Everything that I have thought has already been said.

I can only say that I think TWBB will be remembered far longer than NCFOM as a cinematic masterpiece. I hope PTA keeps evolving and making movies like those. I hope he becomes a new Kubrick.

I'll be honest...NCFOM was the film that, for the first time in my life, made me want to be a director. But now that time has passed, I'm tending to lean towards TWBB as a far superior film.

I loved No Country For Old Men and enjoyed it as a thriller certainly, but in 20 years the movie that will be still discussed by critics and people yet to be born is There Will Be Blood. Absolutely brilliant film dealing with very difficult human emotions and questions of right and wrong.

NCFOM is a very straight forward conflict between Good and Evil and of course it is easier to follow. TWBB is trying to lay out a much more subtle set of ideas and not as well drawn conflicts between Good and evil, right and wrong. NCFOM spoon feeds the viewer while yes TWBB is harder to watch and requires the viewer to provide a bit of intellectual capital during the journey.

Like I said two great films and I cannot remember in my lifetime (32 years) two films this good released in such a short span between each other. When was the last time Elvis Mitchell passed out two perfect reviews in back to back reviews.

I do not get it. The two worst Coen Bros. films (in my estimation), Fargo and Old Men both win best picture? Old men was well crafted and edited but who cared about the characters at all? It was all technique and no soul. The whole Po-Mo cold, calculated, cynical villian thing has been done to death for 15 years! I'm a huge Coen Bros. fan, but maybe their trick is up?

There will be blood was so much better in so many ways. Wonderful use of music for one and Daniel Day Lewis is in a league all his own.

I had been mulling it over in my head for awhile, which movie I enjoyed more, which was more impressive, in general, to which one I gravitated towards more. I keep telling myself that I like No Country more. I saw both in theaters, No Country twice to TWBB's once. They were both eerily similar in certain respects (new entries into the Western canon; one current, one turn of the century, both have unbelievably determined, nearly unstoppable forces of nature in Chigurh and Plainview, both utilized sound (or lack thereof) and imagery very effectively to create their distinctive emotional landscapes. TWBB has it's merits as being wholly unique and a total departure for PTA, the slow, haunting beginning reminiscent of Kubrick and the stunning shots of the derrick's and the land during the geological surveys. No Country can counter with an almost unseen (by recent standards) use of silence and a lack of any definite score, as well as the triumph of creating a strong narrative despite the fact the three main participants in the chase are never on screen together. Both are tremendously engaging, very important American movies. However, I have to think that in discussions like this opinion plays a huge role in making a decision, and it certainly does for me. For whatever reason No Country resonates more with me. I love, repeat, love TWBB, it's terrific in basically every way, but at the end of the day No Country struck a nerve that TWBB failed to find, and for that reason I pick No Country.

I just love it that from time to time I get an alert that this thread is still alive. Thanks Elliot!

There will be blood was definitely better than No Country.
No Country for Old Men had no point whatsoever.
For There Will Be Blood, you can feel and see what it's about and what it wants to say. However, No Country is just a movie to spend a time watching, is all.

I saw both films and both were great. In my opinion though, TWBB was much deeper than NCFOM. NCFOM was a thriller, that's for sure; it had much more action than TWBB, but TWBB made me think a lot more. My vote goes to TWBB. It's a classic.

"Im amazed it won best picture, it had the most uses of the F-bomb for winning the award, it was very violent, and the ending wasnt a happy one."

I guess you didn't see The Departed.

Both movies were incredible. I saw NCFOM first, then TWBB about a month later, and Im gonna have to say Im glad NCFOM won the award. The way the movie starts out kind of slow, gets intense, and then just completely takes you off course into a direction you never saw. The way the movie was filmed is quite different from most action movies. There was almost no music, very little lines from the characters, and yet it was still intense. I do think that Daniel Day Lewis turned in a better performance than Bardem, but I think Bardem's character was much more memorable. I think the trio of Brolin, Jones, and Bardem is also a little bit better than what TWBB had because the only good performances were basically day lewis and paul dano, who was great also.

