I honestly think both films were fantastic. It IS the coolest showdown in years. But personally, I think the award should go to No Country for Old Men. There Will Be Blood was a very good film, but No Country for Old Men is A MASTERPIECE! It was put together with ALOT of skill. That's my opinion. If No Country doesn't get the award then i hope There Will Be Blood does. If none of those 2 get it i'll shoot myself.

No Country by a landslide. I have seen both movies twice, and i loved both. But i agree with Costantinos in that No Country is a masterpiece. I honestly think that it is the best movie made in the past 5 years. If Michael Clayton wins i will probably kill myself.

Country>Blood
I'm not a critic so I'll plainly say that I just liked No Country better. I like me a psychopath. :)

Watching No Country was an incredible experience. I had never felt so tense during a movie. I thought everything about it was perfect. It wasn't. But it was damn close. I had no gripes about the ending because, I mean really, where else could it have gone?

As for There Will Be Blood, I did not enjoy watching it. I sat there thinking, "Why am I not liking this?". Then it ended, and I disliked it even more. I woke up the next morning and realized it was a great film. It took a while to get to me, but it did. Day-Lewis owns it, but his character's (along with every other character) one-dimensionailty and lack of character development keep me from giving this the best picture. Daniel starts greedy and ends senile. Also, everything in TWBB was so over-the-top, ya know? I know it can serve as a parable about greed, but the lack of any realistic characters kinda drew me out of the movie. But I still absolutely love the movie. I thought it was great. Just not as great as No Country. Also, Elswitt's cinematography was awe-inspiring. As much as I was floored with both of Deakins' offerings this year, I found more to love in TWBB.

Great year for movies, though. One of the best I've been around for

Oh, oh. If the oscars did have an award for best scene (which is so MTV Movie Awards-ish that I'm offended I would even suggest it), TWBB would get it for when Daniel leaves HW on the train. That scene was executed perfectly.

thank you for agreeing Andrew Self. (i also told my dad exactly the same: best film in five years)

There Will Be Blood was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Nothing happen in the movie. It was 2.5 hours of nothing. Uwe Boll's In The Name of The King was easier to digest than this movie. I havn't seen No Country For Old Men but really I can't see how it could be worse.

Are you people all high? NOFOM and TWBB are going to split the vote and JUNO is going to upset them all! Seeing as I live a few blocks from the Kodak, I'll be boarding up my windows to deflect the Molotov cocktails from the ensuing riots.

Are you crazy cinemaniac...? you think Juno is gonna win... ARE YOU HIGH???

And Nathan... you HAVE TO WATCH No Country!!!

TWBB is the better film, in my opinion, for many reasons...

1) Day-Lewis' performance is seriously one of the best performances ever captured on screen. Nobody in No Country comes close to delivering a performance as memorable. Bardem did an amazing job, that's true, but the entire film didn't rest on his shoulders and honestly, there are probably other actors out there who could've pulled Anton off.

2) No Country is a relatively straight-forward adaptation of a novel. The Coens did a great job of "cutting out the fat" while still remaining true to the source. However, TWBB took Sinclair's novel into an entirely new direction; a completely original vision whose social commentary is not only more provocative, but also more truthful than No Country's.

3) Both movies had killer endings, but TWBB was more memorable and more shocking all around.

4) No Country was great because it is a relatively new genre for the Coen Bros. but maintained all of the eccentricities they've become known for. TWBB, on the other hand, marks an incredible departure for PTA. This film is perfect example of how a filmmaker can evolve and surprise audiences with something completely unexpected and "out of character."

5) 1) The soundtrack to TWBB blows No Country's out of the water. No argument there.

6) There are many other reasons that shall go unnamed for now. My final reason is simply that TWBB stuck with me longer than No Country.

There Will Be Blood was truly incredible, and one of the best theater-going experiences I've had in a while.

As for No Country For Old Men, I though it was a tad overrated. The beginning was perfect, but towards the middle it started to get cluttered, and I found myself drifting in and out of interest. By the end, I just didn't care. Maybe it was because I was watching a DVD screener instead of seeing it on the big screen. But as a whole, the film just didn't live up to all the hype it had been given by... pretty much every reviewer in the country.

My vote goes to There Will Be Blood.
Second place, Juno.

