No Country for Old Men vs. Children of Men

22 comments

14 comments

ARRRRRGH! So tricky. On the face of it the only thing they have in common is the word "Men" in the title, but what makes them different is also what makes them so good for different reasons...... I think I'm gonna have to go with the Coens ability to maintain palpable tension over Cuaron's showcase of Directorial excellence.

My two favorite films of 2007. I think this has been one of my hardest to pick, I don't know why this one is so hard. Children of Men is easily the best science fiction film of the decade, and is so incredibly well made, and on the other hand is the masterpiece that is No Country. The performances are incredible all around and that movie is relentless with its suspense from beginning to end. I think I go with Children of Men just because it didn't win Best Picture.

No Country For Old Men is overrated. Children Of Men is the best movie of 2007.

It is an absolute CRIME that Children of Men was not nominated for Best Picture. (But hey, the Oscars are a joke anyway; be interesting this year when there are 10 nods for BP.) I love every single frame of Children of Men; No Country absolutely grabbed me by the balls and didn't let go...until the ending absolutely lost me. A wonderful, wonderful movie, ruined in the last 10-15 minutes. This particular choice is a no-brainer for me. Oscar's "Best Picture" of '07 vs. the REAL Best Picture of '07.

One caveat: I wonder how No Country For Old Men would hold up if I watched it again. I did really, really love the first three quarters of that movie....

Both of these movies are a tad anticlimactic, but the difference is, CHILDREN OF MEN ran out of ideas and had no idea how to deliver on its premise, whileas NO COUNTRY was always building towards that anticlimax, and designed a beautiful movie around that inevitability. It really expands upon repeat viewings, and CHILDREN OF MEN just doesn't have enough power to last in my mind.

Wow, are we talking about the *same *Children of Men that I saw? That's a piece of crap. No Country!

How did NCFOM's ending lose people? It was perfect! If you didn't like it the first time, watch it again more closely. Anyway, that film outdoes Children of Men just barely by having the epitome of evil as its bad guy.

No Country for Old Men is, indeed, overrated. Though I do feel I need to watch it a second time to properly rank it. My memory of Children of Men might be a little hazy, but I remember loving it, and that is enough to put it over No Country for Old Men here.

Ahh, this is a very interesting matchup for me. I saw both of these films at the theater and instantly loved them. Both are brilliantly directed, acted, filmed, paced, etc. There are particular scenes in both movies that will always stick with me. Here's why I pick No Country (and in fact, about 20 or so spots higher on my FlickChart). Both films enticed me to go read the book it was based on. While neither of them are exactly like the book, NCFOM manages to maintain the same intensity and focus of the book - in fact, I would say this is probably the best adaption ever made. Children of Men on the other hand is a little disappointing after reading the book. While some of the scenes that Cuaron put on screen are more beautiful than I could have imagined, it doesn't hold the intensity of the book and Cuaron changes the focus - even though it doesn't seem to me that it needed to be done for the typical reasons, such as time constraint, money, etc. There are some really excellent characters left out of the film, yet there are some unnecessary ones added. hmmmm. I realize this is not the best way to judge a movie - and I do still really appreciate and enjoy Children of Men as it's own film - but this is the reason why I enjoy NCFOM better.

Really tough... I didn't like No Country the first time I saw it, but grew on me after a few watches. Children was really good too... In the end, I think No Country was better (by an inch).

Tough choice, but I'll have to go with "No Country for Old Men"

Wow, two movies that I went into kind of expecting to be ambivalent about, but came out amazed about how good they both were. No Country for Old Men wins because of it's pace, which a whole lot faster and more focused than Children of Men, and the overall better acting of the film. Bardem, Brolin, and Jones were all amazing, while Clive Owen kind of never seems to do it for me, and plays every character similarly. Both movies are great, though.

Tough call but Children wins. While Bardem's villian stays in memory as one of the greats in film history, where it could be in the same sentence with Lector and Bates, it (as well as the other two) are nightmarish cartoons, distortions of reality for 99.9% of us. But we run into the impersonal horror of society's inability to care to for itself daily, and so the conclusion of the events in this film ring true to many of us, unfortunately. I think the emotional capper to CoM, in addition to its bravura ending, is the fate of Michael Caine's character.

JRM
JRM

I'm going with first impressions here. It took me a second viewing to really appreciate Children of Men, as the first time I saw it I kept getting angry at the decisions characters were making, as well as that anticlimactic ending... However, I loved No Country For Old Men in my first viewing. Unlike Children of Men, the film was hinting the way the film was going to end throughout, and delivered it. Did I like the ending? It was bittersweet, but I couldn't see it ending any other way. I expected more out of Children of Men's ending.

children of men is easily one of the best movies of the decade and a far supeiror movie compared to no country for old men

Definitely the hardest decision I've had to make on this site, possibly in my entire life. However I think the idea of Children of Men better than No Country. Children of men it is

No Country looks and plays great, just as you'd expect from the Coens, but Children of Men was a profoundly beautiful film. This one's a no-brainer for me. Children of Men all the way.

Just have to point out that Children of Men is a 2006 film, not 2007.

Seb
Seb

I am a person who 99% of the time agrees with critical opinion. No country was critically acclaimed, I loved it. Children of men was critically acclaimed, I was incredibly underwhelmed by it. yes, the long tracking shots were impressive and cuaron is a great visual director but I found the narrative to be too slight and rather disinteresting. The last 20 minutes was really good but as a whole I felt it was really underdeveloped. I stand by my opinion. Children of men is extremely overrated and no country for old men is one of the best films of the last decade. No country wins in a landslide

The brutal realism and mysterious future of Children of Men give it its power. An entertaining and pulse pounding storyline gives No Country for Old Men its power. Both of these films captivated me and actually showed me that there is still hope in this generation of films! Aside from that rant, I'm going with No Country for Old Men.

Just watched Children of Men for the 1st time tonite, fantastic. And it wins this. No Country is great though

Children of Men, so amazing and heaps better than No Country for Old Men, i love both of the movies but Children of Men is easily better

No Country is just perfect

Children of Men wins. Just amazing from start to finish...

Seb
Seb

wow, i was completely wrong about Children of Men. my previous comment is embarrassing to read back a year later. i watched COM for a second time a few months ago and it blew me the fuck away. dont know how i wasnt blown away the first time. its pretty much splitting hairs here

Both are in my Top 20, but one is in my Top 10. The Coens win this time.

Both are fantastic! Children of Men edges to the finish line barely.

Children of Men in a landslide

No Country For Old Men.

I suppose the reason they are being compared is because of their similar titles? That's the only thing these films share in common. No Country For Old Men is a much better film. I enjoyed both very much, but NCFOM is greater in every single capacity.

COM

Gotta go No Country, it's my favorite Coen Brothers film.

Never mind, No Country wins

No Country for Children

Never mind again, COM wins

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Men? No Country is the better drama. (Don't pick Children of Men just because of the fancy camera work, please.)

Fancy camera work is a legitimate reason to pick a film. Plus, I get a very real sense of incompleteness from Old Men, which was the result of deliberate choices by the Coens. And that was some very fancy camera work.

Give me No Country. I find Children to be too political and the premise for the entire film is unbelievable without there being more depth to the delima.