I confess to being baffled by the 3.5 star rating this movie has received. I'm a longtime Coen Brothers lover and I think this is some of the best material (script-wise) that they've ever worked with - no surprise considering it's a Cormac McCarthy adaptation, but still...

As other reviewers have beaten the plot to death, I just want to make a few critical points without getting into the plot synopsis, but there may be some spoilers in here. First, this is a movie ABOUT violence, or the ubiquity of violence. Yes, it's about other things too, but this movie has been kicked around by the usual suspects quite a bit with reference to the level of violence, and frankly that's just silly. If it were violent for its own sake, I would agree there was nothing artistic about it, but it's just not. I myself am not a big fan of violence in itself, and in the first really violent scene of the film, I had to turn away. And the point of the movie (for me) is that YOU SHOULD HAVE TO TURN AWAY. Violence should be repugnant, and difficult to watch. This is timely, considering we're presently involved in two wars, and entering an era historically similar to the one portrayed in the film. I think one of Anton Chighur's lines sums it up best: "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" He delivers this just before he executes the profit-driven character played by Woody Harrelson, but I think the scope of that idea is much broader than that of the scene and perhaps is the underlying question in the film.

Whatever else anyone says about the film, it really is perfectly written, perfectly cast (down to the last extra), impeccably acted and beautifully filmed. It requires some thought, if you aren't just watching to enjoy the carnage, and really I think this is the most one can hope for from a film.

An excellent movie. I would recommend it to all, but it is no film for the faint-hearted.

I first wrote my Amazon review of the book because, after watching this movie, I was interested to see for myself how much of the screenplay actually came word-for-word from the book.

Although many parts of the book, No Country for Old Men, appear in the movie, don't cheat yourself by missing out on the story in both media.

I mentioned, The Godfather, because I made a point of reading the Mario Puzo book after watching that movie. As always happens, the movie had to trim away scenes and characters but the heart of the story remained intact.

The Coen brothers had a lot less cutting to do from the source material in making No Country for Old Men. Regardless, the movie and the book both stand up well to repeated viewings and readings.

Sorry I saw the movie before I received my DVD. Poor choice for the Academy Award. No plot or sense of purpose and just a waste of time. About the same caliber as "The Hills Have Eyes." Easy to fiqure out the next scene and its foolishness. If you bought it; burn it or return it.Charlie Rose - No Country for Old Men / Michael Korda (November 16, 2007)

This movie reminded me of the Coen Brothers' first film, "Blood Simple" (1984). with its understated but quirky and violent characters, odd dialog and sudden brutality. It's an odd crime film, but that what's the Coen Brothers usually deliver us: odd and entertaining movies. Whether it's the "Best Picture Of The Year," I question, but I did find it fascinating. I liked it even more the second time.

Many times the villain is the most interesting character in a movie, and I'd have to say that's the case here, too. Javier Bardem, a Spanish actor, plays "Anton Chigurh" and this guy is one strange dude, with an even-stranger weapon. Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones are almost as intriguing. Brolin is "Llewelyn Moss," a guy out hunting one day and finds dirty money at a bloody crime scene, takes it, and is on the run from the crooks who own it. Jones is the local sheriff, "Ed Tom Bell," who actually tries to help Moss by grabbing him before the killers do. Ed Tom admits times sure have changed and deranged killers like "Anton" are totally unexplainable. To me, Jones is always a great actor to watch.

The supporting actors in here are all good, too, and also quirky....just like the Coens like them (see "Fargo" for a good example).

Another star of this film is cinematographer Roger Deakins, one of the best - if not the best - in the business. His work here really looks spectacular when viewed on Blu-Ray. This is one of the best Blu-Ray transfer I've seen.

To me, though, the highlight of this film was the dialog. Man, there were some strange sentences uttered in here with some odd grammar and expressions thrown in. Early on, I put on the English subtitles so I wouldn't miss any of it, or misinterpret what everyone said. In other words, this was not only a fun movie to watch, but to hear. It was very suspenseful most of the way as this turns out to be a long cat-and-mouse chase story. That's usually entertaining to watch, and this is no exception.

Are there flaws in here? Sure, a couple beauties, too.....but I've rambled on enough.

Best action scene in the film is when the pit bull chases the guy through the river. Those things don't quit.

Best laugh is when Chigurh fails to kill the trailer park manager. She is the one person you would kill too, the one person you want to see killed, the one person you know he will certainly kill (wha- where's your air tank, pal?). But she backs him up and then the confrontation is broken off with a toilet flush.

Perhaps I went into the movie expecting too much. Perhaps its just not that good. I am not sure. It has its moments but ultimately the unfounded violence gets boring.

