No Country for Old Men v. There Will Be Blood

There Will Be Blood is one of the best films ever made.

I think I need to watch it again.

Ebert gave the edge to No Country. In his review of There Will Be Blood:

[quote]There Will Be Blood is the kind of film that is easily called great. I am not sure of its greatness. It was filmed in the same area of Texas used by "No Country for Old Men," and that is a great film, and a perfect one. But "There Will Be Blood" is not perfect

I always mix these two up. Which one had Javier Bardem with the bowl cut?

Just based on which one I'd rather re-watch: There Will Be Blood.

Loved No Country. for old men

Was bored to sleep by There will be blood.

r4 No Country

Both overrated.

But which one is less overrated, r8?

Definitely NCFOM.

Lew is was so fkn hammy in There Will Be Blood.

Viggo in Eastern Promises should have won.

"No Country" was more of an ensemble piece and had a lot of great performances.

"Blood" was mostly The Daniel Day Lewis Show.

Paul Dano stood out in "Blood," too. He played that hypocrite preacher so well. Scary, really.

No Country is a more compelling narrative—a great western noir “yarn” with uniformly great acting. “”Blood is more ambitious and audacious and so less satisfying as a story, but and Daniel Day-Lewis are astonishing in their reach. They are both wonderful, but in very different ways.

A tie for me! 50/50. Liked both.

I think Bardem completely deserved his oscar, he scared the shit out of me. I get nervous just thinking about it.

One person replying to himself just like his other threads.

Why don’t you flip a coin, friendo?

Oh look. Another "OP replies to himself a lot" post.

r15 I stayed in one of the hotels in New Mexico that they used in the film.

I was afraid that he was hiding behind my door.

NCFOM for the win!

They’re both great films, but TWBB has a very pervasive Kubrick-esque, unsettling, eerie quality that will be rewarded with time, whereas NCFOM is much more formulaic in comparison. It’s fun to compare them, but they are very different films aiming for different things. And, yes, I realize PTA did the entire end sequence as a subtle (?) homage to The Shining and his time “shadowing” Kubrick on Eyes Wide Shut.

So tough. I love both of them.

They’re both excellent but No Country has a scene that terrifies me every time I see it so it wins by a nose.

Lewis’s performance felt similar to his performance in The Gangs of New York—both performances I didn’t care for. I did love him in My Left Foot.

r23 which scene?

No Cunty for Old Men

FIFY

[quote]I've always wanted to see There Will Be Blood, which also came out in 2007 and has certain similarities with NCFOM, and I finally watched it a few days ago. I liked it, but have only seen it once, and haven't thought enough about it yet.

Your aesthetic taste is as tortured as your language and reasoning skills, OP.

Do rewrite my prose and show me how I can do better, r27.

* There Will be Blood* and it should have won for best picture. NO country for Old Men is also great, but TWBB should have won for best picture. Such bullshit.

TWBB too long and over the top. It doesn't hold up.

Oh no! Have I uncovered DL's next "drained pasta" debate?

UGH!

Dano was perfect in this.

Rewrite:

NCFOM and TWBB both came out in 2007. I understand that there are similarities between these two movies. I recently watched TWBB for the first time. I would like to watch it again to better compare it to NCFOM.

* No Country for Old Men is a superior film,and it's my favorite of theirs, however TWBB is a character study of greed in the beginning of the 20th century and that's as greedy as it gets. As great as Javier Bardem is in that movie he I'd not as emotionally complex as Daniel Plainview.both being based on books, the films were as adapted from books, There Will Be Blood is the far superior film. Being that Paul Thomas Anderson forged his own narrative from a book, that is nothing like its source material. His characters feel like living breathing people, and the world that they inhabit is a world that feels historical. No Country for Old Men is a better book than Oil by Upton Sinclair, but There Will be Blood is in my opinion the most American film ever made. It delivered on its tagine "When Ambition, Meets Greed" in time it will dethrone Citizen Kane. Mark my words!

r34 Meh. Too syntactically simple.

Lewis is a ham sandwich in r32’s link. I just hate it. What kind of accent is he supposed to have? It’s too much, too mannered. And he seems like a caricature.

R36, the purpose of writing is, in large part, to be understood.

Why don’t you rewrite it and make it more syntactically challenging?

I did, r38. At OP.

And I was, in large part, understood, no?

I really think NCFOM wins on the last scene alone. More is less sometimes.

Too syntactically complicated:

[quote]Once upon a time there lived in Berlin, Germany, a man named Albinus. He was rich, respectable, happy; one day he abandoned his wife for the sake of a youthful mistress; he loved; was not loved; and his life ended in disaster. This is the whole of the story and we might have left it at that had there not been profit and pleasure in the telling; and though there is plenty of space on a tombstone to contain, bound in moss, the abridged version of a man’s life, detail is always welcome.

Much improved!

[quote]Once in Berlin, Germany, there was a man named Albinus. He had lots of money, people respected him, and he was happy. One day, he left his wife for a younger girlfriend. He loved her, but she didn't love him back. In the end, his life didn't turn out well. That's the whole story. We could have stopped there, but telling stories is fun and sometimes useful. Even though a tombstone can sum up a person's life in a few words, it's nice to know the details.

[Quote] . And he seems like a caricature.

and it was widely parodied at the time R37

There Will Be Blood is a masterpiece. That was evident in the first ten minutes of the film. It ranks alongside Kubrick’s best works.

No Country For Old Men is just a slasher film set in a different milieu with Javier Bardem as the Michael Meyers character. It’s not complicated in any way whatsoever.

[Quote] No Country For Old Men is just a slasher film set in a different milieu

R43 different than what? Is there a standard milieu for slasher films?

r43 I think No Country is very complicated philosophically.

Which one has nudity?

R39, I was only responding to R27 and then R36. I didn't criticize your writing at OP. If anything, what I wrote was supportive of your writing.

So, let's just call it a day on this discussion.

R25

Sorry, hit post by mistake R25.

The scene where Javier Bardem is talking to the sweet old man in the corner store and flips the coin to see if he lives or dies. It makes me tear up because the old man is so harmless and he has no clue what kind of maniac he’s dealing with. I both love that scene and hate it. It makes me shiver just writing about it.

Two of my favorite movies of all time. I give No Country the slight edge because I love Cormac's novel SOOOO much.

I saw both films in theaters. There Will Be Blood was an excellent theater experience but I've only felt the urge to rewatch it once since then. No Country is a more enjoyable movie and I've seen it about a dozen times. I think it's hard to stomach Daniel Plainview because he has this really ugly intensity. His eyes are black pits filled with hatred.

I wish I'd seen it in the theater, r51

TWBB was very unnerving in theaters. It was LOUD and the soundtrack sounded like an air raid siren. I bet they'll re-release it at some point, r51.