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.

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.

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.

Well said.

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.

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!!!!

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.