There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men?

There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men?

Which is more kino?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cHuSRHxBgUg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>complex story about morals and survival with fascinating character and high tension throughout

VS

>DUDE OIL LMAO

2007 was so kino

you mean
>complex story about morals and survival with fascinating character and high tension throughout

VS

>DUDE BRIEFCASE LMAO

wut? Blood had some pretty dank character development

Incorrect. There Will be Blood is not about survival.

What character development? Daniel is an asshole from start to finish and Eli is a wimp from start to finish. The only character you can sort of relate to is HW, who's a pretty cool kid.

I enjoyed No Country For Old Men more than There Will Be Blood, therefore NCFOM is literally objectively better

What would happen if you use both of them for a movie and throw some mads too

It hard to believe these two were released in the same year. Heck, they were even filmed in the same time and location.

the kinoest of kinos

The IMDb trivia claims that the scene where the rig burns down actually ruined a shot for No Country for Old Men

Fund it

You could probably feel kino in the air there.

>Llewlyn gives the case to Daniel
>He uses it to buy land
>Sugar goes after him
>Greatest gladiator match in the history of kino

the superior movie cucked the inferior one

all is right in the world

They are both Paramount Vantage productions as well. It is impossible to speak in great detail of the one film, without also speaking of the other.

>anti-capitalist Altman-derivative by a hack featuring a over-the-top lead villain
>meditation on the randomness of fate and violence featuring some of the highest tension in movies in decades and following a merciless believable logic

I thought these two movies were the same movie for awhile called There Will be No Country for Oil Men.


To make it worse, I thought Sherlock Holmes 2 and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo were the same movie, as well. Called Sherlock Holmes 2: the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

I'm retarded a good chunk of the time.

>>meditation on the randomness of fate and violence featuring some of the highest tension in movies in decades and following a merciless believable logic
there's nothing remotely philosophical in no country for old men, the guy is a sociopath who kills for hire, but sometimes he tosses a coin to decide whether he shoots some guy or not because cormac mccarthy needed a meme to make his villain seem exotic and interesting

then there's the old guy who reminisces about the good old days, wow, it's almost as though that's what old people do all the time

>No Country for Old Men
>There Will Be Blood
>Assassination of Jesse James
>Eastern Promises
>Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
>Zodiac

2007 was a year full of absolute undeniable kinos.

I guess you just ignored anything the characters said

enlighten me

Kek

There Will Be No Country for Oil Men sounds like the kinost of all kinos

Don't forget Atonement and (kinda) Children of Men.

>a character study of a man consumed by hate interwoven with fundamentally human themes like religion, power, morality

vs

>le silent hitman

They're both good in different ways.

No Country is sort of musing on death, fate, hate, "evil," and the powerlessness that comes with getting older.

There Will Be Blood is more about happiness and being torn between money, family, and religion in searching for it.

Both very deeply cutting and relevant to humanity. No Country relies on high stakes thrills and tension-building, while There Will Be Blood has amazing performances, sets, and a great sense of visual language.

Children of Men was Clive-Kino.

What's so good about TWBB?

I Guess it's just hyped because of LE MILSHAKE!!! XD and Daniel Day Lewis

NOCFOM is superior on everything, the only good thing about TWBB is when the bad guy talks with his deaf son again

What the fuck was this guy's problem?

Re-listen to all of chigurh's, tommy's and his dad's dialogue. It's ALL about how there's an illusion that violence and tragedy is something that can be reasoned with instead of a perpetual and mindless force. Chigurh's character is supposed to represent fate/destiny, which he says multiple times throughout the film, but even he is subject to the randomness of events, shown in the car crash towards the end. The ending bit with Tommy's dreams is an agnostic's take on both the inevitability of death and the need for someone to continue carrying the torch of "justice/good" in "all that cold, all that dark."

There are certainly people who can explain it better than me, but it is actually a movie with substance, where There Will Be Blood is like a cheap character drama that's done stylistically. But that style is a derivative of other superior filmmaker's styles.

There Will Be Blood is a better movie and undeniably so when you compare both of their source material. I do want to read Oil!, but There Will Be Blood just came out of nowhere.

Fuck

Watch the Croupier if you haven't already.
Clive has been doing Kino since Kino.

>the bad guy
Wow.

Both movies are dank.

I think it comes down to which movie resonates with someone personally, since they are both solid technically.

I hated no country and haven't seen there will be blood, does this thread mean I have to skip there will be blood

>source material as an argument

What does that have to do with the movies?
You can have two very different movies whole both based on the same exact source material (for example Dr. Strangelove and Fail-Safe)
Film is a visual medium first and foremost.

Bookfags are the worst.