In all i just see NCFOM as a better, more unique, more memorable picture. Im amazed it won best picture, it had the most uses of the F-bomb for winning the award, it was very violent, and the ending wasnt a happy one. While most action movies marvel in violence and use it to sell, this movie showed how terrible it can be.

Chicken'n'Buiskits!!!!!!!!

Bardem's character gets the money and returns it.

There will be blood.........is a better movie. At least you know who keeps the money

Of course, because we all know that Gangs of New York was the best movie EVER MADE.

You would turn down working with Scorsese? You're a fool.

And pretentious is a word idiots use when they can't think of anything bad to say about something they didn't like or get but want to still sound smart. Failed.

In the beginning of NCFOM, Brolin's character had no reason to believe that man in the truck would still be alive, or that a gallon of water would do any good. To have the entire film hinged on this...it lost me.

DDL went to work in TWBB...he didn't phone it in like all those ultra minimalist performances in NCFOM. DDL was dynamic. My vote was for TWBB.

SEAN says:

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.

_______________________________________________

Of course, because we all know that Gangs of New York was the best movie EVER MADE.

Enough of this this. TWBB was good, no doubt, but a little pretentious in my mind. NCFOM was a moral drama covered by an action thriller that was very thrilling and extremely well made.

@ hillary

Well said.

I saw both films after the awards which is unusual for me, but I've been in the middle of a move, etc. Whatever...I think there are good arguments pro/con both movies, but I would have voted for TWBB.

I agree the Coen Brothers are masterful, but they've already had their Oscar glory with "Fargo" and so all of Francis McDormand's nodding and "power-to-the-indies" rocking in her seat during their acceptance word sort of seemed a little passe to me. NCFOM doesn't seem to me to be that much of a new terrain for them; it reminded me in a lot of ways more as an anti-Fargo: No Snow, no humour, but still vast and remote locale, quirky sadistic/masochistic characters, lots of squeamish gore and a sheriff with a supportive spouse to boot. Even sans comic relief, there was really no memorable lines. I still have yet to read Cormac McCarthy (it just wasn't the right time to be reading "Blood Meridian" but I think it is cool that they adapted his work and very glad that the author was able to share the limelight on Oscar night.
The acting in NCFOM was impressive and actually I'm happy that Josh Brolin has been able to show his mettle in this film as well as American Gangster. For that, the Coens really deserve credit in their casting choices.

I felt myself drifting, however, in No Country for Old Men whereas I usually am riveted at Coen Brothers films, even if it falls stupidly apart like "Intolerable Cruelty."

I saw TWBB the next day and was mesmerized. The research into the history of oil drilling and turn of the century western US for the film was enough to buy me over. Daniel Day-Lewis was amazing, but all of the characters and the dialogue was a true dramatic achievement.

The score was by Jonny Greenwood from Radiohead which is pretty worth noting. I read that the film was disqualified for the Oscar best original score because he uses a couple of tracks from previous works but as soon as the film let out, I walked across the street from the theatre and bought the sound track. To me the score added such dimension to the tension of the film. I loved it.

For me, the true test of a good film is all the senses it reaches in me and hands down I felt the cinematic texture, the sound, the acting and the music made There Will Be Blood a much more important and impressive cinematic experience.

Ok No country on the oscar and i understand that but people will remember There will be blood. It'll be the cult classic. But thats completely beside the point when is the last time we had two movies and no matter which one won, everyone would be ok with it. I wanted There will be blood to win it. It didn't but it lost to No country so i'm okay. If only we had this every year.

TWBB is better than NCFOM, but so is Zodiac (which got snubbed)...

I also think Jesse James slightly beats out TWBB this year...

My top 4:
1. Jesse James
2. Blood
3. Zodia
4. No Country

I wish TWBB won one of biggies or even adapted screenplay, and I also wish Jesse James won cinematography...

Oh well, I will start the push for The Curious Case... and Fincher in 08!!!!