As far as the movie is concerned, the story is definetly different. I know people who hate this movie and some that love it. I personally found it slow at first and build into a strange, yet entertaining, movie. I bought the blu-ray version and like every blu-ray I have purchased it looks and sounds great. I have watched this a few times now and really appreciate this story.

The Coen brothers never cease to amaze with their witty stories, excellent casting, and stunning screenplay. One movie in particular, is No Country For Old Men. This movie is very dark and serious, which is unusual for the Coens. Javier Bardem's portrayal of the killer for hire was horrifying. Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones also gave great performances. The Coens also did a great job at planning this storyline and picking the location. The action sequences had me on the edge of my seat, and every scene with Bardem was a "bone chilling" experience. There are some underlying themes the movie addresses, such as the changing times, the border war with Texas and Mexico, the concept of chance and predestination, among various other themes. No Country for Old Men won the academy award for best film and I believe it was the greatest of the Coen brothers genre.
No Country for Old Men is new territory for the Coen brothers. Their stories usually contain humor with a great storyline. No Country for Old Men is just a dark story with explicit violence and an amazing story. No Country for Old Men was originally a novel by Cormac McCarthy, and it is the first time the Coens have adapted a novel to film. The Coens made a dark comedy before called Fargo, but it still has some humorous moments in it. No Country for Old Men is straight up violence and intense action from scene one to the end.
The Coens always seem to employ the cast that just fits the movie. Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, and Javier Bardem all played excellent roles in the movie. The story does not have too much depth to it overall. There is no background on the characters in the movie. The movie just starts with the story and hopes the audience can keep up. Brolin's character, Llewelyn Moss, is a hunter who stumbles upon drug money from a deal gone bad. Bardem's character, Chigurh, is a killer for hire sent to find who took the money and get it back. Tommy Lee Jones plays an aging sheriff who laments the changing world, and is trying to find Brolin before he gets killed by Bardem. Bardem is like a machine that kills all in his path, some critics even feel he represents the Grim Reaper, "It is his utter disregard for human life that have prompted some to equate his character to the idea of the Grim Reaper, a comparison that is only mildly appropriate considering many of his actions in the film." (Lovell, www.oscarguy.com).
Bardem's character, Chigurh, is a cold-hearted monster that believes in fate and chance. He allows some victims to save their own lives based on a coin toss. The only man that ever survives is an unsuspecting store clerk. Almost every scene involves Chigurh killing with his silenced shotgun, and even sometimes, his pressurized rod used to kill cattle. He is a psychopath, but he is deeper than your ordinary serial killer. Chigurh does have some kind of presence in the movie that sends chills down your spine every time he walks in. The scene where Brolin is expecting a killer to walk in is incredibly tense. The second the door lock is blown out of the door you know it is Chigurh, and you are in for a great duel. Brolin and Bardem's duel is one of the best moments of the whole movie. Every time Brolin is about to escape, Bardem seems to catch up and almost kill him. Chigurh's presence has brought chaos to this small Texas town, and in many ways, it's a slaughter. The one part of the movie that I am sure everyone is upset with is the ending. This may be a spoiler alert, so do not read this if you have not seen the movie. The ending has Bardem get in a car crash, and walk away with a bone sticking out of his arm. Then, it shifts back to Tommy Lee who explains a dream he had, and then the movie ends. Many people may be expecting a sequel with an end like that, but that is the way the Coens may have wanted to leave the movie.
The themes the Coens employ in the movie are intriguing. One in particular is Tommy Lee Jones' character, the old sheriff. He has been on the force for awhile just like his father before him. He has seen a lot being in Texas and on the border of Mexico. He has never seen anything compared to the death and destruction Chigurh has brought with him. Tommy Lee hopes to find Brolin, and save him before Chigurh gets to him. The movie is quite possibly named after Tommy Lee's character who has gotten old and laments the way the times are changing, and how he cannot stop it. The best explanation of this theme comes when Tommy Lee and a retired sheriff named Ellis are talking. Ellis says, "Whatcha got ain't nothin new. This country's hard on people, you can't stop what's coming, it ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity." It gives that sense of an older generation is moving out and making way for the new. No matter what happens, time never stops, people will get old, and younger people will take the reigns, so to speak.
The Coens also manage to utilize the location of the movie in rural Texas and the time is 1980. The townsfolk are all simple people with thick accents who cannot understand a personality such as Chigurh's. This may be one reason he kills so many citizens with ease. One interesting symbol of the movie is how it takes place at night mostly. The Texas night skies add to Bardem's darkness and personality. He is darkness personified and is like the Grim Reaper. Another symbol of the time is Bardem's hair. It was the hairstyle of the late seventies, and it will forever be remembered because of No Country for Old Men. The Coens also did a good job casting Tommy Lee, since he is a native Texan, and he even grew up close to the area where they filmed. They wanted the sheriff to be from the region since he is the soul of the movie.
In short, No Country for Old Men is a great movie directed and written by the Coens. The acting is spectacular and the action is even better. The movie may not have as much depth or background as one would like, but it is still a great movie, nonetheless. It is not a movie that makes you think, but it does bring excitement to whoever is watching it. Bardem's character "makes the film," so to speak. He is the driving force of No Country for Old Men. Brolin and Tommy Lee would be lost without him, but it is because of Bardem that I would give this movie five stars out of five. I can see why this movie got so many awards, and I would like to see Bardem in more films in the future.

