Reel Rumbles #8 – “No Country For Old Men” vs. “There Will Be Blood”

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Xavier says:

    Completely agreed, There Will be Blood is clearly the superior movie. It covers the whole spectrum of movie making in excellence, while No country for old men is Cohen brothers typical movie making at its best, ie great but somehow familiar.

  2. Robert says:

    Glad to see I’m not the only one who felt this way. People thought I was nuts for coming to the same conclusion, although I thought There Will Be Blood was actually FAR better than No Country For Old Men.

  3. Zawmer says:

    I am a huge Coen Brothers fan, and honestly I am NOT a huge Daniel Day-Lewis fan. But I must admit I agree with all of the above. No Country For Old Men is good enough to deserve the awards it won compared with most other films, but the direction and lead performance in There Will Be Blood take it to the top, I think.

  4. Ames says:

    This article is slightly biased, basing its assessment almost purely on how much the stories were adapted from the books and not on the film-making. It’s demeaning to film-makers to undemerine their work simply because they’re adpated from page to screen. To call one original over the other is ridiculous and bad critiquing, and I haven’t even seen No Country.

  5. Originality is actually a sign of good film-making, and that is rewarded throughout the critique. Definitely not my intention to demean either filmmaker, since I clearly hold both in high regard throughout the text. The Coens get a lot of credit for their casting and use of suspense. Anderson does as well for his excellent script and methodical pacing. I’m sorry you didn’t like it, but I do appreciate your comments and the time you spent reading. You didn’t have to do that, and I thank you for it. Whether you agree or disagree, that’s what makes writing these worth the time it takes.

  6. And thanks to the rest of you, you guys are great, all of you!

  7. johnmason says:

    I was not thrilled with either of these movies when I saw them.

    Well, that’s not true. I did enjoy There Will Be Blood (particularly that silent opening). And I was absolutely thrilled by No Country For Old Men…until that ending.

    I think I would, personally, still choose No Country, because I did simply love the first three-quarters of the film. It was well on its way to becoming a personal all-time favorite before that ending came out of nowhere and smacked me upside the head. Having said that, I think, maybe, I’d like it better if I saw it again.

    I think the same could be said of There Will Be Blood, too: that I’d like it better if I saw it again. But while Day-Lewis is, indeed, absolutely fabulous in it, it did not entertain me as much as the first three-quarters of No Country For Old Men, and that’s the main criteria I use when ranking on Flickchart.

  8. Ziggy51127 says:

    The filmmakers involved in both movies are incredibly talented, there’s no denying that, but if you take Daniel Day-Lewis out of There Will Be Blood, is it still a great movie? Probably not, good, but not what it currently is. No Country for Old Men is a stellar ensemble, drawing on the strengths of wonderful source material, a picture-perfect cast and 2 of the finest directors working today. It gets my vote and I think it will endure better over time.

  1. February 17, 2011

    […] Sure enough, these films are #1 and #2 for the year on Flickchart (#31 and #70, globally). (See here for a detailed look at No Country for Old Men vs. There Will Be Blood.) Then you have to go down to […]