1. No Country For Old Men is a better made movie than There Will
Be Blood. The acting, plot, music use, chemistry, whatever is amazing.

2. There Will Be Blood is a better story and maybe even better movie. But there are too many people who got bored due to length. And while that fact doesn't at all mean it's a bad movie, it just goes to show that NCFOM is a better MADE picture.

3. No Country For Old Men will win the Oscar and soon be forgotten.

4. There Will Be Blood will lose, but it will be remembered, more than any other movie of 2007, as a classic.

5. Juno was much better than Atonement, but neither should have been nominated in a year full of so many great movies.

6. Ok, hate me now. But pERSONALLY, i liked Micheal Clayton more than any other movie of 2007. I'm not sayin that it was "better" in any way, but i, like most people on the planet, am not a movie geek who analizes every single part of a movie. I have a real job and i go to movies to be entertained. Micheal Clayton entertained me more than No Country For Old Men and much more than There Will Be Blood. Fuck All you Crackers.

Juno?

DRAINAGE!!!! I Drink Your MILKSHAKE!!!

I watched both these films in the theatre for the first time yesterday and I thought they were both brilliant. What amazed me most about them was the similarity of theme. There are times in both films where the soon-to-be slain basically says "you have no reason to kill me, just let me go", but the killer kills them anyway. What I'm trying to say is that both films explore the ethics of a killer in a new way. The fact that both directors chose to explore the same theme really proves to me that "the ethics of killing" is a relevant topic. These films are an evolution of the cinematic genre and they remind me of how, in Art History, Picasso and Braque evolved art by inventing cubism at the same time.

I'd like to recommend everyone check out A.O. Scott's article "Are Oscars Worth All This Fuss" in Sunday's (today's) NY Times on how the Oscar race has shifted (especially with the specialty divisions becoming the Oscar branch of studios with weighted release schedules in the last 3/4 of the year, with the best films competing against each other, and having the race dominate public discussion). arguing that the Oscars are a fine entertainment, but the more important they become, the more it draws away from what is most important and varied in movie culture- when in actuality, it's a trade award show and essentially rewarding what the film industry thought was best about itself, and distorts our perspective of films.

I do feel that No Country is a fantastic film. Javier Bardem is brilliant and I think he deserves the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (altough Casey Affleck in Jesse James has been vastly underrated!) but as for Best Film...
People throw around the M word far too much and although No Country is excellent, it's There Will Be Blood that is the masterpiece. Daniel Day-Lewis is truely fantastic. I feel that the theory that the film would be vastly inferior if DDL was replaced and therefore TWBB shouldn't win Best Film is ridiculous! If Javier Bardem was replaced then No Country would not be as good therefore that shouldn't win best film? I say again, ridiculous!
I believe that No Country will be triumphant but I pray to those who hand out the golden baldies side with the the wonderous masterpiece that is There Will Be Blood!

Gary, that doesn't prove your point at all.

You said that the 2007 nominees sucked and that is why they didn't make any money, but compared to last year, this year's nominees actually did better compared to the overall field.

Here is where this year’s nominees stand in terms of highest domestic grossing films of 2007: Juno (19), No Country (41), Atonement (54), Michael Clayton (55), There Will Be Blood (81). Average: 50

And 2006's highest grossing domestic films:The Departed (15), Little Miss Sunshine (51), The Queen (57), Babel (91), Letters to Iwo Jima (138). Average: 70.4

Yes, the nominated movies in 2007 made less money than the nominated movies of 2006. No one was arguing that (though it should be noted that it has a lot to do with having an extreme outlier with The Departed, a great movie, but a popcorn film with huge movie stars), but they actually made more money when compared to their field. Your argument was that the 2007 nominated movies made less money because thy sucked, but you go on to explain how another 2007 movie (Zodiac) didn't make much money, but you say it didn't suck (a claim I agree with). So it seems like your argument doesn't hold up. Your opinion of quality does not correlate with making money, even if you make the argument that says that the poor quality of the 2007 nominees is responsible for their poor returns. If they Academy had gone with your top five movies (movies that don't "suck" by your standards) rather than the movies that were nominated (though there is an overlap in TWBB), the nominee list would have made considerably less (here are there rankings in domestic gross for 2007): Zodiac (80), American Gangster (18), Eastern Promises (117), Into the Wild (115), There Will Be Blood (81)

You can't have your cake and eat it to. You didn't prove anything.

