I would agree with you. Just because I’ve read Cormac McCarthy’s book and the movie is a great adaptation in the sense that it IS the book. I LOVED “no country” but it lacked the originality and the bold step forward that “there will be blood” has. One thing I really loved about TWBB was the score by Radiohead’s Johnny Greenwood, but I also appreciated NCFOM’s lack of a score =P.
For me, definitely There Will Be Blood. No Country for Old Men is a great film but TWBB stuck with me for days. I think it’s going to be regarded as a classic 50 years from now
Yes, I’d go for TWBB too. A slow-burning, haunting affair that makes for a much more satisfying filmgoing experience. It’s by some distance the best and most accomplished film in Anderson’s filmography, and the first of his I’ve enjoyed since Boogie Nights ten years earlier.
There will be Blood. I obviously loved both but the Coen brothers best film is still Fargo.
i love both movies, but i have always leaned a bit to No Country….
I think the Coens have reached a level of perfection in the way of making movies, and No Country it´s an example of it,
Since Blood Simple they have proven to have a unique special language, that can be spoken in any type of movie genre they make.
To make an adaptation of a novel and still maintain the symbols that defines them i think is worth to appreciate.
I dont see any “originality and bold step forward” in TWBB in comparison with NCFOM, The Coens have made of a thriller film a work of art! The perfect balance in film in the same tradition to Alfred Hitchcock.
TWBB is a great movies, and epic one, and i am sure it mas made very much with the word “perfection” in mind. But what stands out in visual styles, lacks in narrative punches, by the time the movie is beyond the middle, you could imagine it al goes in a downward spiral.
Very well crafted and overall the second best film in 2007.
But well that´s my opinion
“One thing I really loved about TWBB was the score by Radiohead’s Johnny Greenwood, but I also appreciated NCFOM’s lack of a score =P.”
I AGREE
There Will Be Blood
Flawed by ambitious film. No Country for Old Men was essentially a more-than-just-thematic rehash of Fargo.
My own old man’s guess is that we won’t be caring that much about either of these movies five or six years out.
No Country, no contest. While certainly a clever picture, Blood generally adheres to conventions first explored in the 1940’s (Citizen Kane and Treasure of the Sierra Madre are most often cited), whereas, No Country creatively abandons formula and strives to employ a more innovative and unique structure.
That, in my book, is what defines greatness in modern film. Invention over homage.
No Country for Old Men, by far. and I find all the reasons to not like No Country for Old Men mentioned in here uncreative and, well, really, just a bunch of balderdash. That’s fairly typical of negative opinions of the movie, though.
Also, No Country for Old Men is a better book than Oil as well. It’s a better book than The Road, too.
Shotzi
You don’t find the film to be a little too close to Fargo ?
No, not at all, although I think Fargo is better than No Country for Old Men. I don’t know what you see as being similar about it beyond vague thematic elements.
To enumerate just a few: Tundra-like geographic backdrop; aging law(wo)man investigating evils/crimes that seem unspeakable;a merciless killer (or pair of killers) looking for a large sum of money; some sort of deal gone bad being central to the film; a family man who gets in over his head; similar messages about the darkness of human nature, etc…
Granted they’re not structural mirrors of the film by any means, it just feels too recycled, to me at least.
You mean which one is less taxing? No country. TWBB falls apart at the end.
Meh, I feel like TWBB was much more bold in its visual telling of a story. While the visuals and screenplay in NCFOM was almost lackluster in terms of trying to sway from the book. It was like fucking reading the book for christ’s sake! Given the book is great, I just felt like the Coen Brothers could have tried to make it something of their own, like fargo.
I fucking love both. That being said, No Country is a genre flick. It’s a crime movie. One of the best of it’s kind I think. I really think Brolin is amazing in it and love how it goes completely against genre convention with the ending.
Blood is something all together different. It’s strictly a character driven piece that’s purposely cold and distant to keep you at arms length. You want to love It instantly but it makes you earn it. I saw Blood once in the theatre, once when the DVD came out and I actually just watched it again a couple of weeks ago. It really is a movie that gets better and better every time I watch it. Although I have a friend of mine who thinks it’s the ultimate anti-western. So, maybe it’s a genre flick too. I guess I’ll have to watch it a few more times.
THERE WILL BE BLOOD is by far the better film, to me at least. NO COUNTRY is a drab bit of over-elaborate cheap Bleak Chic with some enough fine production values and good enough performances to pull the wool over the eyes of audiences and critics who really should have known better.
THERE WILL BE BLOOD is a rich and dazzling film that only gets richer and more interesting on repeat viewings.
