Which is better, no country for old men or there will be blood

jdscrubs

I have seen both and I think without a doubt that No Country for old men is a way better film then There will be blood for the following reasons;

In There will be blood, it is just Daniel Day Lewis who is chewing up the whole screen not giving anyone else a chance to do anything unlike in No Country, where all the actors, especially the 3 main guys, are all given a chance to shine and make each other better.

Personally I liked ensemble films so that is why I was disappointed with There will be blood as Paul Thomas Anderson, who directed it, made Boggie Nights, Magnolia & Punch Drunk Love and brought out the best in everyone unlike in there will be blood. Personally I think he was overawed and overwhelmed by Daniel Day Lewis and lost the run of himself.

There was much more to get out of No Country then Blood as I felt nothing but boredom with Blood.

I know a lot will disagree. Finally I think George Clooney was robbed of Best Actor when it was given to Daniel Day Lewis for Blood

Holsten

No country for old men - I thought it was a brilliant movie, with fantastic characters.

There will be blood, very long... very boring in parts, annoying characters, Daniel Day Lewis brilliant as always though.

I'd agree with most of what you say.

yoyo

No country imho, There will be blood was good, but I thought no country was more enjoyable

Nick

Earthhorse

Coen brothers movies leave me cold for some reason, which isn't to say I can't appreciate the fine piece of film that No Country is. Day Lewis is great, a real phenomenom but TWBB is a bit boring and a little pointless (not far from my opinion of No Country either).

Personally I preferred TWBB.

jdscrubs wrote: »

Finally I think George Clooney was robbed of Best Actor when it was given to Daniel Day Lewis for Blood

Disagree. Clooney was fine in Clayton but it wasn't anything a hundred other actors couldn't have done. The supporting actor in that was great though.

jdscrubs

Holston I would agree with you that it was very long, boring in parts with annoying characters. I would include Daniel Day Lewis character in taht as well. I dont mind if films are long if they have a point, intersting and the characters are strong enough to make you not mind the length. Every single character in Blood was annoying, the guy who played the priest was over the top as was Daniel day Lewis.

Prefer Day Lewis when he is in a supporting role like Gangs of New York so that when he chews the scenery he is only doing so in supporting

Karl Hungus

If you thought There Will Be Blood was boring, you didn't get it.

StackODinos

I think No country for old men was better

Earthhorse

Karl Hungus wrote: »

If you thought There Will Be Blood was boring, you didn't get it.

Or, or, you did get it and found it boring. One of the two.

Running Bing

Both incredible films but Id have to go with There Will Be Blood...I really think it will be looked upon as something significant in years to come. The sound design is revolutionary, I think the story is perfectly structured and I think the pacing is spot on. Its definitely not a fast paced thrill ride but I never found it boring (Plainviews character was just too interesting) and I love the way it slowly built up to that cracking end........and the opening 15 minutes are amongst the best I have ever seen!!!


No Country is also phenomenal but I would expect nothing less from the Coens at this stage.

Pigman II

No Country is overrated, much like nearly everything the lovely Coens have done.

Mehh

There will be blood is a great film, Daniel Day-Lewis brilliant as ever.

As for 'No ending for old men', I want me two hours back

Karl Hungus

Pigman II wrote: »

No Country is overrated, much like nearly everything the lovely Coens have done.

Rubbish. The Coens are up there with Guillermo del Toro as far as modern directors go. Most of their work is exceptional, to say the least.

Dont be at yourself

I agree. No Country is hugely overrated. That's not to say it's a bad film by any means, but the hype around it is completely over the top.

For me, the Coens' best works are the ones that capture the slow-burning and gritty nature of No Country, and also the quirkiness of Burn After Reading. Fargo is the sweet spot.

Pigman II

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Rubbish. The Coens are up there with Guillermo del Toro as far as modern directors go. Most of their work is exceptional, to say the least.

I agree. Most of their movies (and all of Del Toro's) are rubbish.

L31mr0d

No Country for Old Men by a country mile tbh. I agree with the OP in that I felt There will be blood kept the limelight firmly glaring at Daniel Day throughout. It was a good movie, but like the OP, I like an ensemble cast that add different layers to the story and that vary the prose between characters.

johnny_ultimate

They are both fantastic and atmospheric films. And yes, There Will Be Blood is dull at times during the middle act, and yes No Country is a bit more sombre, moody and humourless than the blackly comic likes of Fargo etc.. But they are both still impressive and intelligent achievements and very different films. Just watch both and be happy (although I don't think I'd come out of either feeling particularly jovial).

Tusky

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Rubbish. The Coens are up there with Guillermo del Toro as far as modern directors go. Most of their work is exceptional, to say the least.

Not really in the same league though are they ?