I heard a lot of bad stuff about this flick from my friends before I saw it -- that is wasn't Oscar-worthy, that is was same old-same old Coen brothers, that it broke no new ground, that is was slow and crawled at a worm's pace. Much of this is true but, having recently seen Oscar-nominated film "Michael Clayton" and the even slower and more boring "Atonement", I would suggest the Motion Picture Academy made a wise choice handing the statuette to this movie.

"No Country for Old Men" is a Western reinvented in 1980 and crosses paradigms between post-Vietnam angst (both main characters, the hunter and hunted, are veterans of the conflict) and the coming Reaganomics of the era, where personal self-indulgence and winning at all costs was the mantra of making money in the 1980s.

If you haven't seen the film, a hunter goes out to dusty rural Texas one day and stumbles upon a drug deal where everyone is shot up. He finds $2 million and a game begins between him and two other gents wanting the money. It's not clear from the film what role each protagonist played in the drug deal -- one is a bounty hunter after the dough while the other seems to have had some role in the shoot em up -- but both want the money. One is the lead character, a bad dude that dislikes everyone and sheds a lot of blood throuhgout the film.

As is their wont, the Coens throw in another character and star -- Tommy Lee Jones as the local aging sheriff -- to mix up the bubbling cauldron. Put this all together and you have an old fahsioned cowboy chase film shot in modern day Texas using picup trucks and SUVs as substitutes for horses and covered wagons.

One of my favorites parts of this movie is the silencer the bad guy uses on his shotgun that looks like a tin can. Boy, is that thing funny! He uses it to good affect throughout, offing about 15 people in his bloodthirstry search for the money. One of my least favorite parts is the Coens' inability to tie a knot at the end of the film, which ends the same way "The Sopranos" TV series ended -- inconclusively. You have no idea what happened to anyone still alive or the $2 million.

That shortcoming aside, this is an interesting, involving and intellingent film made from a book that is the Coens first real suspenser since "Blood Simple" in 1984. It has much of that film's aura, pace and design and, as such, represents a return to roots for the Coen brothers. Let's hope they can continue making high quality films and continue leaving George Clooney out of their movies. That makes things better for everyone, in my opinion.

Why is everybody hating on this movie? I particularly found this to be an excellent movie! If you've seen it 3 times and still don't know what it's about then you must clearly be smoking some good indica. BREAKDOWN: Regular guy/2 million dollars found by regular guy/2 million dollars wanted back from a psychotic hitman..And the search for regular guy begins!!! Easy enough?


VI

A lot said already but I am like many others struggling to find what has made this movie such a talking point. The plot was in no way clever and the message if anything depressing and not new - that the world is getting increasingly violent to an extend where one can only question if evolution has been put on hold or even reversed.

Granted the acting was decent at times and the characters were uniquely portrayed but since when has setting new standards in purposeless movie violence been considered an art form. One can only assume that the sheer number of movies that are produced prohibits true quality movies from standing sufficiently out by their sheer quality alone - something darker and more uniquely sinister must be added to the twist. I do accept violence must be added to make movies realistic at times such as in American History X but only when it serves the purpose of the story line and the message .. I fail to see what the greater purpose for the violence was in this flick which leaves me with nothing but an empty feeling afterwards...

I am keen to hear some true arguments from those who like this movie as to its purpose and what makes it outstanding or even average.

Great movie. Not your typical movie. Lot's of people didn't like how it wasn't predictable. I enjoyed the fact that I didn't know what was going to happen. It was well directed, scripted, and acted. Can't ask for much more.

I don't understand why this film is so highly praised. What is it really about? If the answer is that it is an examination of ultraviolence, then what is our response, our counter to this spectacle? The film seems to say that there is no counter, that we're stupid, greedy, idiots who can't get out of our own way enough to save our own skin. When confronted with evil we sell out our families, betray our morals, and act so stupidly that we're all but predetermined to fail. That's a harsh indictment of man's ingenuity, perseverance, and moral fiber; I think it's BS.