Sure, we all know McCarthy at this point.
>Tommy's and his dad's
lol

No Country had more action. It was a genre flick, and obviously a good one. It heavily inspired Hell or High Water, which is even a decent movie. But a genre flick is still a genre flick.

There Will Be Blood managed to make a movie about an early 19th century oil man even more eerie than what you're talking about. That's pure kino.

I wasn't using that in the argument. I was just saying that it adds to the fact.

That said I'm pretty sure I've watched both movies more than you. They're both basically my favorite movies. There Will Be Blood is just more kino.

Eerieness does not mean it's better. And how is NCFOM a genre movie when it subverts genre conventions?
There Will Be Blood is competent, but it's not a good or great movie because there's nothing to it except the strength of the performances and filmmaking, which the former can become overly-hammy and the latter, like I stated previously, is by a filmmaker who is a weak derivative of other filmmaker's styles.

"Kino" is a bastardized term that has been memed to oblivion.

>TWBB is not about survival.

You're right. It's not about surviving, it's about thriving, and the human desire to thrive is infintley more complex than the natural necessity to survive.

Sorry, oscar and cohenfags. PTA takes this one.

>he needs to relate to characters to enjoy a kino

t. Pleb

The fact that it was more eerie when that is clearly all they were going for in Chigurh (it's clearly what McCarthy is going for in a few of his villains), says something about the quality of TWBB's execution.

I'm not the type of person that thinks a movie needs a strong story. I prefer when movies are 'character driven', which both of these movies are.
One uses plot devices like extreme violence and an all too likable character (main character) and still manages to execute only moderately like it was intended. The other movie really manages to turn nothing into something. Everything that it is, it expresses through the performance. You can watch the movie without even realizing that the kid wasn't Daniel's real son.

No Country can be more entertaining, but TWBB is just a better movie. Mind you I'm pitting two of my favorite movies against eachother here.

>manages to turn nothing into something
I disagree

No Country for Old Men is art.

There Will Be Blood is pretending to be art.

The Coen's understand how to deal with complex ideas about the human condition and inject them with comedy and excitement. There Will Be Blood is a great film, but unlike PTA's other works, he takes it too far, relying on the fact that he's trying to say something important without quite hitting the mark. Daniel is a great character, but the film sort of slogs down, and almost becomes in love with itself. Overacting, and lavish sets don't add to the film's ideas, and sometimes makes it come off as pretentious.

I think Chigurgh has a lot more humanity to him that we often say. Yes yes he's a symbol for fate or whatever, but I always imagined just a guy so afraid of death, that he tries to make himself above it by becoming this killer psycho. Yet, there's so much fear and humanity in the car crash. Even a little scene like that, makes him just as effective of a character as Daniel. Maybe not as fleshed out as Daniel, but not every character has to be so extensive to be as effective.

Compared to what? The bubonic plague?

DRAAAAAAAAAAAINAGE, ELI

retard

Compared to hwat?
>fixed it for you

>NCFOM even in the contest

that year was TWBB vs TAOJJBTCRF.

TWBB= Sup Forums
NCFOM= reddit

prove me wrong

Worst line in the movie, worst performance.
Woody Harrelson is usually bad though. I think I've only ever liked him in true detective.
Glad he dies after like 8 minutes of screen time in No Country for Old Men.

TWBB=imdb
NCFOM=Sup Forums

objectively wrong

he was alright
but yeah that was the worst line in the movie

Said in the script he was impotent

>Danial Day Lewis isn't American
I was genuinely suprised

So are you saying both are shitty contrarian ?

He liked drinking milkshakes a little bit too much.

>NCFOM
>TWBB
>Spidey 3

What a kino year.

He didn't seem very afraid.
The time he shows the most humanity is his interaction with the gas station owner. He mocks him, showing personality and his facial expression when after he says '..which it is' about the coin shows actual humor. That last part I feel like is actually the most out of line with his character, and it's what the Coen's added in.

What?

Woody put a little too much personality in the character but Woody has personality. That's what makes him a good actor, just not the best fit for this character, and he didn't get to show off much of anything in True Detective.

True Detective as a series is good. I actually liked the second season. But it tries way too hard to be edgy.

Just too much for the world.

youtube.com/watch?v=cHuSRHxBgUg

This scene is one of the best in any movie. I literally quoted it to my ex without telling her and even when I told her after she agreed it's what I really think.

Hell or High Water shat on both of them.

I love both of them, but slightly prefer TWBB.

2007 was so fucking good though. Aside from the kino already mentioned, I'm Not There is masterful, especially if you actually know some shit about Bob Dylan.

But there was no oil in no country for oldmen

There will be blood.
No country for old men relies too much on breaking down your expectations.