So No Country For Old Men won the Oscar. I seem to recall There Will Be Blood won the Spilled Latte. In the critics' top of the decade lists, There Will Be Blood seems to be holding a steady lead.

After having recently re-watched both... I know my decision. What's yours?

Poll result (84 votes) No Country For Old Men (50 votes) Vote There Will Be Blood (34 votes) Vote

Okay, I did NOT enjoy There Will Be Blood. At all. But trying to look at it apart from that, I can see how people appreciate Daniel Day Lewis, the score, and the look of the movie.

Music wise, maybe it beats No Country For Old Men. I thought the soundtrack for There Will Be Blood was awkward and totally wrong, but on it's on own merits good. But No Country has a tight cast apart from the lead. And a better story. And the look is subtle and not trying to smack you in the face. Plus I think There Will Be Blood seriously suffers from Paul Dano's overacting (though before this he'd given good performances, that I've seen).

Basically, I'm sorry, but I think No Country For Old Men just outclasses There Will Be Blood by far, in almost every way.

...I agree. I am of the opinion that No Country For Old Men is as close to a perfect film as has been released in my lifetime. It's in a different class.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

No Country all the way.
It hasn't lost an ounce of enjoyment on repeated viewings, whereas There Will Be Blood isn't quite so spectacular on the small screen and the score still irks me.

sorry that sounds like an asshole thing to say but seriously that score was perfect for the film without a doubt.

To me No Country was great but it ain't seeing TWBB in anyway shape or form. The directing was top-notch (Watch the oil fire scene), the acting was amazing (Don't know how Paul could be considered over-acting...), the score is one of the best (I didn't think he could get a better suited score than Punch Drunk Love but he knew what created the best atmosphere for a psychopath) and the look of the film was great (This and the acting are usually my two biggest problems with most period pieces b/c they are usually so bland but they're probably the films 2 biggest assets).

TWBB's score is a big nod style-wise to Kubrick. Read pretty much any review from a top critic and it'll mention how great the score is.

I found TWBB's score very interesting, but it's very easy to see why folks find it jarring. It's meant to be jarring, really, so of course there will be people who don't like it.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I just don't think the score to There Will Be Blood fit for that movie.

I thought it was jarring and distracting and just all wrong. Honestly I felt the same way about Daniel Day Lewis' performance, but that's a whole other issue.

I like Kubrick. I've seen every one of his movies and I have liked most of them, some of them a whole lot. And that's great that There Will Be Blood was so heavily influenced by Kubrick. Unfortunately, the end result was a movie that I thought was really shitty.

If you think that means I need to 'study more film' then, well, that's just like your opinion, man.

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

--------

But I agree, I can't believe this is really even considered. In fact I find it incredible that most critics now just declare that the Oscar was a laughable decision. TWBB is a platform for Day Lewis to do his thing, and he does it bloody well. But really it's not mind blowing in any way (not to me). No country has so much to it I could watch it 100 times. You think back to that whole Phantom Menace thing and him saying a film must have a protagonist unless its a genius scriptwriter. Well...that is No Country. Maybe it does have a protagonist, I'm not sure, but it bends our mind in so many directions. And yet on a totally superficial level its just plain great entertainment. The flipping coin scene, the shadow under the door, the sickest serial killer weapon ever. It's enjoyable on every level and a real thinking man's film.

Best film of the decade, BY FAR. TWBB isn't even in my top ten, or in fact 20.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

>Okay, I did NOT enjoy There Will Be Blood. At all. But trying
>to look at it apart from that, I can see how people appreciate
>Daniel Day Lewis, the score, and the look of the movie.

The acting was great, the score was interesting, and the cinematography was beautiful. But I didn't enjoy or find the story compelling.


_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

"HUMAN, HUH!" - Big Shug

Twitter/PSN: UrkelMoeDee

It becomes clear There Will Be Blood is the winner.
Fine acting performances in NCFOM, a lot of them in fact.
But Daniel Day-Lewis sets the bar.
There hasn't been a better acting performance since.
The two do make for a good Double Bill though.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

Man. That's like asking someone to choose their favorite child.

"I hear there's rumors on the internets" - George W. Bush

i still blame hip-hop.