Follows the Cormac McCarthy Novel quite well. Could be considered disturbing to some viewers. 5 Star however.

Perhaps in an era of corrupt leaders and illegal warfare we don't deserve better films than this, but my hope is that we can begin to rise above our sad appetite for the sort of pointless violence glorified in this movie. No Country for Old Men is easily one of the worst films I've ever seen. It's a predictable (and often boring) epic of graphic killing with a thin plot and even thinner characters. Despite all the hype surrounding this picture, there's nothing redeeming or insightful to be found here. Don't waste your time!

I thought it would be pretty good after I heard that it won an academy award, but I was wrong. Reminds me of Fargo which I didn't like either. Save your money on this one.

What a movie!
(SPOILER ALERT...DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE)
Alexander Borodin plays a heartless killer on the hunt for the same thing as Tommy Jones (the Sheriff on his trial)...life itself.
In an absolutely amazing cinematic move, the Cone brothers leave you hanging at the end just like in real life.
There are not any messages in this movie, and the viewer is left to make any conclusion that they want, which is the hardest kind of movie to make. Including the sense that the killer is not really as bad of a guy as you might think...he just does what he has to like all of us to make it in life!
I hope these guys make another movie, and I bet they will because of all the awards and money they got.

I tried to watch this film 3 times on one of the premium channels and fell asleep each time. I guess I don't find the characters that exciting. Sure the film is violent but that doesn't equate to interesting for me. If you like watching a senseless hood track people down to kill them with a "souped up" cow killer, this film is for you. FOR THE REST OF US - WE HAVE BETTER USE FOR OUR TIME.

I tried to watch the recent Coen brothers movie No Country For Old Men last night. Real crud. Its based on the novel of the same name by an ultra-pretentious and hyper-established hack named Cormac McCarthy. The story telling (in both the book and movie, I'd imagine) is completely unrealistic. Here's an example of crummy dialog. Trailer trash protagonist to wife as he is heading out the door to do something dangerous: "If'n Ahh don't cum back, say hello to Muther fer me." "But LouEllin, Yer Muther is dade!" (considers a moment) "Well, then Ahh reckin Ahhl tell'r muhself."
The movie is psychologically completely unrealistic. For example, toward the end, the "Sheriff" (who does absolutely nothing and seems to have no interest in actually apprehending anyone or doing more than read the paper and occasionally offer a bit of folk wisdom), played by Tommy Lee "Folksy" Jones, ruminates about some dreams he had to his long-suffering wife. "Ahh had me some dreams lass naght." "Anythang innnarestin'?" "They alwuz iaz to the party concerned."
Now, this is false. Dreams are a digestive product directly analogous to feces. I have written down my own dreams for more than ten years and can report that frequently I have to force myself to write down a dream, forcibly overcoming an aversion to revisiting it, not because it was unpleasant but simply because the most frequent first impression of most remembered dreams is that the dream is too worthless to recount. But none of this matters in the mind of Cormac McCarthy or the Coen brothers. They are not interested in reality, only gimcrack everyman profundities that fall apart the moment they are looked at steadily. McCarthy is a man who likes the sound of his own supposed eloquence. He is imbued with the notion that just because a sentence comes out of him, it's got to be good. This is what makes for bad, fraudulent writing. Hemingway was exactly the same. And so you have stylized gibberish like when Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Any real need for that ungainly middle name, Cormac? Usually down south the first and middle names are carefully chosen so that the nicknames can be run together, like Robert Joseph becoming Bobby-Jo.) says of himself and his deceased father, "We wuz sheriffs at the same tahm. Ahh think he's proud of that. Ahh know Ahh wuz." Why the mixing of tenses, other than a knee-jerk narcissistic urge toward pretentious bilge? I mean, why is Sheriff Bell's father, who is deceased, STILL proud of this fact, whereas Sheriff Bell himself is, seemingly, NO LONGER proud of this fact. It's not deep, it's just nonsense. And, no, this is not The Hunting of the Snark. I tried to look at the movie from that angle and it doesn't work.
The movie is unrealistic in too many ways to enumerate. However, one example of how crizap No Country For Old Men is, which most people would consider nit-picking, is the following: LouEllin, the trailer trash protagonist, is hunting deer when he stumbles across the scene of a drug deal gone bad, with dead bodies everywhere, a bunch of kilos of Columbian bam-bam and the inevitable tired stock plot element of the Briefcase Full of A LOT of Dirty Money. He then decides that some one of this group who shot each other to hell and gone must have survived and walked away from the scene. So he takes a submachine gun from one of the dead guys and, slinging his own rifle across his back, goes in search of this fugitive. He finds him some while later and, leaving his rifle behind, he goes to investigate holding the newly-acquired (Uzi-like) submachine gun. This is completely unrealistic. No person familiar with guns would, in a bad situation, exchange his own rifle for a weapon he is completely unfamiliar with and which he has never test fired or even inspected to be sure it is not jammed. The movie is full of stuff like this. I believe it won Best Picture. This is what the world is, halfwits making entertainment for halfwits who then praise the other halfwits to the skies.
Another key plot device of No Country For Old Men is that the Bad Guy, a killer who dresses all in black, originally enough, goes around with a cattle gun, which is an air powered device that shoots and then retracts a bolt, used to stun cattle. This cattle gun derives its compressed air from a large metal oxygen tank that he lugs around, not to breathe out of but merely to power the cattle gun. He uses this cattle gun to kill people and also, many times, to knock the cylinder clean out of door locks. The scene is, the cattle gun busts the lock cylinder right out of the door and it goes shooting across the room. As I say, this happens many, many times.
So this morning I'd had enough of this nonsense and I called a locksmith to ask his opinion. The guy I talked to had actually seen the movie and so he knew exactly what I was talking about. He said that it was completely unrealistic and that he laughed when he saw it. However, this preposterousness did not cause him to stop taking the movie seriously, strangely enough. Seemingly people do not go to see movies expecting any degree of realism of any kind, be it physical, mechanical, psychological, what have you. In short, a people get the movies it deserve.

