There Will Be Blood : There Will Be Blood vs. No Country For Old Men

So at the time of posting this thread, both movies have an 8.1/10 rating. That said, I'd like to get everyone's opinion on which movie they liked more.

I'm particularly interested in this because both movies were made at the same time, in the same area of the U.S., and we're both in competition with one another during awards season.
Guess I'll drop my 2 cents first.

Personally, I found No Country For Old Men (2007) a superior movie. 9/10. It had incredible acting seen from all, great visuals, cinematography was on point, the writing was insanely smart. Character development was great. Not much I can find wrong with this one...

There Will Be Blood (2007), on the other hand, was great but not stellar. 8.5/10. The movie had amazing visuals, great acting, one of my favorite scores of any movie in that decade. I did find the movie slow at some points. I felt like it could have been shorter and still got the job done. But in the end I enjoyed watching it as well!

Please share your thoughts. Thanks.

Just finished There Will Be Blood and it's an epic movie. 10/10

No Country For Old Men was on the most boring and stupid movies I've watched. 1/10

That's what I think.

lol at that last comment when you rate this one a 10. This had good acting, but was mighty boring.

I agree, I got bored with TWBB but I loved No Country for Old Men. No comparison in my eyes...

What a mong.

Your comment is on par with people who start a 'Worst Movie Ever' thread.

I know it may be your opinion which you're free to express so here's mine; Only a child or someone with learning difficulties would give this film a perfect score and then give 'No Country...' a 1/10.

For the record, I think both films are superb and standout not just for 2007 but the last decade but 'The Assassination of Jesse James...' takes the prize that year and indeed the last ten years plus. In fact, to me it is a perfect film but even so, I'd have to really consider whether I'd give it 10/10...actually, I may well do.

But giving 'No Country...' such a low score is ridiculous - hence my ridicule of your opinion. x

"Nothingwillstopit" is the "mong".

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is 1/10, and only a raving lunatic would say it's something more than a spoiled brat writer in a spoiled brat business taking the exact same characters from the classic NIGHTFALL and being a control freak with them.

"No Country" is contrived to the max for bubble boys who believe the Hollywood myth that mobsters are demi gods, a myth that mobsters hope the bubble boys buy into.

That's all "No Country" is, just a safe, formula movie for the traditional Hollywood hate mongering elitists that have been doing this over and over since 1964. It was never risk taking, and in fact is the complete opposite of "risk taking".

THERE WILL BE BLOOD, however, does some innovative things. Stand back and look objectively at the film, and you'll see it's one of the ultimate "point of view" films, with the "point of view" changed.

In the golden age, and even after, with film makers not afraid to take risks, the lead characters would be the ones in the backdrop of this film. The "hero family of holdout, Hollywood star, and others" would normally be the forefront characters, with the duller ones in the backdrop.

Those CALLOWAYS, those SACKETTS, those of the heroic family are almost unseen. The movie is about the other people.

Here, the dull characters take center stage. The dullest, and most self righteous, one whose only motivation is sadistic Psychopathic control and abuse of power, is forefront.

That's why the film is "dull" for all intents and purposes, because the lead character is dull, but it is still art, because it's how others react to this bore that makes the film.



Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

You're the raving lunatic. Somebody must have knocked you senseless as a kid. People are allowed to have their own opinion on a film without being stupid. You need to learn the difference between subjective and objective material stat.

I really liked Jesse James actually... but its not even close to better than There will be blood; its not a debate, its not possible. I dont get all the people that love TWBB and hate No Country, and vice versa... No country was amazing... but There Will Be Blood is a landmark film. Its up there with the greatest films in history... I put it #1, depending on the day right... most days :) so excited for PTA and DDL new movie!!!!!!!!!!1 ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

you are trolling bro leave please.

No Country is tighter on the narrative front. It's layered but easy to peel, and is more coherent in terms of its throughline. It certainly helps that it was written by one of the greatest American authors and adapted by two of the greasest American directors.

There Will Be Blood, conversely is a little more abstract, and though its adapted from a Lewis Sinclair short story, its very loose and exploratory in terms of theme and character, so much so that it's still very original. This one is a character driven which by nature seems to meander through the plot. It also has a little less pulp which can make it seem like more of a chore for some people, but when one of the greatest American actors doles out one of his greatest perfomances, well thats all the entertainment you need.

I do give No Country slighter nod because I do prefer a tight narrative structure and a little more pulp, but really these are two powerhouse films and I can't think of a year when there were two better films fighting for that best picture spot.

The Coens are the greasiest?

---

The Coens are the greasiest?

---

That question mark better be a typo.

@vh8686

Actually TWBB is based on the novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair, def not a short story.

That said, No Country all the way, I could watch that movie every day. TWBB is a close second.


If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

---

No Country is tighter on the narrative front. It's layered but easy to peel, and is more coherent in terms of its throughline. It certainly helps that it was written by one of the greatest American authors and adapted by two of the greasest American directors.

