Let the decade old debate begin anew. Blood or No Country?

Let's ask the oscars.

No Country is good, TWBB is overrated shit

>>83987998
I've never understood why this is a debate? Because they came out in the same year? They're both good movies dealing with different themes and having different tonal characteristics.

>>83988855
Anderson screwed up a day's shoot with the derrick scene and the Coen bros have never gotten over it.

File: No-Country-Coin-Toss-300x194.jpg (13KB, 300x194px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x194px

>>83987998
With the exception of this scene they're becoming the same movie in my mind.

Now just call it.

>>83988731
>oscars
i stopped believing in that shit long ago. they only approve pc shit now. the whole fiasco at the most recent one should tell you a lot.

>>83987998
my vote's for no country for old men. there will be blood wouldn't be a great movie without daniel day-lewis

>>83988958
Dubs.

>>83987998
The Wrestler

>>83987998
there will be blood is a complete rip off of days of heaven, but stripped of the humanity, so it's a materialist update for the technogogue set

My vote is definitely for No Country for Old Men. I think it's a much more intricate piece, where There Will Be Blood is a little broader and a bit more played to the gallery.

I love both and I like Bardem and Day-Lewis a lot, like everyone else, but I still appreciate No Country more as a movie. I think I like There Will be Blood's aesthetic a bit more, because I like older period pieces more, but overall I think it appeals to me less as a movie

File: ncfomhold.jpg (62KB, 576x335px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 576x335px

>>83988995
wrong

>>83989125
You don't have to do this. I'm just a shitposter.

File: hddded.jpg (31KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x360px

>>83989160
Yes I do.You've been shitposting your whole life.

TWBB.
Anybody saying No Country is nothing more than an edgy pleb with shit taste and the cognitive abilities of a woman when it comes to understanding film.

>>83989242
The digits don't mean anything. It's just you.

>>83988988

And No Country for Old Men wouldn't be the same without Javier Bardem. But which character was written with more depth? As long as a good actor played Daniel Plainview I'd dare say the movie would still be great based on the character alone. I personally can't feel the same about No Country. It's Javier Bardem or bust.

>>83987998
There Will Be Old Men.

>>83987998
I have to know, why are these two films always compared against each other? They're not even similar.

>>83989243
TWBB is shit w/o D-Day, nigger.

>>83987998
No Country, but both are essential neo-Western kino

>>83989724
>They're not even similar.
Sure they are. For starters:
They have similar slow paced, dark atmosphere.
Came out the same year.
Bad guy wins in the end.

If you can't surmise why there's comparisons, you're just being obtuse.

>>83989724

Filmed in the same year, filming shared locations, both had a single character that defined the movie, both kino. Both shared similar tones as well even though the plots were completely different.

>>83989793
>Bad guy wins in the end.
I haven't seen No Country but this doesn't describe TWBB.

>>83989693
if you took out bardem and put in let's say norton or oldman, you'd still have the other characters in the movie to base the film. if you did the same for there will be blood, it would change the whole movie. there will be blood is based on day-lewis' performance if not the character as a whole. no country for old men is based on the tale of a briefcase full of money. i see what you're saying, but i don't agree with it.

>>83989795

It's like the Kino-off of the century

>>83989243
What did he mean by this?

>almost no score at all
>score as an extremely prominent part

Which do you prefer?

>>83987998

No Country is better and holds up to repeated viewings more.

>>83990138

Obviously score. An amazing score can turn a great movie into a masterpiece and a good movie into a great movie.