________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

also on Facebook

I feel like depending on which side of those battles you take defines your choice in one over the other. I'm all about direction as I'm on the side that film is a director's medium over anything else, so I'm all for BLOOD, but I can totally see why someone else would pick NO COUNTRY. I mean, it really is neck and neck to me.

_
Yo! That’s My Jawn: The Podcast - Available Now!
http://linktr.ee/yothatsmyjawn

Aside from that, I agree with your opinion that I can see the argument for both, since they have different ways in which they shine.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I like the Coens' use of pacing, and even their shot choices. But the way Anderson moves the camera is why I side with BLOOD over COUNTRY in the directing aspect. I think acting (as the ensemble of the films, because no one in NCFOM is touching Daniel Day-Lewis) and story go to NO COUNTRY, but the cinematography & direction and certainly DDL, push it slightly ahead. Which is weird for me, because I like the Coens work as a whole more than I like PTA's.

_
Yo! That’s My Jawn: The Podcast - Available Now!
http://linktr.ee/yothatsmyjawn

TWBB on repeat viewing was *AS* good or better than first viewing.

NCFOM was incredible the first time i saw it, so im gonna rewatch and see how it holds up.

Frankly, i dont see any possible outcome that doesnt have There Will Be Blood being dethroned as my best of the aughts, but who knows? maybe.

********************************************************************




"I *always* quote myself. I'm the only reliable source on *most* subjects" - OKP's First Lady of Knowledge, Janey

There Will be Blood (to me anyways) is like watching a Kubrick film. Plus Daniel Plainview is a fucking G.

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

please stop

--------

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

And I still don't get some people's hatred of calling something overrated. You say every film has been overrated by someone, well no shit. But we're talking about the overall view portrayed of something. When someone bucks that trend it doesn't just been they're been contrary for the sake of it, sometimes it's based on real opinion. That's what makes the world go round and all argument/dialogue. There were probably people in Nazi Germany who said, "look here, this no unemployment thing is OVERRATED, look at what's happened to our society". If someone just said "shut the fuck up, I'm bored of people saying anythings overrated", there could never be dialogue. Obviously that's an extreme example, but saying something is overrated is another way of saying, "I disagree" which is key in art, culture, politics - you name it.

As it happens I think No Country is fucking incredible and not overrated at all.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

And you stated your opinion in a very grown up way.

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

of opinion. where does the *overall* view of artistic taste originate?

money and viewership? OK, then I think Transformers 2 is vastly overrated.

paid critical opinion? OK, well I kinda enjoyed Transformers 2 while blazed and with my free IMAX pass, so I think it's underrated.

people I know? well, I lived in ___ for three months and 100 people told me Transformers 2 was the best movie of the decade, so it's definitely overrated. but then I moved ___ for three months and 100 more people told me Transformers 2 is the worst movie in history -- but I disagree with that because I think Gran Torino and Death Proof were worse. so maybe Transformers 2 is underrated.

WHO GIVES A FUCK?!

overrated/underrated doesn't mean anything to me. better to point out strengths and weaknesses in art as you see it instead of trying to rail against some consensus real or imagined.

(and I've used the term "overrated" before, not faultless here, but it serves no point in a rational discussion.)

--------

>>Obviously that's an extreme example, but saying something is overrated is another way of saying, "I disagree" which is key in art, culture, politics - you name it.<<

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

"saying something is overrated is another way of saying, 'I disagree' which is key in art, culture, politics - you name it."

disagreeing...with what? there is no consensus, no overall view on what makes something "over" or "under" rated. at best, it's constantly in flux and means something different to everyone -- so why even bring it up in regards to one's own taste.

(and "a key in...politics", lol? gun laws are overrated! gun laws are underrated! what the hell does either of those statements mean? what possible contribution do they have to any valid discourse?)

and this has nothing to do with silencing dialogue or complaints. in fact, quite the opposite -- I'd rather debate specifics about the art, rather than hear another person open his views with some unquantifiable stance.

just say why did or didn't like something.

--------

But in my mind you're arguing for arguments sake over minutiae and minor semantics. The point I made still stands.