SECOND PLACE JUNO!!!
Are you joking?! Juno was not nearly as good or interesting as TWBB, No Country, or Michael Clayton. No Country was the best then TWBB, then Michael Clayton. But that is just my opinion, sorry if I seem rude.

Cinemaniac is right. The 3rd best film, Juno, will win. That's how shakespeare in love won. the two war movies split the vote and a 3rd won. same deal this year.

That being said, if I was on the academy I'd vote for no country for old men. loved it.

I think what we have here is a case of men enjoying NCFOM more than TWBB simply because there is a guy running around in NCFOM with a silenced-shotgun and a cattle gun while TWBB only had one comparable act of violence.

Like the poster before me, I agree, NCFOM is strictly a well executed adaptation of a novel. Nothing more. The novel itself wasn't even a daunting task. The message in itself was delivered hundreds of times in many, many movies. The point of NCFOM was in the title. The men of old simply can't handle the ever changing and increasingly brutal violence among men as time goes on. Yeah...no shit. Anybody can communicate that message with a walking killing machine. It was fun to watch Chigurh mess people up, and we all knew from the first 5 minutes of that film that nothing was going to end well by the time the credits roll. The acclaim for this movie is primarily in the execution, and people were just glad to see a good novel finally being put on film the way it should be. That's all folks. It's fun to watch, but it's nothing special.

Now, TWBB is a different matter. There's simply no space in this comment box to sufficiently discuss the themes underlying the surface of that film. The story of Daniel Plainview encompasses religion, greed, family, morality, capitalism, Americanism, and so on. It does what NCFOM could only dream of in the same runtime. More importantly, TWBB is not merely an adaptation, but a very LOOSE adaptation of Sinclair's novel which allowed PTA to make the adaptation his own, more original work. Furthermore, it was a skillfully crafted film. It looked and sounded fantastic. By all means, in terms of sheer quality and detail, PTA's film outdid the work of the Coen's, who already had a complete source from which to outline the film. In short, PTA did so much more with so much less with TWBB, and that should be commended.

Now, I know the rules for commenting say to be polite, but I'm going to have to bend them a bit here. Whoever thinks that NCFOM was better than TWBB is simply not intelligent enough to see that the opposite is clearly true. A guy with two awesome weapons walking around shooting people with a sprinkling of your standard morality tale does not make a great film, people. These same people, I daresay, deep down, don't really appreciate cinema. There's so no other explanation as to how somebody who has seen both films can ignore that TWBB has nearly all the aspects of what makes a film truly epic, while NCFOM is simply a well-crafted morality tale and not much more. I guess it's true, sometimes guns and gimmicks will make up for a lot of a film's shortcomings in many people's minds.

Shame on you, NCFOM fanboys.

I think you need to be shot.

TWBB FTW.

No country has nothing on TWBB.

Does No Country have quotes like..

"I Drink your milkshake! I DRINK IT UP!"

Or

"I'm Your brother from another mother."

I just realized that I made a mistake in implying that TWBB and NCFOM had similar runtimes, but NCFOM is significantly shorter at 2 hr. 2 min.

I guess I had that impression because I found myself bored and losing interest by the second half of NCFOM...

Now that I think about my theater experiences more, I definitely was waiting for NCFOM to hurry up and end already, while TWBB had me glued to my seat to see how Plainview ends up. I honestly expected him to die, but the ending was so much better and more interesting than that. Also, TWBB stuck with me longer than NCFOM. I walked out of NCFOM thinking, "ok, that was overrated" while I remember walking out of TWBB completely satisfied by what I had seen.

I still think you NCFOM fanboys should be ashamed of yourselves.

TWBB was great. DDL owned and will get the best actor nod. Though, overall the realism in NCFOM trumps the one dimensionality of TWBB. Plus the tension and suspense of NCFOM was real and derived from great pacing and writing. The suspense of TWBB was a manufacture from our expectations and a manipulation of our emotions by the score.

Clayton was a good movie. haters be damned.

And what no love for Atonement. I thought it was amazing. In any other year it would be a contender.

At least IMDB has raised my faith in moviegoers:

There Will Be Blood is more highly ranked in the Top 250 movies.

