I think we can all agree that the two movies aren’t comparable, they’re completely different. The one I prefer personally, is TWBB but that doesn’t really mean anything. I did REALLY like no country, i saw it 3 times in theaters. But TWBB was just so new for me, in terms of story telling, that if i had to choose between the two, i would go with TWBB
No Country for Old Men, no question. When your cinematic palette becomes more mature and more refined, it will be clear to you as to why No Country is an incredible work of art. TWBB is great, though it drags toward the end. No Country is almost perfect.
There Will Be Blood was much better in my opinion. No Country For Old Men was only interesting to me as an adaptation of a book that I had already loved, so I went into that one biased. I have seen both films a couple times, and I think if you ask me in 30 years I probably won’t remember NCFOM and will probably own a copy of TWBB. That’s really all I have to say about that. So there!
Doinel~~~Peter Lorre was visually stunning, hands down.
i think this argument boils down to whether you would rather be around someone who will drink your milkshake or someone who ain’t got no fucking agua.
personally i’ll take the milkshake because it’s better to have had a milkshake that someone else drank than to never have any agua at all.
I’d say that the lack of cinematically refined palettes are most pronounced in those who see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN as anything other than a tired piece of Bleak Chic, but hey, opinions and palettes are going to differ.
that’s the second time you’ve been talking that bullshit about people who like “no country”. we heard you the first time! shut that shit up. why are you so angry at people who like the movie? and who are you to judge people’s cinematic palettes?
Both films are masterpieces in their own right,however “No Country…” is basically a film facsimile of the book, it follows the book by Cormac McCarthy word for word. With “There Will Be Blood” Paul Thomas Anderson took the idea from the book “Oil” by Upton Sinclair, which has very little similarity to what made it on screen, aside from the time and setting. So in that regard “There Will Be Blood” is arguably more a labor of love and inspiration for Anderson than “No Country…” was for the Coen Brothers. I would have to argue that when you couple that with Daniel Day Lewis’s performance you have a “better” film by comparison.
Gracious me and mine, Bobby. I was referring to David Lee’s posting above about cinematic palettes, which is at least as judgmental as mine was. Get a grip, Bobby, they’re only movies.
Both were great, great, GREAT films (in my opinion). If I had to choose, I’d say “There Will Be Blood” was the better-made film. However, I’d also note that, while TWBB was better, NCFOM was more enjoyable…if I had a lazy Sunday and just wanted to watch something to kill time, I’d be more inclined to put in NCFOM than TWBB. But, again, I loved them both.
No Country is a really good movie, but There Will Be Blood is far superior, especially as each film sit in their respective directors catalogues. Very few directors today have the balls to play and take risks at the level of what P.T. Anderson is doing.
sorry, didn’t mean to get up on my hind legs there. i must have detected something more snobby than it really was.
There Will Be Blood
There Will be Blood, the performance will remained untouched. The atmosphere around There Will be Blood is an achievement of sorts, in ways No Country… could not grasp.
Probally There Will be Blood, because it explores it’s character. Whereas No Country For Old Men does not go to such depths. Though No Country does show the brutal savagery on the part of humans who proved to be animals in the film, Javier Bardem’s character is not explored in as full depths as Daniel Day Lewis’s. Neither I think the best film of 2007. That honor would go to Assasination of Jesse James by the coward robert ford.
There Will Be Blood by a long-shot. No Country for Old Men, while a decent film, was waaaay overhyped and didn’t touch Fargo in terms of resonating with the public.
Here’s a more detailed question — does No Country appeal more to conservatives and Blood to leftist/revolutionaries? I think maybe so, but I don’t want to assume the political orientations of those who’ve already voted.
One Thing is for sure.Both films had two of our greatest present day actors.This years Che will add Benicio Del Toro to the short list.Philip Seymour Hoffman is up there too.
My personal experience with both films were incredibly impacting. However, when There Will be Blood was over, I was just baffled at how a film like that could possibly be conceived of and put into execution. Where do you begin mapping out and defining the points you want to hit? I was really blown away in a very inspired manner by There Will Be Blood.
That being said, No Country For Old Men was so effective at making me squirm and feel uncomfortable whenever Javier Bardem was on screen, and really being swept into the story through the use of visuals. No Country is certainly in my top five of ’07, but There Will Be Blood edges it out ever so slightly by having that “How the hell?” factor, (which Wall-E currently has for ’08.)
Doinel: HAHA… Lorre. Fo sho. Though, Karloff had an interesting look going for him in The Black Cat.