DVD arrived within a few days - like brand new. I highly recommend purchasing from this vendor.

If you buy this wanting only to study the acting of the exceptional cast, then you will be very pleased. If you have any concept that this will be a good movie...forget it. It has half a story, literally the story just sort of stops at the half way point. Despite what some reviews have said, not showing what happens to the main characters is not revolutionary story-telling. I know a lot of people don't want to say that this film sucked because the makers are well respected, but it sucked. If it had been made by an indy director it would be getting blasted hard by the same people now singing it's praises. Real life may end with people saying, "Heck with it...I'll just retire", but that's not an ending for any dramatic work.

This is a TRULY great movie, with a flawless script, incredible directing, cinematography and acting. WOW.
The COEN brothers, who always have fantastic dialog, where many times, it takes the second watching of their movies to catch all of the humor and subtlties, made an extremely, "Quiet" movie.
They left the camera and the sound of the southwest do the talking for them. There was not a scene in this morality play that was NOT totally fascinating and it grabs the audience totally with 10 seconds.
To be great, there always has to be a fantastic villain. Where the heck did they get this incredible Spanish actor, with his warped sense of morality and ability to be so amoral, yet so human at the same time. That gentle voice and mannerisms of his, as well as his gentle features, REALLY made him frightening.
The movie really shows the decline in morality and ethics in the U.S. The insanity and accepted amoral behavior of the leadership in the U.S., the random violence, the ends justify the means and how hard it is for many of us to accept and understand the lack of ethics, morality and random violence that is all over our society. From the gang violence and acceptance of torture and outright destruction and murder of innocent civilians going on in Iraq to the using of the children in our military like waste products for individual gain and profit.

I loved how the Coen's used the dryness and sound of the boots crunching along the dry earth.

If you are looking for standard, mindless, Hollywood fare go to Rocky 100 or some other Hollywood sequel, one dimensional characters, artificial dialog and most of all, nothing that might allow on to "think". This masterpiece is an example where only independent movies and movies from Australia or Europe have any depth to them.
Want a bad script, horny teenagers, a contrived love story, mindless escapism, go to Hollywood.
This is a classic that will hold up with its timeless theme.

Jon

This movie is not for everyone. A lot of critics and movie afficianados love it, but the typical movie viewer may not. For about 90 minutes of its 2 hour length, it drew me in and had me edgy in suspense... and then suddenly there is a sickening plot twist and the last 30 minutes of the movie, the suspense was gone because I no longer cared. The way the plot twist was revealed was a slap in the face to the viewer. I was waiting for the second twist that negates the first twist... a nightmare... a flashback... mistaken identity... but it never came.

If you like a good suspense thriller like I do that has a "nice" ending... an ending that leaves you satisfied, then you won't like this. It ends, but doesn't really have an "ending". It was a huge let down to be drawn in for 90 minutes only to be slapped in the face with a shocking twist and a depressing non-ending. Still I was quite entertained for that 90 minutes. I wish I could have written an ending for that story. Rent this first or better yet watch it for free, rather than paying for a dvd you may never want to watch again.