TWBB is #23
NCFOM is #36

Whew. For a second there, I thought most moviegoers had succumbed to NCFOM fanboyism.

Robb, Atonement was boring. Really, really boring.

Gaius-

1) I didn't think NCFOM was better than TWBB because of Javier Bardem at all, in fact I'm a little surprised to see him picking up more noms than Tommy Lee Jones. I think NCFOM was better because it was a deeper, more tightly-executed, more multidimensional story, and I think your characterization of people who prefer NCFOM as stupid, puerile ammo-philes is a little bit shallow and trollish.

2) Saying NCFOM doesn't deserve as much credit as TWBB because it's an adaptation doesn't make a lot of sense. What matters is how good the movie is, not how much work went into the script.

3) Both movies are FANTASTIC. There is room in the world for people to prefer either one over the other. I'm pretty sure we can all get along without telling each other to be ashamed of our preferences. After all, a movie's quality is a pretty subjective topic, especially in a situation like this where we have an embarrassment of riches at the Oscars.

Gaius, your "guy running around in NCFOM with a silenced-shotgun and a cattle gun" remark is so ridiculous, it's laughable. And your "Whoever thinks that NCFOM was better than TWBB is simply not intelligent enough..." comment actually surpasses "ridiculous" and lands safely in "idiotic". Grow up.

To everyone else, Both are wonderful experiences, I've seen both in the theater twice, but at the end of the day, NCFOM stays with me more because of its sad and haunting third act, and the pitch-perfect way the Coens execute every single moment of the picture. P.T. of course created a masterpiece in his own right, it just hasn't lingered as effectively as No Country. But shit, I'll own both when they're released on DVD, and enjoy them for years to come.

The last act of NCFOM is bad. I mean, we watch him protect the money and then see him-well, you know. And WTF was with the ending? So bad.

TWBB had a great third act. HANDS DOWN!

@Gaius

I agree. IMDB's rating says a lot. I'm super surprised how high TWBB is ranked given some of its themes, excuse me, THE theme.

Eric, um, what about the ending? Don't you mean, so GREAT?

@ eric: way to bring in the 'milkshake' quote from TWBB. just reading it brought a smile to my face.

after reading through the comments and thinking to myself about the films, I think that TWBB is a clear choice for the win. NCFOM was a great film, but TWBB was better.

HOWEVER, the academy could be a bunch of bitches and give the Coen brothers a sympathy win. they did it for Scorsese with 'the Departed'. not to say that NCFOM or 'the Departed' were not good films (they were great). but TWBB is a film that will get this generation of filmmakers into AFI 100 (not that it is the ultimate signifier of greatness).

Matt -

1) There's no question that NCFOM was a tightly-executed story with great characters, but the themes in it are subtle at best, with one trumping all the rest at the end with whatever Tommy Lee Jones says. It's a good movie, but it just isn't as layered as TWBB, and PTA did it with even LESS characters.

2) On the contrary, a best picture win should contain all the considerations for making a great movie and when it comes down to it, the academy should and will take into account that while the Coen's adapted NCFOM quite well, PTA took Sinclair's "Oil!" and made it his own American epic.

3) Of course a movie's quality is subjective...to an extent. There's a quantitative and qualitative aspect to gauging movie quality, and NCFOM fanboys are gauging it just as much as the TWBB adherents.

I tend to think that NCFOM is the better film. While I liked both of the movies, NCFOM just sat with me much better than TWBB. Not to say that they're not both great movies.

NCFOM had great performances all around - Javier Bardem is obviously the standout but Jones, Brolin, and MacDonald rocked as well. It also had a very signature Coen brothers feel while being fairly unique from their other films. I also thought that it was so beautifully tense - which was secondary only to the story - not the score (or lack thereof).

TWBB was also great but for very different reasons. First of all, it's hard not to acknowledge that Daniel Day Lewis gave perhaps the best performance in a film EVER. The movie also had a tense feeling but that owed mostly to the amazing score by Johnny Greenwood. It also deserves mentioning that this is such a departure for Anderson - he really executed this "new style" perfectly. He truly is an amazing filmmaker.

All in all, it's a tough one this year. It could go either way, but my vote is for NCFOM. And God, I hope they don't split the votes and allow Juno or Michael Clayton to win (both great films, just pale in comparison).