The Coens did an incredible job at capturing the thrilling suspense and moral complexities of McCarthy's source text, however, 'No Country' isn't a film that will be remembered. That's not necessary a terrible thing - not many thrillers are - what would be a tragedy though is the film sweeping the Oscars off the notion of voters 'repaying' the Coens for overlooking their magnum opus 'Fargo'.

Unlike last year, when Scorsese was ridiculously overdue AND 'The Departed' was far and away the best film of the year, 'No Country' is stacked against one of the greatest American epics ever crafted for the screen in 'There Will Be Blood'. Not only did Anderson do what few filmmakers dare (stepping outside of his comfort zone to such a drastic degree), he also created a film that is largely unrivaled in its greatness in our current generation (with even the few detractors commending its ability to crawl under their skin).

It would be unfair if the voters didn't recognise and reward 'Blood' based on its significant superiority just because it's still clearly a film ahead of its time (imagine how much more appreciated its going to be in the coming decades). I'll never understand the Academy's insane notion of 'rewarding' people based off their life achievement. If their achievements have been that great, then have the smarts (and guts) not overlooked them in the first place (ala, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Scorsese). Fact is, voters now know they should have rewarded the Coens for 'Fargo', and now 'Blood' is likely to suffer as a result of their piss-weak attempt at making amends.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed all of the 'Best Picture' contenders this year - and in almost any other year, 'No Country' would be a thoroughly deserved winner - but just not this year. =)

I definitely think Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins is a contender for this years best film. No one can deny the power in Martin Lawrence's portrayal of Roscoe Jenkins. Malcolm D. Lee directs the masterpiece of his life, introducing recurring themes of racism, economic struggles, and urban family drama. I'll kill my child if this film goes home empty-handed.

@ Jay08

I am working on a review to explain why I think TWBB is better, but I disagree when you say these films are of different genres and share little in common. NCFOM is a revisionist Western just like TWBB, and they both tackle the source of evil in the world, bleak existentialist notions, the existence or non-existence of God, and violence.

I said above that I think PTA deserves to win Best Director as well, but I disagree that Best Picture is solely a producers award. Winning that award means the film was definitive for its time in the history books (even when it maybe wasn't).

I am not knocking NCFOM, it's a great film, but I think, with time, TWBB will come to be seen as the more important film with one of the best performances an actor has ever given.

Also wanted to note;

Matthew wrote:
5) 1) The soundtrack to TWBB blows No Country’s out of the water. No argument there.


Do you have any idea how difficult and amazing it is to pull off a film and keep people engage with no driving score?
No Country has no score and no music. Watch it again then watch any other film on mute and see if you remain engaged.

SO THE TOTAL FOR 2006 = 716.5
AND THE TOTAL FOR 2007=486.2
SO THIS YEARS TOP 5 MOVIES MADE 230.3 MILLION DOLLARS LESS THAN THE TOP 5 OF 2006 THAT PROVES MY POINT

"However, right now we are both in agreement that Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood is a better film than the Coen Brothers‘ No Country For Old Men. There is no question: It deserves to win the Oscar for 2007’s Best Picture. Will it? We’ll discuss that later."

I'm sorry, why is this again? Theyre two completely seperate types of films both made by amazing directors.
So what exactly are you basing this on again? Actor performance, story, cinematography?

I'm interested in hearing a bloggers reasons as to why one is better than the other. Also, best picture is the producers award, having little to do with the direction of the film, that would be best director. So that statement doesn't make sense.

WORLDWIDE TOTALS FOR 2007.