There will be blood – One of the best final scenes ever, beautiful in many ways and i feel that it will stand the test of time in true grace.
The Coen brothers never make me feel anything. yeah they tick all the right boxes and seem to follow the recipe for great directors but they just don’t do anything for me.
While I enjoyed TWBB…DDL carried the film. It almost became a vehicle for him. When one aspect of a film really stands out above the rest, then I can’t say its “Great.”
NCFOM is the superior film IMO. Also the best I’ve seen come out in recent years. From the U.S. anyway.
I love both.
In terms of atmosphere for me No Country, For Old Men
In terms of acting There will be blood.
The final scenes of both films are genius.
especially blood! I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!
It’s been noted above that the two films are very different from one another – aside from the fact that they were both shot in Marfa, Texas.
While I appreciate P.T. Andersons ambition in TWBB, I don’t think his film completely works. Structurally it really cheats in the last 20 minutes, and feels very disjointed. Having read “Oil”, the Upton Sinclar novel on which TWBB is very loosely based, I also think that Anderson missed out on some great thematic material. “Oil” as a literal adaptation would have been a complete bore, and so I’m glad that Anderson made the drastic changes that he did, but he did leave a few things on the floor. If he would have at least worked harder to make the conflict between Plainview and Eli Sunday make some sense, I think it could have been a much better movie.
NCFOM on the other hand, may not be quite as ambitious at first glance, but it is far more complete. Some have complained about how it poses as a philosophical meandering in genre cloths, and I can sort of understand that. However, with the way that the film opens and closes, I believe that the Coens direct intention was to make a sort of strangely entertaining, even chilling, meditation on the nature of evil and nihilism. The the philosophical aspects of the film turn you off, then I still think that NCOFM is a wonder to behold. The Coen’s took the most simplistic cinematic grammar – almost as primitive as D.W. Griffith – and elevated it with one of the best sound designs I have ever heard in my life. Strange, entertaining, chilling, funny.
The winner is: No Country for Old Men!
There Will Be Blood!!!!
I think that No Country for Old Men is the better of the two, but it is not my favorite of the two. There Will Be Blood is just so immaculate and impressive, and, as such, there’s no way I could like it less.
Really, I can’ tell you why I think No Country is better, other than the fact that it’s how I feel when watching them.
Savvy
I love it when there’s such a massive consensus for one film over the other! And I always seem to be on the other side! I thought No Country For Old Men was the better film. I liked them both, but I really can’t find fault with No Country, whereas I’ve posted elsewhere the problems I have with Blood – although I did really like it. Takes me back to the old Goodfellas/Casino thread…ah those were the days.
I thought TWBB took it too far with the ending. In my personal opinion, the ending scene left a dump in my lap. I felt that Plainview was a fantastic character. He was motivated by debatable factors. He was successful. He was evil. That was all shown wonderfully throughout the film.
“I have a competion in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people. well, if it’s in me it’s in you. There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to earn enough money I can get away from everyone.” That’s me, that’s fucking me! I loved that line. It works on a basic level with the viewer in some ways.
His gumption was something to in some ways admire. He was able to be more of an “everyman” in a sense. That feeling was lost on me by the end of the film. His sense of this larger than life, yet real character, became nothing more than a character in a movie.
I just didn’t get “Old Country for No Men,” whereas “TWBB” retained my interest through and through. I viewed Old Country twice and didn’t get any new tingly sensations on second viewing as I did on my second viewing of “TWBB.” “TWBB” is a tingly-making movie, and it’s a much finer looking film.
Let’s see Ezra Pound top that poetic assessment.
No Country For Old Men is one of the greatest films of all time.
There Will Be Blood is one of the greatest films of 2007.
TWBB
NCFOM is just a remake of Fargo which is a remake of Blood Simple which is a prequal to the Lady Killers, which is a reimagining of Burn After reading. NCFOM could also be seen as a suplement to O’ Brother Where Art Thou… it actually came as a DVD extra on that film. Which is better… only the Cohen Brothers can tell. In other words you’ve seen Fargo, you’ve seen all the Cohen Brothers had to ofer.
Bobby Wise
“no country” is brilliance. i haven’t seen “blood”, so i’m not comparing the two. but i know the coen’s work, and this is THE one. better than “fargo”. when i watched “no country”, my immediate reaction was that this was the best american film i’ve seen since “pulp fiction”. it was that brilliant. granted, that was a first reaction. i’ll be watching it again and again to see if it holds up. but still, i’ve rarely been moved to excitement the way that film got me.