Poll question: in retrospect..no country for old men vs. there will be blood

Poll result (83 votes) no country for old men (50 votes) Vote there will be blood (33 votes) Vote

n/m

Blood had a great performance.

No Country was a great movie.

>Blood had a great performance.
>
>No Country was a great movie.

--Maurice

cos sumtimes a single performance *makes* the movie.

see: practically any Johnny Depp film. doesn't mean the film sucks, rather it improves the film overall. No Country didn't really have any standout performances to speak of. at least Blood + DDLewis kept me interested and entertained.

V.

"No Country didn't have any standout performances to speak of"

Javier Bardem. try again.

anyway, I think the answer was very explanatory. Blood had a great performance in a mediocre movie. No Country was a great movie, period.

i dunno why it's a "camp", but anyway.

i think it's one of Coen's worst. not a bad flick, but not their best, and definitely not better than Blood.

U WANNA FIGHT?!?!?

V.

tied maybe with Fargo.

but definitely better than Raising Arizona, Intolerable Cruelty (indeed), O'Brother, LadyKillers and Miller's Crossing (now there's an overrated movie).

PTA, meanwhile, gets worse with every film. Daniel Day Lewis was the only thing keeping Blood above Punch Drunk status (which I'm going to assume you loved).

and..uh...Punch-Drunk Love is firmly affixed at no. 1 on my "favourite films of all-time" list. has been since...2004? that should give you more perspective on my opinion (and tastes i guess).

V.

RE: Miller's Crossing is definitely overrated


cosign on Raising Arizona though.

V.

TWBB had that one great standout performance (and another great one from Dano) but IMO not a whole lot else. The pacing was very slow, the story was thin and the film was overall weaker than NCFOM.

i fell asleep TWICE while attempting to watch NCFOM (we usin acronyms now?). when i finally got through the whole thing the third time around, i wasn't blown away or anything.

V.

I don't know, I really enjoyed No Country and thought Blood (now I guess I'm just shortening the titles. Next post will be en espanol) was incredibly slow to the point of boredom. It was a great performance and an interesting character study, but the story was pretty weak and uninteresting. I also did not enjoy the score, which I know some people loved.

alguna gente no amará ninguÌ n país para los viejos hombres, mientras que otras amarán allí serán sangre. cualquier manera, we' con referencia a todo feliz de conseguir algunas películas de la calidad de cineastas de la calidad (aunque i don' t piensa que no hay país ése bueno, it' autorización de s para cuáles era).

V.

I don't actually speak Spanish.

Reading your other post, I'll agree that Punch Drunk Love is PTA's best film, so I wouldn't say he's gotten worse with each film, but I was let down by Blood.

*beady eyes*

--Maurice

one word: babelfish.

or is that two words? i dunno.

V.

>RE: bien, pienso it's apenas una cosa del gusto.
Well, I think it's (untranslated - an auto-translater probably doesn't do contractions) a matter of taste.

>alguna gente no amará ninguÌ n país para los viejos hombres,
Some people will not love anything in "No Country for Old Men,"

>mientras que otras amarán allí serán sangre. cualquier manera,
meanwhile others love "There Will Be Blood". Whichever way,

>we' con referencia a todo feliz de conseguir algunas películas
we (not translated?) with reference to all happiness of following some movies

>de la calidad de cineastas de la calidad (aunque i don' t
of cinematic quality of the quality (?) where I don't (untranslated)

>piensa que no hay país ése bueno, it' autorización de s para
>cuáles era).
think that No Country will be good, it's authorization for this era.

Doesn't make too much sense but that's all I got. And if you used an automatic translater, maybe that's why.

Anyone wanna check it for me? I took five years in school and one semester in college - at one point I considered myself nearly fluent (when you have dreams in Spanish I'd say that's a good sign). Of course, even then, I couldn't speak as fast. But it's been over 10 years since I studied it or spoke with a native speaker, so I've lost a lot.

V.

three great performances, and an ill plotline trump blood's one man show

Didnt see there will be blood, but no country was a great flick. Using a air gun as the weapon of choice... so dope.

Lyterall appears courtesy of
Midnight Heat Ent./Planet Ill


LOOK OUT for long awaited album from Lyterall Emcee, S.L.A.M., Coming Soon...

Really dug 'No Country..' as well but the ending just kinda left me scratching my head.




http://www.myspace.com/bski
http://www.myspace.com/livesociety

I'll have to watch TWBB again, but I doubt I'll change my mind. I'm a fan of both though.

Some fickle folks here.

i'd imagine i'm not alone.


i rap and sing...here's 2 free albums...
http://www.zshare.net/download/11585755fa712f28
http://www.zshare.net/download/11585294b1a8eb45

stop by and say hello...
www.myspace.com/shamelessplug
www.myspace.com/dumhi
www.whitegirlslovejohnblake.blogspot.com

the longer an album or film ages, and as time goes by in ur life, ur gonna have a different view on certain shit. and on art. we're allowed to change our minds.

