Movies There Will be Blood vs. No Country for Old Men - Which is the better film?

Which is the better film?


  • Total voters
    70

Takes_Two_To_Tango

Formally known as MXZT
Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
31,611
Reaction score
41,292
Both films were nominated in 2008 academy awards. However, No Country for Old Men got the nod for best picture. Both are rated the same on IMDB with an 8.2.

What's the better film in your opinion?

(There Will Be Blood) plot synopsis:

The film follows the rise to power of Daniel Plainview - a charismatic and ruthless oil prospector, driven to succeed by his intense hatred of others and desperate need to see any and all competitors fail.

When he learns of oil-rich land in California that can be bought cheaply, he moves his operation there and begins manipulating and exploiting the local landowners into selling him their property.

Using his young adopted son H.W. to project the image of a caring family man, Plainview gains the cooperation of almost all the locals with lofty promises to build schools and cultivate the land to make their community flourish.

Over time, Plainview's gradual accumulation of wealth and power causes his true self to surface, and he begins to slowly alienate himself from everyone in his life.


(No Country for Old Men) plot synopsis:

After he finds $2 million in the desert where a drug deal has apparently gone wrong, working man Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) finds himself on the run.

His pursuer is Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), an unemotional killer with a unique murder weapon at his disposal.

Throughout, soon to be retired Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) attempts to convince Moss, mostly through his wife Carla Jean, that he should turn the money over to the authorities or this could all end in tragedy.









 
Both films were nominated in 2008 academy awards. However, No Country for Old Men got the nod for best picture. Both are rated the same on IMDB with an 8.2.

What's the better film in your opinion?

(There Will Be Blood) plot synopsis:

The film follows the rise to power of Daniel Plainview - a charismatic and ruthless oil prospector, driven to succeed by his intense hatred of others and desperate need to see any and all competitors fail.

When he learns of oil-rich land in California that can be bought cheaply, he moves his operation there and begins manipulating and exploiting the local landowners into selling him their property.

Using his young adopted son H.W. to project the image of a caring family man, Plainview gains the cooperation of almost all the locals with lofty promises to build schools and cultivate the land to make their community flourish.

Over time, Plainview's gradual accumulation of wealth and power causes his true self to surface, and he begins to slowly alienate himself from everyone in his life.


(No Country for Old Men) plot synopsis:

After he finds $2 million in the desert where a drug deal has apparently gone wrong, working man Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) finds himself on the run.

His pursuer is Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), an unemotional killer with a unique murder weapon at his disposal.

Throughout, soon to be retired Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) attempts to convince Moss, mostly through his wife Carla Jean, that he should turn the money over to the authorities or this could all end in tragedy.










Didn't you recently do this thread??
 
Why not just interject in that other thread that people were talking about only two weeks ago?

That thread was started 4 years ago and has no poll. That's why I made a new one. Sorry to irk you about it.
 
I saw both in theaters when they came out, and I think No Country was the best movie of that decade. There Will be Blood had great performances and looked fantastic, but the plotting and pacing wasn’t quite at the level of No Country. No Country was significantly more entertaining, it’s a more fun watch, where There Will be Blood invites a little more analysis.

I’d say Bardem’s performance was better than DDL’s as well, but it’s hard to compare given the vastly different ways the characters were used. Even though There Will be Blood gets more credit for the acting, the cast of No Country was excellent from top to bottom.
 
TWBB is a very good film propped up by DDL's performance whereas NCFOM is a great film, enhanced by it's entire cast.

If you remove DDL from TWBB, it's a good movie. If you remove any of the leads from NCFOM, it's still great due to the entire cast being on point.
 
Both are great movies. Really tough call. I’d prob take no country for old men though just because there is more violence.
 
Watched there will be blood yesterday and added no country to My List.

I'll let you know

Oh man...

You had better buckle up, strap in, grab your popcorn, and make sure that you're watching it inside vs. outside.

If you're outside, bugs will fly into your mouth because you're going to be like....

OIP.ZC-PJGYm0s7gsj1G8NZbJwHaFF



NCFOM = GOAT tier.
 
I’ll have to watch that third one now.

i liked Bone Tomahawk and Hell or High Water as well.

True grit remake is getting disrespected itt

Open Range with Costner & Duvall deserves a mention
Hell or High Water, Wind River, Open Range, Bone Tomahawk, True Grit, The Revenant, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Django Unchained, The Hateful Eight, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, The Proposition, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, and Hostiles are all great westerns.

But No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, and 3:10 to Yuma stand above and apart.
 
Back
Top