we can agree that this is the best movie and male acting

SSSHLLLRRP

Best film of the century so far.

>>64560771
>male acting

you mean paul dano?

File: 1406704250594.jpg (19KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 250x250px

yes

>plebs thought no country was the better movie that year

The assassination of Jesse James was better in ever aspect and if you're as intelligent as you think you are you'd know this already.

Yes, but it doesn't have much competition.

You could even expand it to the past 20 years and it still wouldn't have too much competition.

File: pepetimeisrunningout.jpg (53KB, 550x366px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 550x366px

>>64560936
It was. But only marginally. They're both very fine films.

>tfw both these films are almost 9 years old

>>64561062

no it isn't, people just liked it more because 'muh coens'

>seen this posted numerous times on /tv/, always held in high regard
>watch it a couple of weeks back
>it's above average, but barely

Which is to say it's better than an average blockbuster, but not close to the best movie in the last decade. It's central point and the character of Daniel Day-Lewis felt shallow. You get what's happening and where it's going to lead within the first 30 minutes. The problem is that the journey to that point just isn't worth the ride, for the most part.

Good acting, I'll agree.

>>64561105

I just think it's a better crafted film, albeit marginally. It being made by the Coens is inconsequential to me thinking it's a better film.

>>64560936
>>64561062
>>64561105
Blood falls apart in the third act, Day Lewis tries a bit too hard, and its structure and dynamic is so flat and conventional. No Country has a magic vibe to it, it's not just a good story amazingly directed. I has something unsetteling and incomprehensible about it, it's more shocking and original.