“Anton who?”
When it comes to the showdown, Peter and I will both be there with news on which film wins Best Picture this Sunday evening. 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 hope to further explain my opinion on this subject in a bit, but until then, tell us why you agree or disagree. And if you think Juno or Michael Clayton is superior to one or both of these modern classics, stay out of this forum or watch out for a braining bowling pin. Oh, and everyone, watch out massive spoilers, obviously. Bring your A-game to the comments.
Discuss one of the coolest Oscar showdowns in years: There Will Be Blood vs. No Country For Old Men.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Country>Blood
I’m not a critic so I’ll plainly say that I just liked No Country better. I like me a psychopath. :)
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
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
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
thank you for agreeing Andrew Self. (i also told my dad exactly the same: best film in five years)
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Are you crazy cinemaniac…? you think Juno is gonna win… ARE YOU HIGH???
And Nathan… you HAVE TO WATCH No Country!!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I think you need to be shot.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
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.”
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Robb, Atonement was boring. Really, really boring.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
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!
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
@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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Eric, um, what about the ending? Don’t you mean, so GREAT?
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
@ 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).
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
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).
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
@Flynn
Which film’s ending?
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
this is tough choice, but I’ll have to say “There will be blood”.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
It will be, There Will Be Blood……
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
@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
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Oops. Disregard that last incomplete phrase…
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
“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
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
TWBB will win, though I personally preferred NCFOM.
I’ve got a free lunch riding on this…
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
@ 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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 am
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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 am
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
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 am
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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 am
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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:17 am
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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:55 am
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..
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 am
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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
All of the nominated movies of 2007 sucked, thats why they didnt make any money. The best movie of the year was Zodiac !
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 am
@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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
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
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
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
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
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
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
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
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
“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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
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
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
@ 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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
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. =)
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 pm
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.
February 24th, 2008 at 3:11 am
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!
February 24th, 2008 at 4:20 am
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.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:49 am
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.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:00 am
DRAINAGE!!!! I Drink Your MILKSHAKE!!!
February 24th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Juno?
February 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
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.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:10 am
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!!!!
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 am
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.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
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.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
@ hillary
Well said.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:30 am
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.