@Flynn

Which film's ending?

this is tough choice, but I'll have to say "There will be blood".

Flynn-

The only thing that is ridiculous here is that there are people who say they love movies but actually think NCFOM is better than TWBB. Having seen both, and it being so obvious to me that TWBB is of a much higher caliber, (no pun intended) it seems to me that the likely culprit is the public's fascination with people using big, unorthodox guns to kill other people. If I could edit NCFOM and make it so that Anton Chigurh only shot people with a small 007 pistol, I can bet you'd see that more people would see NCFOM for the same "it's all going to hell in a handbasket" morality tale we've seen before.

It will be, There Will Be Blood......

Apparently, we need a universal font that denotes sarcasm. Costantinos Sozou, I though the whole MOLOTOV COCKTAIL/RIOT bit my put you on the scent, but alas, no.

Truth is I haven't seen either of the other two movies because there's too much damn hype.

Plus, we all know that quality has NOTHING to do with Oscars. How else could Shakespeare in Love and CRASH have won Best Picture?

Oscars = Dead to Me.

You want quotes from NCFOM?

"Call it."

The sheer insanity (or clarity) that was going on in Anton Chigurh's head is what truely scared me. I walked out of that movie worried I was going to meet a character like him, because his black and white brutality to life was so UNhuman it scared me in a way I've never been scared by a film before - not "afraid of the dark" scared, but scared that its possible for a human being to do that without hesitation or need, but simply because its one less person he has to deal with.

As for TWBB, I loved that movie also, and it's ending was a brilliant part of poetic justice (unlike every other person in the world, I feel Daniel's character was truthful in everything he said, he was wronged by Eli and it consumed him - he was a self made man who had all these extra "things" thrown upon him which he didnt want). The ending was a beautifully put detox if you will of his character - if it was committed in a vile way.

Ultimately, I feel No Country was the better movie because unlike TWBB, you observed Plainview throughout, you could share his emotions - but I feel they were too personal situations to Daniel to be felt by the audience, where as NCFOM threw you into the situations and utilized the cinematography to make you feel like you were there.

Alright let's start with TWBB:

There will be blood: Was good, but PTA (as in all of his films) bites off more than he can chew. He chooses to explore certain themes, but doesn't provide a resolution or a clear opinion. Now this is all fine and dandy with regards to European Cinema, but common! To me, leaving a movie "open to interpretation", (in most cases but NOT ALL) is usually a sign of someone who didn't think their film through! Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, I just don't think it's the masterpiece everyone touts it to be. But regardless of the criticism I have for it , I highly admire his ambition.

NOW...

No Country For Old Men, was a much much more engaging narrative, but at the end of the day it says nothing new, and shows nothing new. The execution of vision here is almost immaculate. And it is by far a better picture than The Departed with regards to being a crime story with interconnecting dynamics and bla bla bla.


So what we have here are two films that fall short of their glory in one way or the other. No Country because of it's source material lacking, in the end, some progressive substance, and TWBB for lacking clarity in where it wants to take us. With that said, I personally believe that TWBB just had that "something more". It chose to take a risk by placing itself on a scope long since forgotten to this generation of witty dialogue and pithy quotes. It challenged the modern paradigm and took us to a world where each character stood as a symbol, an archetype to be explored beyond the celluloid flickering before us. So if you're the kind of guy who wants to reward sheer entertainment. Then vote no country. But if you want to, you can choose to reward someone who delivered a throwback to a time when stories stood and reflected something off the screen. Whatever the out come, one thing will be clear on sunday. On that day we're gonna see where Hollywood is at, and where it's going.


But me? I'm voting TWBB, because I believe it to be a film that will will decisive in setting the standard for tomorrows films.

@Gaius:

Relax. You seem to be worried that a horde of NCFOM fanboys is going to burst into your house and shock your testicles until you admit that NCFOM is better than TWBB. Not going to happen, so calm down. Your vehemence about this might lead one to call you a TWBB fanboy. All due respect to VI Lenin (and GW Bush), but repeating something over and over doesn't make it any more true than it was the first time.