Oh and in politics you may well hear someone say, well not necessarily the word "overrated", but say "the importance of civil liberties in the fight against terrorism has been overplayed". Overplayed? Who overplayed it? The majority of people? 100 people where I lived? Make it mean what you want, nobody can be bothered to argue forever about the AMOUNT of people who have said something or expressed such and such a view. The point is it has been overplayed generally. As some films have been overrated generally.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

and how saying something is "overrated/underrated" is ridiculously useless.

you seem to think that calling something "overrated" implies a disagreement with the majority opinion -- yet again I ask, how do you define the consensus to begin with (especially in works of art/taste)?

if nothing is "rated" on a singular, quantifiable scale, it's unable to be "overrrated" or "underrated". saying either is a bullshit qualifier, one that should be skipped in order to get on with personal likes or dislikes of the art. *those* are worth discussing.

--------

The Phantom Menace can be rated as generally rated as one of the greatest films of all time, whilst The Godfather can be generally rated as boring garbage. De-construct that.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

"The Godfather is overrated."

- does that mean it sucks, and not worth the critical praise it's received over the years?

- or does that mean it was a great movie, and one of the best of the '70s, but not one of the best of the last half-century?

- what if someone thinks there's not enough adulation for the movie, not enough people who love it, and that it's the greatest work in the history of moving pictures? can they then say "The Godfather is underrated"?

my point is, there's no specificity. a lot of people and critics may love The Godfather, but to what level? do they all agree it's the seventh best film from 1900-2000? that it's second best? it's 24th?

therefore, saying something is "overrated/underrated" is such an open-ended and empty statement. it provides no context, no great insight, no unique perspective -- in fact, it's the opposite of what a good debate should feature.

--------

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Anyway, even I'm bored with it. I'll just cut it to an end by saying the expression "... is overrated" is a very commonly used, and 9 times out of ten, easily understood expression. To try and wipe it out of language completely on the basis it doesn't mean anything is to me pretty unbelievable.

Wait actually I'm not gonna cut it short, because I suddenly just though of a very relevant anecdote. There's a Jorge Luis Borges story about a man who remembers absolutely everything. He is literally incapable of forgetting. Anyway he can't comprehend the word "cloud" because every cloud he has ever seen has been different. One last Tuesday was a different concept entirely to him to one he is seeing now.

The point is, intelligent discussion and analysis is ALWAYS dependent on generalizations. One cloud may be different to the next, but unless you can generalize things under one umbrella you're not gonna get anywhere even if you have superhuman intelligence. So...this is relevant why? Well unless we can just accept and come to a generally sensible conclusion to the meaning that something is rated, then we can't have any kind of discussion of rating anything. We can't discuss what's good and what's bad. In fact we might as well all sign off right now and just stop discussing anything in here anymore at all. When I say the word "cloud" you might picture a different kind of cloud than I intended. When I say something is "rated", you may interpret that differently to how I intended. Nevertheless, we have to just assume a general meaning to both words, or we can barely communicate at all.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

make his point any clearer because of it? did anybody else in this entire thread have to use the words "over/underrated" to explain their views about No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood? did the lack of those two words make anybody's arguments less understandable, or quell debate in any way?

exactly.

again, the most incomprehensible and useless point of debate in this entire thread were the words "No County For Men is overrated."

--------

By saying that it was overrated, it was merely a minor statement than it is not as good as has generally been proposed. You for one said it was the best American film of the decade (something I agree with by the way). Nobody was trying to make a landmark comment on the film, just a minor statement. The same effect would've come out of saying "I don't think it's really all that good", in reply to people saying "it's really fucking good". As I said, it's really like saying "I disagree", which is a perfectly reasonable remark. I objected to the seemingly growing hatred of the term "overrated", which to me is a perfectly normal term to use when discussing the merits of a film. If you're going to be so pedantic about "what does the general meaning of the term rated mean?" then we could be here all day whenever we say anything. We all know No Country For Old Men is very highly rated - someone disagreed. Just let him do so.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

it seems unreasonable to cast the "ostentatious arbitrator of English" in only one direction.

but regarding generalizations:

"NCFOM is very good."

- I get your point about clouds; "very good" means something a little different to everybody. but at face value, I understand that he/she liked it, thought it was a worthwhile movie, and so on. we might have variances on what "very good" is, but I instantly know that the movie was "very good" to that person.

"NCFOM is overrated."

- now this is asking to interpret way too much. where does he/she think the film was "rated" at to begin with? "overrated" by ticket sales, critics, people he/she knows, OKP? like I said before, Transformers 2 can be simultaneously "overrated" and "underrated" depending on the metric. furthermore, to what degree does he/she think the movie is "overrated"? NCFOM is not the best film of the decade, or not the best film of 2007, or sucks entirely with no value at all?

all that uncertainty goes behind the standard use of most generalizations -- especially when it comes to opinions on film, a subject with blurred lines to begin with.

it's not a debate-starter, it's a debate-stopper.