There Will Be Blood, conversely is a little more abstract, and though its adapted from a Lewis Sinclair short story, its very loose and exploratory in terms of theme and character, so much so that it's still very original. This one is a character driven which by nature seems to meander through the plot. It also has a little less pulp which can make it seem like more of a chore for some people, but when one of the greatest American actors doles out one of his greatest perfomances, well thats all the entertainment you need.

I do give No Country slighter nod because I do prefer a tight narrative structure and a little more pulp, but really these are two powerhouse films and I can't think of a year when there were two better films fighting for that best picture spot.

---

I agree 100% with this post!

Both are extraordinary films, but I would favour No Country simply because TWBB is more of a draining film, and hence, more difficult to watch (although that is the point of the film). I could sit down and watch No Country day in day out, and it would take me a LONG time to get bored of it.

Both are modern masterpieces in my opinion. They're just different types of films. Although the geographic area might be similar, they are from completely different time periods.

Although I have to say, they both explore greed. That's a connection between the two films I hadn't realized until now. There will be blood also explores religion. Both Eli and Daniel manipulate people and situations to get what they want. "It's a boxing match between religion and capitalism". Anderson said that in an interview

I'm in the camp that prefers No Country For Old Men

www.simplefilmreviews.com

i liked there will be blood more

I really liked No Country for Old Men. It's more re-watchable, I think. But There Will be Blood is a better movie as a whole. Better acting. Better direction. And the themes in There Will Be Blood -to me- are more complex, layered and intriguing. I honestly couldn't stop thinking about it for WEEKS.

NCFOM: 7/10 (Good, but I've seen better Coen movies)
TWBB: 10/10 (True Masterpiece)

www.facebook.com/groups/ivegotyou

I agree with this.

Hard choice! I love both movies, but I have to pick, choose, There will be blood. It's just so awesome and epic with a slowish pace... Unraveling story. No country fo old men is awesome, and that movie is easier to ''get/enjoy'' with a relaxed sitting. But There will be blood requires a lot of intense watching and thinking and it's more intrigueing, and more radical. It has best acting, too good actors/acting and atmosphere. So it's the better one for me.

TWBBLOOD= 9/10
NCFOMEN= 8/10

These are the best two films of the last 20 years in my opinion, it's hard to pick one they're quite different...

TWBB is much better

I didn't hate No country but it did nothing for me

There Will Be Blood gets my vote, both excellent though.

- - -
My top 250 films list: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls059037351/

There Will Be Blood gets my vote, but at the end of the day it's not a good idea to compare the two. They're both very different and excellent films in their on ways.

JURASSIC WORLD.
6.12.15.

I love both films. I've seen them three times.
But you're comparing Shakespeare to... hmmm... Dashiell Hammett?
(... the first has more subtext and depth ... There Will Be Blood is a Kubrick-esque film.

Thsey are both ten-rated films in their own right. If I had to choose one for the Oscar, it would be for "There Will Be Blood." The reason for my selection lies in the incredible determination and brutality of Day-Lewis in the very first sequence of the film, and Daniel Day-Lewis's performance. Remember, there was no dialog and yet he was brilliant conveying the knowledge of what lay ahead when his pasrtner was killed.

Daniel Day-Lewis is a gifted actor who brings reality and so much more to any film. Jarcier Bardem is a complex actor who i wish was in more American films; but I have been fortunate to have seen him in foreign films. He is a solid actor, but he isn't comparable to Day-Lewis. No one in Old Coontry matches up, and that is important.

The other major comparison is the scripts. There Will Be Blood is a complex script that relies loosely on the novel "Oil," written by the Pulitzer Prize winning author Upton Sinclair. The novel is a"onalized account about rPresident Harding's administration Teapot Dome scandal of 1921. There are several plot lines, personal and political, within the film script.

The script for No County for Old Men also aa on a novel, this one written by Cormac McCarthy. The novel is a fun and compkex, yet in the end only a story about a drug deal gone wrong. There is no further message. Period.

No Country For Old Men is entertaining, but that is not enough when viewed along with There Will Be Blood. In my opinion the Academy award goes to There Will Be Blood.

"Wow. Our town has only had a Whole Foods for three weeks and we already have or first gay kids."

---

The script for No County for Old Men also aa on a novel, this one written by Cormac McCarthy. The novel is a fun and compkex, yet in the end only a story about a drug deal gone wrong. There is no further message. Period.

---

I strongly disagree with this statement.

This manner of thinking is the reason many see NCFOM as 'entertaining', but not anything more.

The drug deal gone wrong story-line is the 'entertaining' part, but the film closely follows Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, who is finding it difficult to come to the realisation that he is battling an unmatchable force (Chigurh).
Chigurh ultimately gets his 'fate' in the car crash at the end (that was his 'punishment' for killing Moss's wife), but the most important part are Bell's conversation with his uncle Ellis, and his two dreams at the very end.