Guillermo Del Toro

Hellboy 2
Pans Labrynth
Hellboy
Blade 2
The Devils Backbone
Mimic
Cronos

Coen Brothers

Burn After Reading
No Country For Old Men
The Ladykillers
Intolerable Cruelty
The Man Who Wasnt There
O Brother, Where Art Thou ?
The Big Lebowski
Fargo
The Hudsucker Proxy
Barton Fink
Millers Crossing
Raising Arizona
Blood Simple

I really like Guillermo...he has a real creative flair, but I find most of his films (bar Pans Labrynth) leave me thinking "It was almost a really good film...". They tend to be pretty flawed in my opinion. He also hasnt really made a classic movie yet.

David Fincher or Christopher Nolan would be better comparisons.

Karl Hungus

Tusky wrote: »

Not really in the same league though are they ?

Guillermo Del Toro

Hellboy 2
Pans Labrynth
Hellboy
Blade 2
The Devils Backbone
Mimic
Cronos

Coen Brothers

Burn After Reading
No Country For Old Men
The Ladykillers
Intolerable Cruelty
The Man Who Wasnt There
O Brother, Where Art Thou ?
The Big Lebowski
Fargo
The Hudsucker Proxy
Barton Fink
Millers Crossing
Raising Arizona
Blood Simple

I really like Guillermo...he has a real creative flair, but I find most of his films (bar Pans Labrynth) leave me thinking "It was almost a really good film...". They tend to be pretty flawed in my opinion. He also hasnt really made a classic movie yet.

David Fincher or Christopher Nolan would be better comparisons.

I can't say I agree with you about del Toro, certainly not a flawless career when you consider Mimic and Blade II (Which I certainly enjoyed anyway), but he's hit the mark on more than one occasion. The Devil's Backbone was easily one of the greatest horror films of the 00's for me, it was just about perfection, the atmosphere and story were nothing short of amazing. The guy is a terrific writer and director. The Hellboy films are a bit of a love it or hate it thing as I see it, but as a fan of the comic books, he did a tremendous job of translating it to the big screen.

With regards to David Fincher and Christopher Nolan being a better comparison, I think you've taken me up wrong, I'm not trying to directly compare Guillermo del Toro and The Coens' as directors, their works are quite vastly different. I'm saying that in my estimation they're up there as some of the best directors working today. So I would say that Guillermo del Toro, The Coen Brothers, Fincher and Nolan are all some of the most talented directors working today.

steo87

jdscrubs wrote: »

Which is better, no country for old men or there will be blood

That's a bit like comparing Fair City to The Godfather!

eagle eye

Its really silly to compare these two movies.

But I suppose if you were asking me to name my top 100 movies, There will be blood would make that but No Country for Old Men would struggle to make it. So I guess thats my answer.

jdscrubs

Karl, I did get it&while it looked great, sounded great&Daniel Day Lewis was very good at the start but by the end I had enough of Day Lewis who wasnt giving anyone else a chance to shine as he was being greedy with the screen time.

e_e

No Country = 9/10
There Will Be Blood = 10/10

Earthhorse

jdscrubs wrote: »

Karl, I did get it&while it looked great, sounded great&Daniel Day Lewis was very good at the start but by the end I had enough of Day Lewis who wasnt giving anyone else a chance to shine as he was being greedy with the screen time.

Pretty sure it would have been the director's choice as to how much screentime he got. Some movies are performance pieces, centred around an individual, others require an ensemble. I have room in my heart for both.

SpitfireIV

Seen 'There Will be Blood' lastnight, have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it, didnt think i would to be honest, I heard some negativity about it.

As regards to which movie is better well I'd have to go with 'There Will be Blood', I just didnt like No Country for Old Men at all, which is strange because I thought I would like it and heard great things about it.

There Will be Blood - I will watch again
No Country for Old Men - Nah!

lostexpectation

there will be blood hands down

Basq

No Country for Old Men without question!

Climate Expert

Karl Hungus wrote: »

If you thought There Will Be Blood was boring, you didn't get it.

Bit elitist don't you think.

There will be Blood was overblown in every way.

MisterAnarchy

No County For Old Men >>>> There Will be Blood.

nicklauski

There Will Be Blood, hands down for me. While No Country For Old Men was good, I just enjoyed TWBB more, mainly becase of Day Lewis' performance.

X-Calibre

There will be blood for me, although its a bit strange comparing 2 very different movie like this.

I just got so much more drawn into TWBB, Plainview was such an interesting character to watch, was up there with my favorite performances of all time. Found myself laughing at times at how good Day Lewis was.

I dont think you can justify him having too much screen time considering the movie was about him and not an ensemble piece. Plus I think we saw plenty if Eli, enough to create a great rivalry between him and Plainview

wandatowell

No country for old men imo, then again who gives a **** what i think

SpitfireIV

jdscrubs wrote: »

Karl, I did get it&while it looked great, sounded great&Daniel Day Lewis was very good at the start but by the end I had enough of Day Lewis who wasnt giving anyone else a chance to shine as he was being greedy with the screen time.

Exactly, have just watched the movie again and thats a good point you raised, Daniels character, 'Daniel Plainview' remarks, a couple of times how he doesnt like competition, he always likes to win, he's greedy, spiteful and wants to be on top. So thats why we always see him perhaps? He doesnt want anyone else to get in there and steal the show . Well, its just a thought, also, not to mention that it was the directors decision as to how much he featured in the movie .