--------

But anyway, I do accept some of what you say. To blindly say something is overrated with no context is more ambiguous than many statements. It doesn't make it defunct or a debate-stopper nonetheless, and I still have a problem with anyone being too objectionable towards its use.

Regardless, this is definitely getting silly, and to be honest, considering we're both on the same page with regards to the point of this thread (!), I think we should just return to talking about how great No Country is. I really think people are mad to think any other film in 2007 is anywhere close to it.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

...says Wrongthink

Real talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12JJv6yCk7Q

Current Rotation:

Shad - TSOL
Onra - Long Distance
Cool Kids - Tacklebox
Shabazz Palaces

Is No Country a well-made film? Yea
Is it good? Yea.
I think it's overhyped. Sorry if my opinion conflicts with yours son...
That's why we have film discussions like this.

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

I appreciate There Will Be Blood more now than I did when I first saw it but I still think that No Country is the better film. Daniel Day Lewis gives the best acting performance but overall I just don't think TWBB stands up. Honestly, I could have done without the entire bit about the "brother".

No Country also gets points for pushing the Woody Harrelson comeback full steam ahead.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Like what did that have to do with anything?

NCFOM for the win.

-------------------------------
If life is stupendous one cannot also demand that it should be easy. - Robert Musil

>Like what did that have to do with anything?

I thought it served to show us more of Daniel's character. That he had a soft spot for family and admitting he couldn't go at it alone.

I really liked it but cant seem to get into it again. I've seen No Country about five times now.

after the first time I saw it, I immediately wanted to start the movie over again.

But no performance in No Country came close to Day-Lewis, one of the best screen performances I've witnessed in my short lifetime.

Esteemed author of the celebrated, double-platinum post: "Drake - Wu-Tang Forever".

<----

Larry Otis!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeM89CITvMc

and his free new singles, produced by Tough Junkie!
http://soundcloud.com/toughjunkie/sets/larry-otis-leaks

___

it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes

of course as everyone said DDL was an animal in that film. He pretty much schools everyone on good acting anyways. But the film work in that movie upon repeat viewing has me in awe. PTA did some great shots. Just that scene with the oil well on fire and the music score to go with it was amazing. I liked it better on my repeat viewing.

No Country I enjoyed a lot. And appreciate the film as a terrific film. But it just never did much for me. I wasn't one of those idiots pissed at the ending but it just lacked something for me.

__________________________________

*Note to self: Add Sig*

NCFOM was tight as a drum though. For me the difference is that NCFOM made me think, TWBB made me feel.

When I got out of No Country for Old Men all I wanted to do was think and ponder about the relevance of Bell's dream and how it connected with his own story arc. Lots to think about and chew on.

When I left the theatre from There Will Be Blood I felt shocked, unquestionably alive and a little bit stunned. (I had a similar feeling at the end of Requiem for a Dream and 2001).

I love the Coens and I think NCFOM is one of their finest works, but if a film can make me feel like TWBB did then there's a power beyond description present that will make me always lean towards it.

...says Wrongthink

Real talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12JJv6yCk7Q

Current Rotation:

Shad - TSOL
Onra - Long Distance
Cool Kids - Tacklebox
Shabazz Palaces

.

First, no matter how small the rest of the cast's roles were, DDL wasn't the only great performance in TWBB in my eyes. Dano is hilarious and Kevin J. O'Conner was excellent. If Hinds' and Howes roles were bigger, I would've nominated them for my SLA ballot. Yeah, they're not on DDL's level, but the way some people write about TWBB, it seems like TWBB was just DDL and weird music (I don't think it's weird).

Second, as of now, I'm more impressed by Tommy Lee Jones in NCFOM than DDL, and both are all time level type performances as is Bardem's.

Third, what the Coens left to the viewer's imagination / left offscreen were masterful strokes.

Fourth, I don't know which film is better if that is the spirit of this post, so I won't speak on that. I can only speak on what film I'm more interested in. And right now as in 2007, I'm more interested in the self-destructive misanthrope. Though, both films along with The Assassination of Jesse James and Zodiac are among the finest American films I've ever seen.

