Tockinit not horrible nor great

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Film Filmesen I don't know what to make of this movie. It's pretty, though. The story is a thilling chase, but it doesn't get resolved in a satisfying way. Our hero dies and the villain walks away. On top of that there's a police officer who doesn't accomplish anything. He just laments the violence. His commentary is supposed to root the events to something deeper, I guess, but the story isn't really that deep. It's basically about a quirky, random serial killer we don't get to know anything about. I guess the book is better.

larrymeers-15081 I heard about this movie when it was being advertised in 2007. I really wanted to see it but as i always do, i kinda put it off and i slowly forgot this film even existed. But recently i watched some of the other Coen Brother films such as The Big Lebowski (great movie), and Fargo (pretty good but not the best they've made), and i guess that alone sparked my interest to see this movie, and to this day i still hate myself for not seeing it when it came out. No Country for Old Men is a "Neo-Western" film (meaning it takes place in a western setting, but differs from the usual western movie) that takes place in the early 80's. It all starts when a Hunter (played by Josh Brolin) stumbles across a drug deal gone wrong and takes 2 million dollars from which he recovered from the site. Soon after, a ruthless hitman is hired to retrieve the stolen money and kill the man who took it. First of all, i gotta hand it to the Coen Brothers. They made such a spectacular looking movie with astounding visuals and camera work. Another thing that makes this movie special is that the soundtrack, is barely present. There's only one time in the entire movie where you can slightly hear it, and it's done in such a good way, almost as if it were creeping up on you. Goes to show you don't need music to build suspense nor do you need it during a thrilling action sequence. The performances were pretty amazing. Josh Brolin has a lot of time to show off his acting skills, Javier Bardem is absolutely terrific and he really carried this movie, and Tommy Lee Jones was a great supporting character and it was cool to hear his character's point of view on life. While the action and acting is great, there's something deeper to this movie that i love even more. There are countless of questions the film puts out, but there are few answers. I believe this was a creative choice by the Coen Brothers whether it would be the philosophy of not everything as an explanation, or they wanted the audience to make their own portrait of it. The film also has a theme of justice and how it's not all that it seems. The main character of the film is killed off screen by the Mexican Mob without the classic showdown in a typical western. The Sheriff (played by Tommy Lee Jones) later visits the Murder site of Llewelyn Moss while Anton Chigurh is waiting for him. But he shows up and leaves, leaving the audience with no payoff or justice as to what happens to the main antagonist. The end of the film shows that Anton Chigurh kills Moss's woman, and soon after he is hit by a car and nearly killed. I find that pure poetry, Chigurh views himself as an unstoppable force of Fate. And fate has been given to him. He is injured, weak, and vulnerable. Chigurh and the Sheriff are now Old Men as the title claims, and there is No Country for Old Men. This is easily my favorite film by the Coen Brothers and one of my all time favorites. 10/10 would watch again, and again, and again.

karenwebsite I watched this because I'm a Tommy Lee Jones fan, however this movie is the worst!

valentinvolland This western noir film from the Coen brothers is not that bad. The cinematography is great, as is usual with Roger Deakins who has cooperated once more with the Coen Brothers. I also like the minimalist score, which created a suspencefull atmosphere and is nice for a change as many films have a very noticable score, diverting at least some attention from the film itself and giving cues to the viewer as to what is happening (which sometimes is too comfortable). The actors do a very good job, even Josh Brolin who I normally dislike. Javier Bardem does an especially good job as the figurative 'angel of death'. The main problems mainly lie in the actual story. While I personally do appreciate and like the unusual story strucutre and the anticlimactic ending, many people don't and see it as a flaw. However I do see quite some flaws in the plot and in the characters. Besides a few plotholes (as I see them) I just don't see the point of certain characters (especially Woody Harrelson) in terms of their contribution to the story and the themes of the film. They are basically pure decoration to the story and could have been excludes without effect on the story. Furthermore while I find the themes of the film to be intriguing their depiction could have been better and have not been deeply explored. I have seen better films tackling such themes as coincidence, chance, morality and nihilism. On a side note, I find the depiction of Mexico to be rather stereotypical (and not in an ironic way). Some people have metioned this film has a (stong) comedic side which I can't confirm, I only laughed two or three timed throughout the film. For anyone who can't see blood, this may not be your type of film. Having said all this, I did enjoy watching this movie and I wasn't bored.