Bell retired simply because he set himself excessive expectations and he could not meet them (he couldn't save Moss and his family, and he couldn't arrest Chigurgh) leading to his belief that he failed his father. However, Ellis points out that Bell doesn't have "anything new" - as in, the world has always been dark, scary and unjust; it hasn't simply been better 'back in the day' as Bell thinks. Bell's dreams at the end signify that he hasn't failed his father and that no matter what, his father will provide him with safety and refuge when he ultimately meets him again. This thought comforts Bell as the movie ends.

The Coen's ability to film the above in such a stylish fashion, combined with the fact that they created one of the best villains ever, make NCFOM a masterpiece.

I think There Will Be Blood is the better film.

They are both great films, and I enjoyed watching them, but I liked TWBB more. That's not saying that it's any "better" of a film, as that's subjective and completely up to the viewer. I just happened to like TWBB more. To me, and again, this is just an opinion, but I think that NCFOM was a fantastic film, while TWBB was a masterpiece.



I would apologize, but would then have to apologize for the sarcastic tone of my apology.

I really loved them both but No Country For Old Men is higher in my top 20. I can't explain why, but it's just a feeling I get that I like NCOFM better overall. But I tend to like one better straight after I rewatch it, just because it's fresh in my mind and it always leaves a profound effect on me every time I watch it. And TWBB was the last one I watched, so at the moment I like that one more. And I've seen NCFOM many many times (more than TWBB). There Will Be Blood had one of the most amazing cinematic sequences ever made, and I can't say NCFOM had any scenes that stood out like that one. I'm talking about the scene where the derrick explodes which causes HW's loss of hearing. It lasted quite a while and it was such a hypnotic and cinematic scene from beginning to end, and the music really helped elevate it. I don't think there will ever be a time where I get sick of watching either movie, and since 2007 I've seen both many times. Just as long as I stick to watching them about once a year maybe..

They were both 10s and high up in my top 5 of 2007, but I'd give the edge to "There Will Be Blood". It shows a strength in American cinema that's rarely seen anymore, elevated by a timely script and one of the finest leading performances of all time.

"[Redmayne] is so thirsty for awards and not in a fun way but in a sad, desperate way" - Twitter

TWBB.

I like There Will Be Blood more and I love them both. It deserves a solid 8.3 score. I don't find it a weaker movie than say Reservior Dogs, Good Will Hunting , Batman Begins or even Inglourious Basterds when comparing their imdb score.

There Will Be Blood is the superior movie hands down. No Country is a good movie, but it's far from the greatness of TWBB. At the same time, it's hard to compare the two, because PTA and the Coens had different goals by making these films. PTA wanted to show us the struggles, the drama, the darkness of the human soul by taking us through Daniel's journey. On the other hand, the Coens simply presented to us how evil a human being can be. No explanation, no exploring of the human soul, just the raw facts. So, two different types of movies, but if I had to choose I would pick There Will Be Blood.

I like both. Neither did that much for me the first viewing, but after a second viewing I found both enthralling. NCFOM I hated the ending in the theater, but enjoyed it overall. Now I can appreciate it more. I didn't think I'd ever want to watch TWBB again, but I did recently and have a much greater appreciation for it. DDL was amazing. I've really gained a lot more respect for PTA after Inherent Vice and TWBB. Both stellar movies.

First time I saw NCFOM was back in 2007 when it came out. I didn't rate movies at that time, but I would've probably given it an 8/10. Years later, I bought it on DVD and loved it even more, and now even some more years later, I repurchased it on Blu-Ray and have probably seen it a total of 5 or 6 times now with a rating of 9/10.

I didn't see TWBB until a few days ago, but it was an 8/10 for me. However none of my 9/10 ratings are one-time views. I really can't remember ever giving something a 9/10 on my first viewing. I plan to buy TWBB on Blu-Ray soon and after a revisit or two, I'll have to see whether it can bump to a 9/10 or not.

Overall I think NCFOM is a little better to me, but they are both fantastic films. They are both very slow-burning but never "boring" at all.

They're similar in a few things, but different kinds of movie experiences. I like No Country because it is just more taut and precise and intense. TWBB is more artful and experimenta and longl but also messier as a result. The one thing that always bugs me about TWBB is Paul Dano. He's a great young actor, but next to a veteran and genius like DDL he just seems like someone way out of his league. I don't dislike PTA at all though, The Master is one of my favorite movies.

I liked them both about equally.

However, the real reason I'm here is to repeat the joke that these two movies should have switched titles.

Both movies, brilliant, TWBD 8 but NCFOM is a 10

It's funny, after all this time they're almost at the same spot on the Top 250.

I gave a 10 both movies.

I guess it's up to the viewer. I actually liked the pace of TWBB. No Country was a bit clever and it had some solid entertainment but was ultimately a different film with a different end result. My hypothesis on TWBB is that it was an "art" film that somehow made it to wide release while No Country was intent on being wide release. I don't believe that TWBB was intended to be entertaining in the normal sense of film.

TWBB: 10
NCFOM : 8.5