This movie breaks the rules of conventional storytelling, and not in a good way. It basically spends two hours building up to a climax, then for some reason skips over that climax completely. It never shows how or why the protagonist meets his fate, I kept expecting a twist after that point or a flashback or SOMETHING but it never came.

It has an ending of sorts, one that ignores all of the major characters in favor of the story arc concerning Tommy Lee Jones' character. The problem there is that his sub-plot could be completely thrown away and the rest of the movie wouldn't suffer at all. I kind of get the feeling that the Coens tried to adapt a story about a small town sheriff to film without realizing that all of the interesting parts of the story revolved around all of the other characters, so they focused the movie on the interesting characters and then abandoned all of them for the last 15 minutes in favor of some lame allegory about growing too old to be useful.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of interesting moments in this movie, I'd say it's even worth watching. It's a good story filled with interesting characters that is ultimately ruined by idiotic choices behind the camera.

Love the video quality, the menus and everything else. Hate the case. Looks cheap and cannot be compared to a special collection DVD box, but that's how all blu-ray discs come so I hope they put more effort in the future and not give us this cheap blue plastic.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

I don't know about you but I have always been a huge fan of the Coen Brothers Joel and Ethan, I have liked every film the two have put together. This is no exception and is just another classic in a long list of classics, both theatrically and on DVD this is a brilliant film. I can honestly say that a lot of the time I do not agree with the winners or even the nominees chosen by the Academy for the Oscar but they got it right with this one. By the way I do not care what people think, that ending was BRILLIANT.

The story is all about Llewelyn Moss [Josh Brolin] a normal every day guy who happens to stumble upon something he should not have. When he comes across a massacre and ends up leaving the area with a bag full of money a killer [Javier Bardem] comes after him and one of the best movies ever made starts to unfold. Add in a sheriff who is trying to put this all together played by Tommy Lee Jones and another hired hand played by Woody Harrelson and you have one great scenario taking place. This movie has every thong you could want in a film, there is some good humor although it is on the darker side. There is also not only some good action going on but a really dramatic tale of greed. Don't let any one tell you differently this movie is all about greed and obsession. One mans combo of the two leaves not only him but his family in danger that may even lead to death. Another's combo of the two leads him down the same path while another's completely breaks him. It may seem confusing reading this but when you watch it you will get it, and dare I say you will enjoy it.

Writers/directors/producers Coen Brothers have crafted one of the best films to come out in years. The direction of this film can be felt threw out the entire thing and the screenplay is amazing. This could be the best film the two have put together and that is really saying something, come on just think of what these two have made. Acting wise this film shines just as much as Josh Brolin gives one of the best performances of his career. I was really rooting for this guy during this movie even though he brings it all on himself, but man does he give Bardem's character a run for his money. Woody Harrelson is just as good in this film as a hired hand trying to get the money back for his employer. He really shines with his sense of humor in this film and the way he carries himself. Tommy Lee Jones as usual is great as the sheriff who is determined to find his man, so much so that it brings him down. It is somewhat disappointing knowing about the drama going on between him and the studio about this film, mainly because he may never work with the Coen Brothers again. But aside from that we have what has got to be one of the greatest performances in cinematic history, and I am serious when I say that. Javier Bardem turned in one of the best performances I have ever seen, really brought to life one of the most interesting characters I have had the pleasure of viewing.

This film is definitely worth your money, I say buy this not rent it. I hear people complain about the ending of this film all the time and I don't understand why. I thought that it was one of the most brilliant endings in a long time; I never thought it would end like that. Maybe because it isn't what would be considered a typical ending people hated on it, but I think that it what makes it so good. I loved it and so did my brother who watched it with me, at least one person agreed with me on that ending.

Great acting, suspenseful, but with a message that evil often wins...riveting at times, disgusting, heart thumping, great action...great acting...worth the effect if you enjoy a kind of lingering depressive effect. I did not sleep well...

Watching "No Country For Old Men" reminds me of all the carnage and violence you would witness in other films like "The Terminator", "Collateral" and even "Halloween" - where one person (or being) engages in a senseless, non-stop killing spree in order to reach their target. The only difference here is that this film was wrapped up with a pretty bow by being labeled by critics as "artsy" and "intellectually thrilling" because it was viewed at the Cannes Film Festival and it's by the Coen Brothers. Well, whup-dee-damn-do. No matter who was behind it, let's call it what it is, shall we? Another movie with gratituous violence and random murders - nothing more, nothing less. Those elitist critics need to admit that they too, enjoy bloody action horror thrillers just as much as the next person instead of turning their noses up on other films of that genre.