My 2 cents:

I liked NCFOM better, and it had nothing to do with big guns. You might find the morality tale old hat, but there's a reason it gets told again and again: because we need to hear it. We go the movies for the same reason that the ancient Greeks went to the Dionysian festival each year to see the plays of Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles: catharsis. We don't do it as consciously as they did, and I can't really describe to you the cathartic experience that I had after NCFOM, but I had one. And it wasn't about cool weaponry.

On the other hand, I love PT Anderson. I think Magnolia is one of the best movies ever. And there's just no question that Daniel Day-Lewis is a genius. He is to other actors what Einstein is to other physicists: an almost insurmountable inspiration. But for me, the character was so unlikable and yet so unavoidable that it tainted the move a little for me. I think his achievement was amazing, and if anyone else wins Best Actor, it will cement my opinion that the Academy Awards are becoming a joke. (How Hilary Swank can have the same number of Oscars as Meryl Streep is simply inexplicable... but that's a whole different rant.)

I will grant you that NCFOM is more accessible than TWBB, because its form is familiar to anyone who's seen a movie. But the Coens to some degree subvert that by killing one of the main characters off screen and by denying the audience the ending it might expect from a film of this form.

My hope is that NCFOM wins, because it stuck with me, and still does, longer than TWBB. However, I will be happy if either wins. Juno was cute, but it's simply not in the same league with the rest of the films nominated.

If that makes me

Oops. Disregard that last incomplete phrase...

"Having seen both, and it being so obvious to me that TWBB is of a much higher caliber, (no pun intended) it seems to me that the likely culprit is the public’s fascination with people using big, unorthodox guns to kill other people. If I could edit NCFOM and make it so that Anton Chigurh only shot people with a small 007 pistol, I can bet you’d see that more people would see NCFOM for the same “it’s all going to hell in a handbasket” morality tale we’ve seen before."

@ Gaius

I actually enjoyed No Country for its more mature stance on violence and its themes. I don't think Anton's weapon would've changed my opinion of the movie. How Bardem handled it would, which is a testament to his performance.

And I forget who said anyone could play Anton, but eh, you're probably right. David Spade pulled off a good Day-Lewis though. And he's David Spade.

Yes, it was sarcasm

I've seen NCFOM 3 times, and TWBB twice.

Every time I left NCFOM, I felt different, affected, changed. The first night I literally couldn't sleep because I kept replaying the movie over and over and the meaning of the ending, the interpretation of the dream, everything.

TWBB, I left thinking: Well, the acting was great, the directing was awesome, the cinematography was gorgeous... but the story is just.. okay. It doesn't make any grand statements about life, and it is not all that entertaining. It is just there, a study of what greed can do to a man. It is a perfect example of how to make a great film, all the way up to the actual story.

And, if we're judging JUST on overall entertainment, I would take Juno every damn day of the year. That was, by far, the most entertaining film of 2007. But NCFOM gets my vote for best film, because of the way it was done, the acting, and the message it delivers. Not only did it keep my attention throughout, but it left me really pondering its social commentary. TWBB fails in that sense.

Both were good, but I found myself far more caught up in No Country.

And Juno was also very good, but I don't know about Oscar-worthy... I'm not saying it isn't well-made or very entertaining, but I can't imagine this movie being heralded as a timeless classic in ten-to-twenty years.

Definitely NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

It's more thrilling and it's more everybody's favorite including mine.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD was a work of art in its purest form.

But we have to remember..

This whole thing's a popularity vote.

But at the same time, there's this occasional thing.... where whichever wins for Best Editing usually wins Best Picture too.

That's also another showdown between TWBB and NCFOM

I predict The Coen Brothers will win Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay.
Hat-trick in one night.

And Javier Bardem will go home with his first Oscar ever.

I think "No Country For Old Men" will be taking home the Best Picture award. I'd prefer to see "Juno" take it home, but I can't imagine that happening.

TWBB will win, though I personally preferred NCFOM.

I've got a free lunch riding on this...

@ RichieSteven

[bowling pin to the head]

@ larry

you say, in defense of NCFOM, that "TWBB doesn't make any grand statements about life." this is the worst comment in the history of /Film, as TWBB is the grand statement about life.

@ J. Luna

"PTA chooses to explore certain themes, but doesn't provide a resolution or a clear opinion."