Which on looking it up right now might be because I was living in Asia at that point. Still if you're putting it up there with those other films, all of them I like a lot, I'm gonna have to check it out. In fact now you bring up the Assassination of Jesse James, that should be considered as a contender in this vote. I think its better than TWBB.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

>>In fact now you bring up the Assassination of Jesse James, that >>should be considered as a contender in this vote. I think its better >>than TWBB

Blood honed Kubrick, while James honed Malick. Both are great directors who've created masterpieces but never got their props.

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

It was dumped in March 2007; therefore, it got criminally overlooked for major awards consideration which is, well, criminal and ridiculous. It's a masterful film.

Today, in terms of preference I rank the 4:

1) The Assassination of Jesse James
2) Zodiac
3) TWBB
4) NCFOM

But again, they're all masterpieces.

>Though, both films along with The Assassination
>of Jesse James and Zodiac are among the finest American films
>I've ever seen.

Both of these films are ciminally overlooked. I may like the two films in this pole a bit better, but Zodiac and Jesse James deserve to be in the discussion.

I know folks here love to argue (seemingly now more than ever) but I think we just need to marvel in the year that was 2007. I don't think we're going to see anything like that again for a long, long time.

>I know folks here love to argue (seemingly now more than ever)
>but I think we just need to marvel in the year that was 2007.
>I don't think we're going to see anything like that again for
>a long, long time.

I'm optimistic that there'll be 1 year in the next decade that will be an embarrassment of riches.

I still think though TWBB is great that No Country is in another class, but I agree with all of your other points. What a great year for movies 2007 was.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

although it's still very early in the book and PTA took liberties with his adaptation, of course.

But he wasn't even planning on adapting the book, it was a writing exercise he was trying and liked what he got out of it. I haven't read the book but I'm pretty sure that the 2nd half's a nothing a like. But to be fair he did rename the title and never really pushed it as an adaptation.

is the book is more or less told from the boy's perspective (my guess is to give perspective on how corrupt the oil business was) whereas in the movie he's really there just to show what daniel is like

Both films have considerable merits, and I dig them both for very different reasons...

_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

also on Facebook

>and I dig them both for
>very different reasons...

Downey Jr. and that cop dude are awesome in this.

_________________________________________________________

http://www.angryasianman.com

NCFOM was better at the time, it's better now.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

although I will admit TWBB runs long. they're very close though.

It's a toss up between the other two for me but they're both on the back burner.

All 3 standout in their own way.

No Country for the 3 lead performances. Yes Bardem was thee ultimate bad ass but Brolin brought it too & Tommy was no slouch either.

Blood's menacing score & DDL stick with me as does the scene where HW loses his hearing. Tremendous direction there & Paul Dano deserves a lot of credit too. He was going up against a beast & he held his own every step of the way.

But Jesse James had the best score/cinematography combo out of these three & maybe any other movie I've seen this decade. All of the performances are great as well. And I'm hard pressed to find a better scene overall than the train robbery. The oil eruption & subsequent fire in Blood comes close. But as soon as Brad's boot hits the track & those rocks start movin, I'm moved to move it to masterpiece status.

Watched 5 times at least

There will be blood only once

i haven't re-watched Blood b/c i disliked it so much the 1st time around. and b/c it's not airing on HBO or Encore.

i've re-watched No Country several times over. i still dig it.