The story takes place in rural Texas, 1980. Stoic and menacing hitman and virtual killing machine Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) stops at nothing to retrieve a satchel of $2 million in cash from a drug deal gone bad. Vietnam veteran Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin), who happened to stumble across a bunch of dead Mexicans at the crime scene in the desert, found the money - and took off with it. As he hunts down Moss, Chigurh leaves destruction in his wake by mowing down (mostly) innocent people in his way who have nothing to do with the theft of the money. This seemed pointless to me and makes it no better than any of those movies I mentioned above (which only one was given serious attention by the Oscars). This is not a horrible film, but I fail to see the reason why it won four Oscars. Unless you happen to be Alfred Hitchcock - what is so artistic about murder? If that's the case, then all those movies that feature homicidal psychopaths like Michael Myers, Freddy Kruger, Jason with the hockey mask and others slaughtering people at will with no cause should have been nominated for Oscars, too.

The title, which refers to Tommy Lee Jones' Sheriff Bell character and his buddies, laments the changing times when times were simple in America, and being a law officer was less dangerous. Times when killing for drugs, or for no reason at all was almost unheard of outside of the inner city, the average criminal might be American, and the most daring thing they might have done was knock over a bank for a small pittance. But as Bob Dylan once sang, "The times, they are a-changin'", or as one of the characters sums it up in the movie, "You can't stop what's coming." These "old men" don't feel they have a place in this system anymore, where crimes become increasingly graphic but in turn, people are becoming apathetic in their reactions to it, which is nothing new. The bad guy doesn't always get caught in these times, either - something else that we know as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we hear this same type of dialogue before in the excellent thriller "Seven" with Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman 13 years ago? Now THAT was Oscar-worthy.

Jones might as well been playing the same character as Freeman did in that film because they both were police officers who shared the EXACT same philosophies and opinions about life, so there is really nothing new here. As a small town Texas sheriff on the brink of retirement who is trying to protect an on-the-run Moss before Chigurh gets to him, Jones as the aging Bell feels hopelessly out of step with this new breed of criminal, but is determined to keep Moss safe. I have no problem with the ending; it's just that I expected more.

As I said previously, "No Country For Old Men" is far from being horrible. But all the accolades it received was only because of who made it. You can try to elevate it above films like "Pulp Fiction" (which is actually a GOOD film), "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or even the "A Nightmare on Elm Street" series but truthfully, there's not much difference between those films and this one, except maybe the actors - who do the best they can under the circumstances. IMO, there's nothing special about it, but worth seeing at least once.

In a world where every movie seems to be a re-make of some sort this movie provides a fresh story of its own. Many will probably be annoyed with the lack of closure at the end of the film but in my opinion it adds to the mystic of the story.

Version: U.S.A / Miramax / Region A, B, C
Title: No Country For Old Men
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
MPEG-4 AVC BD-50

Running time: 2:02:10
Movie size: 28,65 GB
Disc size: 32,26 GB
Average video bit rate: 23.18 Mbps
LPCM 5.1 4608Kbps 16-bit English
DD AC3 5.1 640Kbps English

Subtitles: English SDH / French / Spanish
Number of chapters: 22

#The Making of No Country for Old Men (SD, 25 minutes)
#Diary of a Country Sheriff (SD, 7 minutes)
#Working with the Coens (SD, 8 minutes)
#Trailers (SD, 4 minutes)

OK, watched it twice. There were not "countless" killings in this movie unless you can't count past 16 or 17. This word is soooo over used!!

I was keeping up with the plot until the scene where Tommy Lee Jones was driving down the street near the motel where Llewellyn was staying and heard machine guns blasts, a black off road car squealing into the intersection with Mexican guys trying to get on it, then the body count at the motel. Who killed those people? It was as if the Coen brothers cut out a chunk of plot! Maybe I missed it, but how did Bardem's character get into the drug money scenario? He looked like nothing but a drifter at the opening scene. And why did he walk away at the end? Leaving this thing open for a sequel? Definitely NOT Oscar best picture worthy! Entertaining as long as you can follow the plot.

This is the Coen Brothers' finest work. Based on the novel by Southern writer Cormac McCarthy, this is an instant American film classic that should be talked about and studied for decades to come.