V.

cause I said No Country when they first came out. But I've watched There Will Be Blood more times. That movie just stays with me longer. IMO, three of the top 10 movie performances of this decade were between these two films(DDL, Dano and Bardem).

I think that time will favor Blood much more.

-Daniel Day Lewis was great, but he seemed like he was acting for a totally different movie. His accent is out of place with the environment, nobody else even comes close to it, and his over-the-top performance sticks out lick a sore thumb.

-Paul Dano as the preacher stuck out too. It was almost but not quick at Lewis' level over going overboard, but...I don't know, it seemed like the movie wasn't even trying to depict a real time, but create some alternate universe where shit like dialect and culture all overlapped haphazardly.

-The soundtrack would've been great if I was watching a zombie movie. If it had been Lucio Fulci's There Will Be Blood than everything would've been cool.

-What the fuck was with that milk shake garbage? He could have said almost anything else and the scene would have worked. Man he could've repeated word for word Ezekiel 25:17 and completely copied Sam Jackson from Pulp Fiction and it still would've made for a better ending than that milk shake line. It was so out of place and out of character, you can just tell it was some shit that P.T. Anderson read somewhere and just had to use.

Sorry, I know many people around here liked it, and that's great. I really wanted to. It's just, I thought this movie failed at all the things I thought No Country for Old Men succeeded at.

>-What the fuck was with that milk shake garbage? He could have
>said almost anything else and the scene would have worked. Man
>he could've repeated word for word Ezekiel 25:17 and
>completely copied Sam Jackson from Pulp Fiction and it still
>would've made for a better ending than that milk shake line.
>It was so out of place and out of character, you can just tell
>it was some shit that P.T. Anderson read somewhere and just
>had to use.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-02-03-blood-milkshake_N.htm

"Anderson concedes that he's puzzled by the phenomenon — particularly because the lines came straight from a transcript he found of the 1924 congressional hearings over the Teapot Dome scandal, in which Sen. Albert Fall was convicted of accepting bribes for oil-drilling rights to public lands in Wyoming and California.

In explaining oil drainage, Fall's "way of describing it was to say 'Sir, if you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and my straw reaches across the room, I'll end up drinking your milkshake,' " Anderson says. "I just took this insane concept and used it."

If not, There Will Be Blood

In order of my preference:

Assassination of Jesse James, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men

Was at the end where Nick Cave shows up all of a sudden with a guitar and a porkchop mustache, singing his song just to fuck with Casey Affleck.

That had me rolling. Shit was like an SNL skit.

The rest of the movie was whatever. The movie is even called the Assassination of Jesse James, but by the time Jesse James actually got murked I had looong since stopped caring.

>Was at the end where Nick Cave shows up all of a sudden with
>a guitar and a porkchop mustache, singing his song just to
>fuck with Casey Affleck.
>
>That had me rolling. Shit was like an SNL skit.

DDL transformation was the most radical. just a completely different person. there will be blood was a better movie.

he's a master actor

n/m

No Country was a great movie. I loved it, although the ending was very unsatisfying (I understand it, I just didn't like it).


There Will Be Blood was boring and pointless - several times I wanted to quit watching (and my wife actually did quit - she just gave up and called it a huge waste of time), but I kept telling myself: "It's gotta get better, this is supposed to be good."

The acting was superb. That's it. The plot sucked. Plus the score hurt my fucking ears.


I found this review in Netflix that sums up my feelings really well:

Daniel Day-Lewis' intense and spell binding performance aside, I don't get the hype behind this film. The film, which spans 25 years, goes no where and is nauseating slow. Unlike in the movie, Unforgiven, where the slow pace builds tension until Clint's explosion at the end of the film, the slower pace here only allows the tension to fade as events occur too late to have any effect. The perfect example is the confrontation between the antagonist, Daniel Plainview, played by DDL, and his adult son, who is introduced a minute before the scene occurs. The only sympathetic character that you are emotionally invested in, the son, jumps 15 years and immediately we get the confrontation? There is also a subsequent confrontation between Plainview and Paul Dano's character, Eli Sunday, a young evangelical preacher who lures Plainview to his small town to dig for oil and abuses his position as church leader to coerce money for the church (and apparently his own pocket). The final confrontation between Plainview and Sunday is predictable and occurs so late you are wishing the movie would end so you can go home. Anderson thankfully complies and ends the film suddenly, which adds no cinematic improvement other than ending a long and boring film. It should also be noted that having people do things and sometimes speak (the movie opens with 30 mins of speechless non action) is neither plot nor character development. In fact, both are so glaringly absent from this film, you wonder what the critics are smoking. Maybe I am not sophisticated enough, but this film has no plot, no character development, no hook, a tardy climax, and no comprehensible resolution. What it does have is lots of film. The art direction and scenery are fine, but nothing worthy of best picture here. If anything, this film demonstrates just how poor the films of 2007 were, as nothing short of No Country for Old Men is close to being Oscar worthy IMHO.
-----by MP 757698

But No Country was a very well made flick. Two of the greatest films of all time came out in the same year.

