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.
User comment: By: The ZThere 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.
User comment: By: MatthewTWBB 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.
Are you crazy cinemaniac...? you think Juno is gonna win... ARE YOU HIGH??? And Nathan... you HAVE TO WATCH No Country!!!
User comment: By: Cinemaniac1979Are 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.
User comment: By: NathanThere 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.
thank you for agreeing Andrew Self. (i also told my dad exactly the same: best film in five years)
User comment: By: JohnOh, 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.
User comment: By: JohnWatching 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
User comment: By: MattCountry>Blood I'm not a critic so I'll plainly say that I just liked No Country better. I like me a psychopath. :)
User comment: By: Andrew SelfNo 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.
Visit here to subscribe to these commentsI 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.