The story involves Mexican drug money, a Vietnam War veteran who finds it, an elderly Sheriff who's about to retire, a bounty hunter who thinks he can beat the odds, and a psychotic killer with a cattlegun, a sociopath the like of which you haven't seen on the screen since Hannibal Lechter. Underneath its harsh realism set in a small Texas town, the film paints a mournful portrait of America in the process of change with a sadness about the passing of a more innocent time, a theme reminiscent of the films of Sam Peckinpah. The film's acting, from every lead player to the smallest character walk-on, is perfection itself, but it is the portrait of killer Anton Chigurh by Javier Bardem that should live forever in film history. The film's composition of shots and timing of its editing is the finest case study in cinematic precision since the great works of Alfred Hitchcock (for example, just watch the tension created by the crinkling of the slowly unfolding candy wrapper).

The most controversial part of the film is its last fifteen minutes, a conclusion that leaves most audiences dissatisfied, but there is something special going on here, and the Coen Brothers know what they're doing. If you invest some time thinking about it, and perhaps see the film again, you might experience a small epiphany and discover that the Coen Brothers have pulled a kind of alienation trick and refocused the film as a morality tale about the nature of evil. In that sense, the resolution can be seen as perfect. What you will be left with are many questions. But I can only tell you to see this masterpiece, one of the great films the new century has given us, and know exactly what great provocative cinematic art is all about.

The slow, self-assured menace of Javier Bardem's character is riveting to watch. However, since so much of this movie depends on the tension created by Bardem's terrifying, toying deliberation, you might be a little disappointed by what seems to be some unwarranted hastening of the action in certain places. It feels as if a number of scenes were left on the cutting room floor - scenes that we want to see, that we are primed to see by the overall pacing of the movie.

For example, there is the scene that was so often used to advertise this movie - the scene in which Bardem's character engages a convenience storeowner in what we clearly perceive is a life-or-death coin toss. When Bardem mockingly calls the storeowner "Friendo" and commands him to call heads or tails, we feel that something in particular triggered Bardem's animosity, that the storeowner himself might have presumptively addressed Bardem as "Friendo." However we don't see any of what might have led to the showdown. The scene is pretty much limited to just the action shown in the advertising trailer.

If one of the reasons we watch thrillers, outside of pure vicarious enjoyment of violence, is to rehearse what we ourselves might do if confronted by extreme threats - then it's important to see the whole development of the threat.

One other quibble: the plot's logic fails on a key point. Bardem's character proves to be such an implacable, unerring juggernaut in tracking down whoever stole his drug consignment, we wonder how he so easily lost track of the drug package in the first place.

However these minor points aside, "No Country" is an absolutely engrossing trip - taken once. When I went to watch it through a second time though, I found I wasn't nearly as involved. I did appreciate having another chance to get to know Tommy Lee Jones' character, with his wonderful, heroic resign. But Bardem's Chigurh character didn't seem as interesting the second time around. Whereas I can watch other Coen Brother's classics such as "Fargo" and "Blood Simple" any number of times and always find some new fascination with them - this movie didn't seem complex enough to hold up that way.

In summary, this is a great movie to rent, but it might not be worth adding to your permanent collection.

This film was a real treat and something that I wanted to watch for quite some time because I admire Javier Bardem as an actor. No Country for Old Men is a thriller that delivers brilliant levels of suspense, fear and apprehension whilst simultaneously disposing of the genre's preconceived conventions. The cinematography on show unashamedly harks back to the Coens debut Blood Simple (1983) and with their regular Cinematographer at the helm, Roger A. Deakins, it is no surprise that No Country for Old Men has been nominated for an Oscar in this category. The films score is so subtle that it aids the tension by unwittingly achieving an omnipotent silence recognizable only through an assortment of wind noises which have been superbly complemented by the bleak dialogue and dark humor.

To complement the film further it should be noted that on show here are some of the most powerful and flawless performances for some time and Tommy Lee Jones's is purely outstanding. His character embodies a demeanor of pensive sadness beautifully portrayed by the veteran actor in what is conceivably his best role to date (shocking that he has not been nominated for an Oscar, but this could be due to a lack of screen presence) it should also be noted that the final reels of the film are probably among his best ever committed to celluloid. Javier Bardem's role as the relentless and ruthless psychotic killer is astounding, his on screen presence mesmerizing and his mere appearance a pure treat along with a sense of a darkness casting over the whole room and it really makes you feel like you are in the presence of true evil. When it comes to playing a psychotic I would go so far to say that his performance has only ever been equaled by Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Hannibal Lector and maybe in years to come,

I would like to point out that there is little to no music in the entire film which is a plus to me. The use of silence throughout the majority of the movie is very original in the sense that the music doesn't cue the viewer how to react and when.

So again, not for everyone, but if you are a frequent movie goer and truly understand the makings of a good film, this is an excellent one to see.

I hope you enjoy this movie as much as I did...it's undeniably worth your time.