There Will Be Blood was good, really good, on all counts I can think of. But come on.

--Maurice

MY SHOW:http://gtownradio.com/content/blogsection/16/84/ Wed 8-10pm
MY MUSIC:www.myspace.com/EL3G
http://i27.tinypic.com/153s8w1.jpg
Olio Fusion: The Puzzle Project
http://www.zshare.net/audio/12356387c7cfa619/

V.

i voted no country...

How bout that?
________________________________________________________________________
Jam-a-con
HUAH

Edit - The DVD that is. I didn't see it in the theatre.

>How bout that?
>________________________________________________________________________
>Jam-a-con
>HUAH

*picks up the phone*

i like the grittiness of the film and shows you how far people will go for money/power. DDL gives one of the best performances that i've ever seen from an actor. no country for old men is definitely a classic though.

Even if we agreed to judge solely by which picture had the best single performance, I'm still not quite so sure Blood would come out ahead.

I can't see myself sitting through "There Will Be Blood" again. Not that I'd really want to watch "No Country For Old Men" again either but still.

TWBB by a mile, I thought No country was the most overrated movieI've seen since crash. There were some great performances and I thought all the actors (especially Javier) did a great job but the movie overall..not so much. I don't know how the Cohen brothers managed to make a psycho killer with an air gun so boring (Fell asleep at least twice). There were a few very good scenes in no country, especially the pursuit scenes b/t Brolin and Bardem, but DDL could've performed TWWB as a monolouge for all I care and his performance still would have shitted on no country imo.

The only thing that kept me in it was DDL's acting and my expectations that eventually it would get really good... But it didn't.

I'm assuming its cause I typically like all PTA's films.

But I still believe No Country for Old Men.

f'real...i didn't even like the shit when i saw it the first time.

i watched it again and thought it was brilliant.


i rap and sing...here's 2 free albums...
http://www.zshare.net/download/11585755fa712f28
http://www.zshare.net/download/11585294b1a8eb45

stop by and say hello...
www.myspace.com/shamelessplug
www.myspace.com/dumhi
www.whitegirlslovejohnblake.blogspot.com

viewing

And those in the know know that there's more than 1 great performance in it
________________________________________________________________________
Jam-a-con
HUAH

I cant just throw this shit on any ol time. No only it being lengthy but ya gotta be in a specific mood, much less time and place to see this.

co-sign

when i watched blood in the theatre i liked it, i thought it was too long, the story line of the brother was forced, and the tension rivalry between the HW and Mr. Oil man wasn't developed or articlulated correctly. but on 2nd, third and fourth viewing, that movie is damn near perfect.

I needed some rest.

My wife wanted to see it, so I went again and maybe we were both in a cynical mood, but we were giggling like potheads through the whole thing. Very different from the first time I saw it.

PEACE

FUCKIN A, i came into popcorn justto post about this. went to see this both when they came out and loved no country over there will be blood. but after i bought them and watched them, im giving the nod to there will be blood. and they're both modern classics to me.

while no country cinematically philosophizes on violnce, white male angst and choice/destiny, (along with the brillant acting dipicting texas in the early 80s), there will be blood is just fuckin epic in how it juxtaposes the conflicitng yet complimentary grossities of power within capitalism and the church during the turn of the century west. i'd also like to add the lines and certain scenes from there will be blood are more memorable.

also i think the ambiguities of the ending in no country hurt its perception within the greater movie watching community

nm

Yeah i'm late but i am going with blood and now that i have seen the Jesse James flick

Jesse James>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TWBB and NCFOM

No Country >> Assassination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blood

Great acting, but the movie was slow and boring as shit. Are people really that hyped just on the acting?

like we need to discuss it more, it's meaning, before i can properly say

(of course, most of y'all are misinterpreting NCFOM anyway but i digress)

>(of course, most of y'all are misinterpreting NCFOM anyway but
>i digress)

LOL

Of the film

That, man, bad shit happened 100 years ago, and like still happens today. Totally.

I understand why people are divided on it. MEN was driven by an ensemble cast of fucking stellar performances and a solid story, where as BLOOD was one insanely perfect performance backed by an incredibly beautiful looking film.

I side with BLOOD mainly because I'm into more visceral experiences in film, but I understand why people would choose MEN.

Though, I think to argue over which is better takes away from just how phenomenal both films were.

>I understand why people are divided on it. MEN was driven by
>an ensemble cast of fucking stellar performances and a solid
>story, where as BLOOD was one insanely perfect performance
>backed by an incredibly beautiful looking film.

>I side with BLOOD mainly because I'm into more visceral
>experiences in film, but I understand why people would choose
>MEN.
>
>Though, I think to argue over which is better takes away from
>just how phenomenal both films were.

I went off the board with the Jesse James flick because it had both elements. The acting ensemble of was right up there with NCFOM & the cinematography was best I've seen in any film in a long time. Throw in Nick Cave's score & that was the clincher for me.