fuck you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

something about TWBB is offputting
and kicks me out
while NCFOM draws me in
no it sucks me in
which says alot because i really do not like westerns
~~~~
smart dumb niggas i see is the theme of the week on okp (c)esb
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

I find the compressed narrative at the end of TWBB somewhat awkward. The last scene is a barn-burner but it doesn't seem earned--and neither does the exposition-heavy scene prior. Plus Paul Dano looks like he's barely aged. It's a significant flaw on an otherwise miraculous film.

No Country aims less high but is effectively flawless. The Coens recent renaissance is really something to treasure. So many American filmmakers start their long slow decline and never really turn the ship around. The Coens have.

--------

hell-below.com

>I find the compressed narrative at the end of TWBB somewhat
>awkward. The last scene is a barn-burner but it doesn't seem
>earned--and neither does the exposition-heavy scene prior.
>Plus Paul Dano looks like he's barely aged. It's a significant
>flaw on an otherwise miraculous film.

While all of that is completely valid criticism it still worked for me. The "I'm finished!" line just sealed it for me. It's obvious that PTA had trouble with the ending and I'm sure he was starting to feel the weight of it all on his shoulders. I forgave the disconnected feeling because I took it as a wink from PTA and a meta commentary on his experience with the film.

It's fun to compare that line with the infamous final line in Inglorious Basterds. You get the sense that PTA might have struggled with his masterpiece a bit more : )

Especially when comparing final scenes.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>While all of that is completely valid criticism it still
>worked for me. The "I'm finished!" line just sealed it for
>me. It's obvious that PTA had trouble with the ending and I'm
>sure he was starting to feel the weight of it all on his
>shoulders. I forgave the disconnected feeling because I took
>it as a wink from PTA and a meta commentary on his experience
>with the film.

It's interesting that as written there was substantially more material with the grown-up H.W. I'm not sure if it was ever shot or discarded in pre-production.

--------

hell-below.com

_________________________________________________________

http://www.angryasianman.com

You know, we could all be reading a book right now.

i can't remember the whole film
i've not watched either of them again but i've got a suspicion that NCFOM might be unbearably slow on 2nd viewing

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

When presented with an obstacle, Daniel Plainview destroys it to get it out of his way. Dude was way overdue to be murdered after antagonizing Plainview for the whole movie.

You know, we could all be reading a book right now.

if i remember correctly, he'd already totally defeated and circumvented him
then he just decides to murder him for the hell of it

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>if i remember correctly, he'd already totally defeated and
>circumvented him
>then he just decides to murder him for the hell of it

Yeah, I don't think Daniel killed Eli because he was an obstacle because like you said he wasn't at that point. I think the fact that Daniel was drunk combined with Eli trying to (in Daniel's mind) con him again after years had passed, Daniel always hating Eli, and still pissed off (either subconsciously or consciously in the final scene) at being embarrassed into being baptized and being embarrassed at the baptismal were his motivations for murdering Eli. Also by that point, Daniel was probably twice the misanthrope or twice as hateful (or whatever the more appropriate label) as the man he was earlier in the film.

You know, we could all be reading a book right now.

watch the scene where the preacher baptizes him and makes him admit in front of the congregation that he abandoned his child - Plainview had murder in his eyes when he looks up at him. but he needed the preacher to help him consolidate the land holdings that would guarantee his control of all the oil in the area.

when the preacher comes to him hat in hand at the end though, Plainview doesn't need him anymore and relishes the chance to torment him. and Plainview is clearly a sociopath + he's already demonstrated the capacity for murder when he killed his "brother", so I dunno why killing the preacher would be so surprising.

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

...where as with No Country, it wasn't even as good as the book (but it was still amazing). Josh Brolin just wasn't as much of a presence as he needed to be to make you feel more shocked at his sudden removal from the story. Everything else was near perfect, but I feel TWBB was pretty much perfect.

Day Lewis pretty much owned his role, though I'd say Bardem almost cancels out a comparison in acting of the two films. For me it comes down to the Cinematography which was simply perfect scene to scene in TWBB and just no as awe-inspiring in No Country (though still great).

I saw human flesh in the men's urinals, I tell you what.

go ahead and do it like I'm dumb as hell, it's fine, cuz I dunno -- I watched that movie, and I thought it was beautifully shot, incredibly acted, very well plotted and very well made, etc. and so on, but I didn't get the sense that there was really anything going on in it besides a fairly straight forward thriller story.

If we got Fongo talking about it being the film of the decade or whatever, I'm going to need some more justification for that statement.

note -- this has nothing to do with the poll above, I haven't seen the Daniel Day Lewis one yet

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

i thought no country was really really good until Llewelyn dies, then it just seems like the movie sort of loses focus until the last - car crash - scene (which was excellent btw). seeme like the entire movie is built on the suspense of Anton's hunt for Llewelyn which is really captivating. then all of a sudden Llewelyn just dies and the focus is completely lost. and i realize the movie is more so about tommy lee's character and his eventual retirement from a seemingly advanced and sadistic world, but then why the fuck did they build all that suspense with Llewlyn's character to begin with?

eh, i just never got this aspect of the movie and it's what sort of tarnishes no country for me. so i guess i too will need someone to give a more thorough explanation as well.