Quote:
Originally Posted by alkytrio666
I still disagree with you there. There Will Be Blood had Oscar written all over it. Long. Great performances. Epic feeling. But No Country For Old Men had something to say- it was culturally significant. It was daring and provocative. Its Best Picture victory proved that the Academy doesn't necessarily always pick the picture that was born to be beautiful.
|
Ah, this discussion again, I see? :p
I'll agree that No Country is a great movie, and I'll admit that it's nice to see the Academy giving recognition to something that's beyond their usual sensibilities. However, I think it goes down to one fundamental fact: TWBB is just an all-around better movie. Better acted, better written, better directed...just overall better.
Yes, No Country might technically be a little bit "deeper", but if you dont think There Will Be Blood was culturally significant, you really need to watch it again. It might not have had as much to say about the human condition in general, but it touched on some meaty issues all the same, I daresay was more topical and current, despite being a period piece.
TWBB has a full cast of brilliant actors. Day-Lewis is an obvious pick and fully deserved his Oscar (of course), but even the supporting cast was incredible. Paul Dano, Kevin J. O'Connor...Dillon Freasier has to be one of the greatest child actors that I've ever seen. You have to admit that despite some powerhouse performances, No Country certainly had some weak links - Kelly Macdonald stands out in that respect, barring her final scene. And whoever played her mother was just laughably over the top.
I'd never, ever, ever go so far as to sday that No Country for Old Men is anything less than an amazing movie, or that it didnt deserve the awards that it won. I just think that There Will Be Blood deserved them more, thats all:p ;)