JUNO =157.3 MILLION
ATTONEMENT =114.8 MILLION
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN =93.2 MILLION
MICHAEL CLAYTON = 82.8 MILLION
THERE WILL BE BLOOD = 38.1 MILLION
SO WHAT I AM SAYING 2007 WAS A BAD YEAR FOR MOVIES

lETS COMPARE WORLDWIDE TOTALS BETWEEN THIS YEAR AND LAST YEARS NOMINEES.

2006

THE DEPARTED =289.8 MILLION
BABEL = 135.3 MILLION
THE QUEEN = 122.8 MILLION
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE =100.3 MILLION
LETTERS FRON IWA JIMA=68.3 MILLION

to jeff:

if daniel day lewis wouldnt have agreed to do it then the movie wouldve never been made so your argument is flawed and dumb

I'm kind of confused, Gary. You say that "All of the nominated movies of 2007 sucked, thats why they didnt make any money. The best movie of the year was Zodiac!"

Here is where this year's nominees stand in terms of highest domestic grossing films of 2007: Juno (19), No Country (41), Atonement (54), Michael Clayton (55), There Will Be Blood (81).

Zodiac was #80, barely nudging past TWBB. And we should note that Zodiac's budget was 65m, exactly ten times Juno's budget of 6.5m.

Titanic is the exception. Generally, the five movies nominated aren't gigantic blockbusters.

Heres my top ten list of 2007
#1 ZODIAC
#2 AMERICAN GANGSTER
#3 EASTERN PROMISES
#4 INTO THE WILD
#5 THERE WILL BE BLOOD
#6 NO COUTRY FOR OLD MEN
#7 THE LOOKOUT
#8 iN THE VALLEY OF ELAH
#9 WE OWN THE NIGHT
#10 GONE BABY GONE

Its true that Zodiac didnt make that much money but it came out earlier in the year and they didnt promote it properly. but if you look at all the nominated so called best pictures of the year with all the award show hype they still are not making any money.

@Gary...

Ha. What?! I absolutely loved Zodiac and put it in my top five for 2007, trumping Michael Clayton, Atonement, and Juno, and would have loved to have seen it nominated (and especially Fincher for Best Director), but your argument that all of the nominated movies didn't make any money because they sucked doesn't seem to really hold water when you consider Zodiac's returns, as well as Juno's.

All of the nominated movies of 2007 sucked, thats why they didnt make any money. The best movie of the year was Zodiac !

First of al, l to call yourself a "movie fan" and then dismiss Atonement as "boring" pretty much negates any credibility your opinion might otherwise carry. In any other year, in which it didn't compete against NCFOM or TWBB, it would have been right up there. For the amazing acting, editing, narrative, score and the brilliant 5 minute tracking shot on the beach. Phenomenal top notch stuff.

Anyway, the main difference between TWBB and NCFOM is the pretentious factor. The reason TWBB seems to be more "epic" and artful is because it was made consciously to be a piece of art. Which ultimately undermines its narrative power. Its a similar situation to where Wes Anderson is now. He is making "Wes Anderson" movies self consciously. I get the feeling that TWBB was made to look and sound more amazing and important then its source material actually was. The characters where 1 dimensional because they were designed to hang on a gallery wall. The whole thing was just a little too saturated with a pretention to be 'high art", and thus wasn't the strongest in areas of character or plot development. It sure looked and sounded amazing.

NCFOM is down-in-the-dirt, classic cinema. Nothing pretentious. It had suspense, real dialogue, great character and story development, as well as a philosophical subtext that was worth discussing in an intelligent way weeks and months after viewing. That's is why NCFOM edges out TWBB.

i really don't get why there will be blood is such a polarizing movie. i do understand that if daniel day lewis is taken out of it and replaced by any other actor, then it is just a boring character development film because his acting was that good. no country for old men will win the best picture because of this reason. the coen brothers deserve an oscar for their whole body of work. also, if javier bardem and tommy lee jones are taken out of no country, then it is also just another movie.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@ 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.

TWBB will win, though I personally preferred NCFOM.

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