You sir, are a fake commenter. You have not seen TWBB. The resolution is not only clear, but genius. The movie actually has opinions as opposed to NCFOM, which has opinions clear enough for movie critics to argue over like birds on a wire until TWBB is finally accepted as one of the greatest American films of all time. I am forever over your opinion on movies.

@ NCFOM defenders of the throne

You people are in denial. The Coens might deserve Best Director if we're going on the "lifetime" vote, but PTA's film is 2007's Best Picture. I personally think PTA deserves Best Director as well as Best Picture, and, no, personally, I'm not a PTA maniac..until now.

More on this later. Bowling pins to the fake commenters, champagne to the real commenters.

Saw both films, twbb twice.

After viewing TWBB, I left the theater in awe, I couldn't believe I was watching a masterpiece created in my generation. Everything from the acting execution of scenes works perfectly to weave a amazing film.
On the other hand, NCFOM seemed to me like a perfect film, executed flawlessly and thus go on to win the oscar. That doesn't mean TWBB will be forgotten, quite the contrary, I believe TWBB will be remembered as a cinematic masterpiece and NCFOM as just another film.

It's kind of depressing how so many people feel the need to wage a very combative argument knocking down.

Best Director really is a an award for skill and technical acumen, as well as overall vision of the project. I think the Coen's did an amazing job in this regard.

Best Adapted Screenplay. It is one thing to debate the merits of the shooting scripts as singular entities, but I think that this is where the argument over how closely No Country followed the book (and not just in terms of a general plot arc and characters, but scene for scene and line for line of dialogue, I've never seen a movie that captured the book so completely) versus how Anderson used Oil as inspiration to make his own story and universe. In a sense, I was surprised that the Coens were even nominated or considered for their script. Regardless of how you feel about the two movies as films independent of any source material, you have to recognize the fact that McCarthy's novel was basically a soft lob over the plate for anyone to turn it into a script. I honestly think that any decent screenwriter, if told to follow the novel to a T, could have written that screenplay. This has to go to Anderson.

While I loved both of these films and put them as the #1 and #3 movies I saw in 2007 (TWBB at #1), I think that a lot of people on this board on both sides of the argument are really selling one movie short in order to prop up their personal favorite.

It's also disappointing to see how so many people are looking for one singular sentence "message" or "moral" of the story

TWBB was a far better film. just the fact that DD-L agreed to do it should tell you people how fucking great it is.

This thread truly illustrates how one of the other 3 films have a very good chance to take home the prize. It's not any sort of conspiracy or failure on the voters' part. It's just the way things go.

I can see scenarios that have all five films winning 2-3 notable awards. They all have merit.

First off Hunter. Ouch. Second, I meant a "clear" resolution (damn typos). Now don't get me wrong the resolution was most certainly a very powerful one. But don't come at me as if it was clear. I'm sorry but it wasn't. Compare this to Citizen Kane (and for the haters, YES TWBB IS definitely on par with this film and therefore worthy to be used in this comparison). The meaning of Rose Bud is very very clearly illuminated at the end. It's a reference to the one thing he could never get back, his childhood, the loss of which served as a catalyst for the turn events that shaped his life. Simple and CLEAR. Case closed, let's go to sleep. TWBB's ending on the other hand is NOT clear. "Finished"? With what dude? Wait I know! Um wait nevermind. Maybe it's this, maybe it's that. By the time I finally came up with a satisfactory explanation in my mind it was a couple of days later.

Now don't get me wrong to have an ending that's not Clear isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it does put the resolution on a far more esoteric pedestal from which we are to examine it. Meaning the ending has a lot more to it than we're gonna get from just one sitting. This my friend is the opposite of clear. Genius? Yes. Clear? Hell naw fool!

And though your comment does force me to rethink my personal opinion on the ambiguity that pervades this films substructure. At the end of the day it will remain just that-ambiguous. A beautiful and well crafted ambiguity nonetheless.

-Word.

There Will Be Blood is far too silly to merit a comparison to Citizen Kane IMO. Plus TWBB hasn't had time to age, so who's to judge?

On a personal note, all you TWBB elitists are quite annoying. You act like your opinion is fact. They're both great films. No need to try to belittle the intelligence of NCFOM fans. How old are we? I look at you people and see nothing worth liking..