the innocent/ordinary people in a small town (recurring theme again) Those who praised this movie thought it was "philosophical" and those hated this movie thought the ending "sucked". Well, I loathed this movie because I didn't like the fact that the pace of the movie was mainly driven by ongoing horrific scenes just so to get the audience ponder about human nature, moral decisions, and fate? The Coen Brothers conjured up this all-mighty Chigurh character, running around with a oxygen tank that could kill anyone in his path, I don't think anyone realistically could get their so-called "choice" to decide for their fate. This Chigurh character did not seem at all real, yet he was depicted in this very real Texan-located smalltown story. What about irony? Coen Brothers also like to tackle such subject in their movies too. Ohh was the audience supposed to feel sad toward the wife because the psychopath who, very much lacked any forms of principle, decided to keep his promise at the end to kill her? What about he almost got himself killed by a careless driver. Irony? I say contrived. Now let's talk about the acting. Acting to be a psychopath is not difficult. I found James Brolin's acting was very much overlooked by the Academy. It was subtle and vulnerable. The girl who played his wife, Carla Jean, also deserved to be noticed too. Overall, this movie did not deserve to win Best Picture. The end.
1/10
17.3.2008 -
peroggies@ - age: 18-25
Dark humour, finely crafted characters and performances, jaw-dropping moments of violence made this film Oscar worthy. It is , in essence about chance. Take a chance and be sure to see it on the big screen!
8/10
17.3.2008 -
carroll94@ - age: 50+
This is a fine entertainment. The story speaks to the inevitability of consequence, and the inconsequence of Love. If you require a pat ending and a final resolution to all conflicts, then life isn't for you. If, however, you can tolerate a little more nuanced existence you will want to visit this story more than once. Justice is in the eye of the beholder, dude.
9/10
16.3.2008 -
digidadddyca@ - age: 50+
Worth seeing for sure! Not much music in the movie, but that just makes it more interesting and entangling. Watch it!
9/10
16.3.2008 -
peak911@ - age: 26-35
The most over-rated film in the last year. Just loud bags and mumbled dialogue. A disappointment.
3/10
16.3.2008 -
foljy@ - age: 36-49
The movie was very good except for the ending. If I knew how it was going to end I would never gone to see it. The ending reminded me of a TV series where you have to wait for the next episode. I walked out of the movie feeling cheated because of the ending, It was almost as if someone stopped the picture three quarters of the way through it.
6/10
15.3.2008 -
jrdecaire@ - age: 50+
Cannot believe someone would put money down to make such a movie! This may explain why there is absolutely no ending... they ran out of money! This movie just make me understand why I usually don't go see Academy Award winners movies! I regret haven chosen that movie, which I don't recommend to see, even on TV. It was full of free violence, very dark image, with no logical story, and not even an acceptable end.
1/10
15.3.2008 -
didith22@ - age: 36-49
OSCAR WINNER FOR A REASON: If you evaluate this film for its storytelling, it is a brilliant piece of cinematic art. There is no question of this. It is ingeniously paced, superbly scripted and acted, and each scene captures the fullness of the moment. Yes, the storyline is not new - drugs gone bad has been done a few times. I don't believe this is the main driver. Here it is how the Cohen brothers introduce, develop and, as a result, draw us into the various characters - paradoxically, their humaness, their interconnectedness and even the element of chance. Please note: The level of violence in this film is extreme. I found some parts disturbing.
9/10
15.3.2008 -
davidjhare@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
It's not as good as Pulp Fiction, The Usual Suspects, Goodfellas, Forrest Gump, Barbie and the Nutcracker (just kidding), and even Memento. The Coen's make a film that's ranked as good as Fargo, Scarface, Casino, L. A. Confidential, and The Prestige. It's a masterpiece in its own way. The ending was strange but realistically and typically, it has an ending that would happen in real life. If this movie was based on a true story in the '80s, which would be pretty cool, it would make sense to most people. I thought the idea was good, and the acting was fairly exceptional. Except for that spectacular Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. Wow, two thumbs way up, best villain I've seen in my previous movie viewings. No Country delivers a powerful concept with a mighty script. One good movie. Maybe one of the top 10 greatest thrillers or western/crimes of all time. Possible even top 5.
8/10
14.3.2008 -
jarad_8,4@ - age: 13-17
This is such a violent movie that you have terrible thoughts for days. Don't go. It is a sad commentary when we give academy awards to such as this.
1/10
14.3.2008 -
middhart@ - age: 50+
Brilliant film. Ignore the [people] who gave it a poor rating. They should have been waiting to see the next Arnold or Jim Carrey movie!