I like my first reason though!

Paddy Samurai

"N0 country for old men " is by far the better film,great story,great acting ,a film you will watch more than once.
"There will be blood" is a good oportunity to have a nap in the cinema or test the fast forward button on your dvd player.

Aidric

Considering all the hype surrounding There Will Be Blood, I was left feeling very flat after watching it recently. Day Lewis was exceptional but when isn't he? I'm a fan of PT Anderson's work, loved both Magnolia & Boogie Nights but as i say this left me flat.
No Country For Old Men was a superior film for me, Bardem was menancingly brilliant in it.

MooseJam

No country for old men is better, there will be blood is majorly boring it's two and a half hours and nothing happens in it - major yawns, most boring film I've ever seen I think and Daniel Day Lewis is the biggest ham actor going these days

youcrazyjesus!

There Will Be Blood, by a country mile. NCFOM is over hyped in a huge way.
Anybody whose opinions on films I respect agrees. People who think they're
elite film fans just by having watched No Country seem to be quite vocal in
its praise and it annoys me when they get pushy about it (friends not people
posting here) whereas I feel the characters were very uninteresting and the
plot pedestrian and its just quite underwhelming as a film. It didn't unsettle me and I fell asleep 3
times before I finished watching it. Brolins character the exception maybe.

TWBB is beautifully set and you care about the central characters. The battle
between Eli and Plainview on every level is enthralling. Day Lewis performance
is just out of this world. Completely disagree with above comments saying its
boring.

Naos

There Will Be Blood for me. I can understand why some called it boring, but I found myself drawn to it. I remember leaving the cinema and not knowing if I thought the film was good or not and it was only a while later it sunk in that it was.

No Country For Old Men just didn't appeal to me. I feel the film has way too much hype about it. A lot of people kept going on about how eery the coin-toss scene was but it just fell flat to me.

@OP/Karl - Can we get a poll in this?

Rabidlamb

Another shout for There Will Be Blood.

I just thought that NCFOM lost it's way in the 2nd half.

Royal Seahawk

After watching TWBB tonight. Cannot believe anyone would find it boring, Amazing film,the way he loses it at the end with the son was f***** mental. Also love NCFOM but if i was pushed i'd have to go with TWBB.

filmfan

I know this thread is long dead but only FINALLY got around to watching There Will be Blood and we were blown away. Daniel Day Lewis is just amazing, what an acting talent!!! No Country for Old Men is personally more enjoyable as a storyline but I found There Will be Blood totally riveting, I really can't think of a better modern day actor.

CAZ85

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN ROCKS!!!

bnt

There Will Be Blood is on TV tonight: BBC2, 21:45.

Me? I like both. I don't feel I have to choose between them at all. I don't understand why anyone asks this kind of question.

mikhail

The thread question is a bit strange. I really doubt the two movies would have attracted as much comparison as they have if they hadn't been released so close to one another.

For the record, I prefer No Country for Old Men.

Tusky wrote: »

I really like Guillermo...he has a real creative flair, but I find most of his films (bar Pans Labrynth) leave me thinking "It was almost a really good film...". They tend to be pretty flawed in my opinion. He also hasnt really made a classic movie yet.

I think del Toro makes amazing looking movies - I was really excited about what he would do with The Hobbit for that reason. He's a bit weaker on plot though.

The Coens' genius lies elsewhere.

Arthurdaly

No Country without a doubt, edge of the seat stuff, in fact I was on the ground by the end of the film. Easily in my top 5 of all time!

Renn

You were on the ground?

me-skywalker

I dont really know why your asking this question, can you enjoy both of them seperatly and individually enjoy each for its own uniqness and merits?

Arthurdaly

Renn wrote: »

You were on the ground?

Yes

Sir Gallagher

I read No Country for Old Men before seeing the movie so i was a little non plussed by the film as it only covered the sub-plot of the book which was a great story nonetheless. There will be Blood was superb though, i can see why people don't like it but they're wrong.

Agricola

No country for me. It followed a simple formula which I liked. A man being hunted by a superior foe. Great tension in places. Then an ending which was completely anti-hollywood, which I also liked.

There will be blood was a well put together film but I didnt find it enjoyable. I think I wanted to kill that preacher more than DD Lewis did! Its was abit meandering and when I got to the end, I just had the feeling "What was all that about!" Im sure theres a big arguement for the merits of a film which probes the subject greed etc etc, but its not what I want from a movie usually.

mike65

I'm waiting for the "There Will Be Bloody Old Men" mash up.

PhiloCypher

I enjoyed No country for old men up till the point they kill Brolins Character off screen, sure I know maybe thats the way it ended in the book but c'mon .

Wasn't expecting to like There will be Blood at all and with any other actor in the lead role I probably wouldn't have but Day Lewis has such a magnetic screen presence you just can't look away.

NCFOM = 9
TWBB = 10