I think that There Will Be Blood was a clearly superior film.

I think they were both failures. In the process of turning the book into the movie, Old Men became a movie about Chigurrh. It's a decent movie, but there's a ton of movies, good and bad, about Chigurrh types. And Blood has Paul Dano, a huge sucking hole in the middle of the last two-thirds of the film. I have a friend who claims that Blood is meant to be a comedy, and so it's possible I'm misreading it. It kind of makes sense, because Dano's death scene reminded me of Gene Wilder.

But, yes, The Master has the potential to be a Great American Movie.

Except for the parts where I dozed off, There Will be Blood was awesome. But. . . Cormac McCarthy + Cohen Brothers edges out Anderson + Daniel Day Lewis for me. There Will Be Blood was just a little too ponderous in the Ponderous Movie genre.

Been Kindling this:

Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion

by Janet Reitman

https://kindle.amazon.com/work/inside-sc…

The problems with the ending of There Will Be Blood -- the fact that Paul Dano's character hasn't aged at all, the over-the-top milkshake monologue that's pretty impossible not to laugh at -- prevent it from being considered a brilliant movie, but it is a great movie. It's far more difficult to find any fault with No Country for Old Men, which is truly amazing.

I totally agree Paul. There Will be Blood is a masterpiece, and I stand by that statement with each viewing of the movie (which I do often), and a knowledge that its scope, performances, and soundtrack push it into the category of something truly amazing. Jesus, the first ten minutes alone!

I'd be more excited about Anderson's new project if it featured anyone but the gaping black hole known as Philip Seymour Hoffman -- the least interesting actor of his generation.

There Will Be Blood is absolutely a work of genius. I remember sitting in the movie theater and catching my own mouth hanging open after the opening sequence in the mine, thinking, oh, fuck, this is already amazing.

I loved No Country and have watched it several times, but There Will Be Blood is in a different category altogether. If PTA isn't the best director of his generation, I don't know who is.

Jesus, the first ten minutes alone!

I KNOW, I KNOW, RIGHT!?

In both films, you have great writing, great acting (but yes, Paul Dano not aging was odd) and great direction.

That said, No Country for Old Men just didn't hold together for me. I felt bored a couple of times as the thing played itself out.

What I Iiked about There Will Be Blood is the historical fiction aspect of it and the sheer "where is this going and what happens next" aspect. I also did feel like laughing at inappropriate times but I suspect there were other people who felt that as well.

I couldn't recommend either film to many of my friends who just can't take violence. Both of these are tough films to watch and not for the faint of heart.

Here's hoping there'll be enough about Jack Parsons in it.

No Country is the best film adaptation since American Psycho.
Blood was simply a jerking off of DDL's acting talent with little actual substance.
Still, looking forward to this new project. PSH can act, btw.

Magnolia is my favorite PT Anderson movie. It is everything tha people who like Crash (there are a few) think that film was. Also love the Aimee Mann soundtrack.

Coincidentally, these two movies were filmed at the same time, very close to one another, in Texas. No Country for Old Men actually had to halt filming when the oil derrick in There Will Be Blood was set on fire because the blaze was showing up in their shots. I think that's some kind of cool movie trivia.

Yaaay PT Anderson! I'm so excited too, and I love all of his movies, especially Magnolia. So of course I'd choose There Will Be Blood over No Country for Old Men, because of Daniel Day Lewis's performance and the last (controversial) scene. And the little boy is super cute too. I think it's also really cool that he's with Maya Rudolph (although I can't imagine PT laughing).

I love both movies, but I've watched NCFOM several more times than I've watched TWBB. I'm stoked for The Master though. Can't wait!

Both movies are exceptional. Poster #2 doesn't know how to watch movies if he thinks NCFOM is about Chigur. Also his post is aptly numbered because it is shit.

Oh my fucking GOD am I excited for this movie. Not only the topic matter, but it's going to look gorgeous as well.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/s…

@2: "I have a friend who claims that Blood is meant to be a comedy"

TWBB is darkly comedic at several points, but it is absolutely not a comedy. And it is certainly heavy-handed, but stylistically so. How could you have a movie about myopic obsession without being a little heavy-handed? The movie is all-consuming and burns with life and anger and passion.

I enjoyed NCFOM and love the Cohens, but it didn't have the same giddy lasting power for me.

I agree that it's hard to put into words why TWBB seems so clearly, to its proponents, like the superior film, when No Country is so obviously good.

When I finish watching a Cohen Brothers movie, I stand up, brush the popcorn off, and think, damn, but that was a deftly rendered bit of entertainment, why can't more movies be like that.

When I finish a PTA movie, I sit there as the credits role and think: dude. What the. I need to talk to someone about this or I'll never sleep tonight.

@22 -- I feel the opposite way. I haven't re-watched No Country for a couple years, but when I think of it, the first thing that comes to mind is Tommy Lee Jones' character sitting at the table and recounting the dream of his father, right before the screen goes black. That ending was so unexpected and powerful, like a simultaneous WOW and WHHA? To me, There Will Be Blood pushes it too far and unravels in the end, and it's frustrating to watch for that reason, since the rest of the film is so amazing. Then again, I see other people here referring to its "controversial" ending and citing that as one of the reasons they love it. Maybe a film that's a bit divisive and "controversial" is more likely to be remembered as a masterpiece than one so difficult to find any fault with.

@23: " To me, There Will Be Blood pushes it too far and unravels in the end, and it's frustrating to watch for that reason, since the rest of the film is so amazing. Then again, I see other people here referring to its "controversial" ending and citing that as one of the reasons they love it."

I have zero issues with the ending, really. It ended just as it needed to, I don't understand what was "controversial" about it.

I know I'm being pedantic, but there's no "h" in that name, people! They aren't some weird cult duo anymore.