due to a recent post by an lj-friend, I've decided to address a very serious controversy which has wracked movie-goers for the last year or so.  "no country for old men" vs "there will be blood".  and.  the ENDINGS.

i will admit it, the ending of "there will be blood" was brilliant.  was positively shakespearean in its outrageous marriage of comedy and tragedy.  i loved it and i could watch it over and over again.

when i saw "no country", howls of discontent rose in the theater when it ended, and i just didn't see why.  while the ending wasn't affirmative, it was sublime, and in its lack of plot-resolution it did an amazing job of providing resolution on a grander scale.  all the killing and the fear and the gore and adventure of human life boils down to a dream about our progenitor, related over linoleum.  it didn't just sum up the question of whether or not they ever catch javier bardem - it summed up human nature.  

and in its way, it too was extremely shakespearean, in the way it ended with potential rather than a point.  and come to think of it, it wasn't that different from "blood" - we don't know what "happens" there either, but we know what daniel plainview is really all about. 

okay, so that's my (i think fairly unbiased) pontification, and i want some other thoughts.  some eloquent or not eloquent arguments for which one is better.  or just some gentle musings on two very ungentle but awesome films.  go.