PTA was robbed at the Oscars because the establishment hates him. I’d probably hate him too if I knew him. But definitely There Will Be Blood was better. Much of No Country was derived from other films, and the Coens’ camerawork and editing is often clunky and generic, imo.
no country for old men is consistent through and through. there will be blood, though starting off iron strong, faded in impact for me towards the second half.
MATTHIAS GALVIN —
i’m not sure i see the similarity between fargo and no country for old men aside from the prominent use of landscape and intense violence. fargo, though richly layered in both psychology and humor, is a quintessential “catch the bad guy” story… and, eventually, fulfills that set-up. no country proposes the idea of cyclical, uncontrollable, progressive violence. anton lives, thus leaving the impression that human violence, as a whole, is some sort of unstoppable force that can’t be contained.
I don’t think it’s about human violence as a whole. I think it’s talking about this “new” breed of violence. The world is changing and Tommy Lee Jones’s character can’t handle it. He comes so close with these new brand of violence that he’s shaken to the core just by being in its vicinity. I don’t think it’s like Fargo in terms of what its about, but I do see the plot similarities and etc.
One’s not a carbon-copy of the other. The things that you say about Fargo and No Country for Old Men respectively are true. The respective structures are not completely analoguous either. For me, it’s mainly the slew of ideas that feel recycled in both of the pictures. You say that Fargo is a “catch the bad guy story,” as Marge Gunderson is the cop looking for the bad guy(s). However, the semi-analogue of Sheriff Bell is also trying to look for the “bad guy.” Futhermore, as Gunderson has a partner who contributes little to the investigation save for comic relief, so does the Sheriff in No Country for Old Men. That’s just another similarity apart from those I listed a few above; and perhaps the “similar” messages about human nature aren’t as similar as I had thought, but they are both nihilistic and quite dark.
hmm, i do see what you’re saying and largely agree. the three main characters in no country are some sort of a holy trinity for me. one represents The Law, another represents The Lawless, and there’s another character (llewelyn) who seems to represent the gray area between both as he is not fully either archetype.
shinichi has a better explanation as to what i was trying to get at with regards to “new violence.” i think of no country as a kind of cyclical film in the sense that sheriff bell, though coming exceptionally close, never catches anton as marge caught grimsrud. the long opening landscape shots of no country largely recall “the western” genre (specifically, ford’s style) as there is no evidence of any kind of human civilization until you see the jeeps pull up and therefore, a blend between “old” and “new” is immediately formed. though drug violence wasn’t an issue 100+ years before, it is now as a “new breed” of violence.
in terms of fargo, i see the otherwise tranquil/desolate environment of the midwest in place of no country’s use of time and progressive era; so, in a way, i can see similarities between the two now that i give it a harder glimpse. i also completely agree with you with regards to elements of nihilism (perhaps even existentialism?) and sinister tones.
I loved both. They’re two different kinds of films so you can’t really count the slow middle part of There Will Be Blood against it when compared to the smooth, exciting pacing of No Country for Old Men.
Both weren’t all that original, especially No Country for Old Men which felt like a reverse Fargo! But that was probably the intent. And I think There Will Be Blood is trying to be a Citizen Kane in that it’s an epic fictional biography reflecting issues of the times.
Pretty much a tie to me so….. No Country for Old Men because it’s more exciting!
I’m gonna go with There Will Be Blood
I loved them both, but it felt like There Will Be Blood took more risks, and the Coen’s seemed to stick with what they do best.
You guys don’t know what you’re talking about when evaluating the coen’s editing and camerawork. Clunky? wtf is that supposed to mean? coens are genuises at plot contruction and their films are shot and edited precisely by the great Roger Deakins, the coens respectively. They are supreme editors, look at no country and tell me why is the editing in Bourne supremacy better? the academy doesn’t know what good editing is, sorry pardon my name.
i agree i dunno to laugh or to b angry if someone calls coen bros editing clunky? more TWBB is a flawed piece though there is a certain kind of beauty to it but NCFOM is definitely a masterpiece. Anton represents crime (which essentially breeds violence) u can hurt crime even come close to catching it but u cannot stop it, the last scene is about that. i don’t see any similarities between fargo and NCFOM except the unique way the coen bros apply and the elements of crime genre (plenty of other films have that).
Boris Karloff or Peter Lorre. Who is more handsome?
Well, the Oscar for Best Editing now usually goes to the film with the Most Editing.
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a superbly made film, there’s just no doubt about it. The art direction, cinematography, editing, and general production and acting were completely beyond reproach. There’s just that little problem of the screenplay and direction that were problems. I just couldn’t have cared less about it.
Charles Newland
After watching these two back to back, I thought that “There Will Be Blood” is the far superior film. Direction, acting and story were miles ahead of “No Country For Old Men”.
What’s your view’s and opinions on the subject.