10/10
14.3.2008 -
slarry5@ - age: 36-49
This has got to be one of the very best movies that I have seen in a very long time. Endless action with a thrilling story line that continually intertwines. Definitely a must seen that will keep you guessing. The actors are superb!!
10/10
13.3.2008 -
manuela@ - age: 36-49
I found this movie very disturbing and difficult to watch - way too much violence for me. Don't think it was worthy of Best Picture Oscar.
7/10
13.3.2008 -
harp5@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I saw the movie alone, and for all guys out there, do the same. This ain't no warm-hearted funny chick-flick, but a dark tale of greed (the hero), morality (the sheriff) and pure evil, so well-personified by Javier Bardem. The story is set in the late 70's/early 80's and all the props and make-up and dialogues do justice to the era portrayed. (Look at the sheriff's car's lights, all the pickup trucks and other vehicles are from that time too, look carefully) The portrayal of hot and dusty Texas/Arizona/Mexican border towns is superb, and even when you see a street in downtown Odessa (a border town), you see 80's MacDonald's, 80's style diners and motels and TV sets. I will give it a 10/10 for this, however people are very absorbed/shocked by the relentless violence to notice this. Next, the dialogues are very realistic, and it takes a while to adjust to the southern Texas drawl, (and Dubya wasn't even the President then.) The choice of words is very 80's too, so is the diction. Look at the newspaper that Tommy Lee reads from and you will immediately notice that the paper is very black and white with no color and the print style is dated, so is the diner where he is having coffee. Very fine job there, and I am very impressed. The acting by Josh Brolin is very good, I just did not like the way he just disappeared from the film, with an implication that he was killed. But who did it? If it was not Chigurh, was it the Mexican goons? If someone got this part, plz. email me the answer. The editing of the film is slick, and sometimes I wonder if the extra-sharp editing caused the rather-abrupt ending? I don't know. Tommy lee Jones is good, but not as good as Bardem, who comes off as scary and human, all in one. He is a sociopathic killer for hire, but bleeds just like everyone else. He has principles about his job, scary but respectable, in a way. Was the money bag ever recovered? I still don't know. The movie's ending is rather abrupt, but you are supposed to derive conclusions from the retired sherriff's monologue (and the film's title) that America is full of sickos that dont have values or morals anymore, and money rules. (Note how the two teenage boys bicker over Bardem's gift of $100 for the shirt off one kid's back) I would have liked a simple ending, but the Coen brothers had to leave you gasping at the end of it all, and that's what they did. You dont discuss a movie relentlessly if you understand every part of it, do you? You talk about it and you write about it, it's the artistic version of Paris's theatrics. It got the movie a lot of eyeballs and rave reviews. Enough to walk away with a sack full of golden statuettes from the academy! Smart men, those two!
8/10
12.3.2008 -
vipulgshukla@ - age: 26-35
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I guess this is one where the good guy loses. Most people don't like that! But I guess it won awards, so what do I know? Very disturbing movie and would not recommend it!! That movie just give more bad ideas to criminals and freaks us women out!!!
3/10
11.3.2008 -
timandsuzanne@ - age: 36-49
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
There most certainly is a plot to this movie. Moss finds a briefcase full of money, Chigurh is hired to retrieve the money, Sheriff Bell tries to protect Moss/stop Chigurh. There is your plot/story line. As for everyone who says there is no ending, that is also not true. ALL of the story lines get wrapped up in the end. People just can't accept the fact that sometimes the bad guys win. It is an opening ending/ambiguous ending only philosophically. And technically if the movie ended then it had an ending, if there was really NO ending wouldn't you still be watching the film?
10/10
10.3.2008 -
m_pakka@ - age: 18-25
Good movie, great acting, ending was a little weird and honestly a little disappointing.
7/10
10.3.2008 -
jeffcrowe45@ - age: 26-35
An excellent edge of you seat thriller. An excellent commentary on the relentless, random, ceaseless violence of the world. The viewer is left to draw her own conclusion. Loved it.
9/10
10.3.2008 -
hmitchell_2@ - age: 36-49
Deservingly the Best Picture of the Year! If you need one good reason to see the film, watch it for the performance of the film's villan. Quite possibly the best modern movie villan. Don't watch this film if you have a difficulty with violence as the violence is practically a character in the movie. Keep an open mind about the ending and think of it in the context of the films name and it might make some sense. The best film I have seen in years!!
10/10
10.3.2008 -
timmeloche@ - age: 26-35
Engages you early on and the suspense keeps building until Woody Harrelson's character comes on the scene. From there on, it seems like the writers didn't quite know where to go, so it sputtered and coughed until the very strange end. Not great, but not bad either.
7/10
9.3.2008 -
canbratr2@ - age: 50+
|
