I agree with the author on many of the things said. And I won't state another opinion for/against NCFOM or TWBB.
Just one small remark about something else. The comment on Atonement is very unprofessional and misplaced. It is one of the purest and most touching pictures over the last 20 years...

Dan, Cologne, Germany

No Country is masterful in it's craftsmanship of the film making process. Many people will want to pegion hole this movie because of the elements involved, but you can't, it's bigger than it seems, the ending resonating with the themes of the movie to create a profound note about dealing with violence in society. If you don't get it then maybe you're more interested in simple entertainment movies than you thought. That's not what this is, though it's mastery of suspense will certainly entertain any viewer while the ending will reward those paying more attention.

There Will be Blood's film style is more straight talking, but the story, both regarding the coming of the oil age and the main character's inner struggle, need it to be so. The themes the movie deals with are epic and interchangeable between their contexts. It's not simply about greed and religion but the troubles that lie beneath the surface of ourselves and the earth.

Forget the this wins over that rubbish.

Ross, Southampton, UK

NCFOM is a REALISITC movie; that's why it has no ending or hardly any music in it. It is sort of a mixture between a documentary, a piece of art and a an ordinary story. Unlike an ancient drama - and basically every BIG US movie ever made - it has not a simple design: build-up - climax - resolve; or music, there is hardly need for music to add emphasis. Viewers used to this tradition will find they, i.e. this predictable structure and the music, are lacking, but then they might just be unable to reflect their viewing habits. In NCFOM, the pictures stand or speak for themselves. - From this point of view, TWBB is just another movie; NCFOM, however, is a moving transgression: proably the best movie I have ever seen.

Tony Melonee, Newstad, East Twickenham

It seems a divisive subject, I think both films had flaws, but by god they also had moments of sheer brilliance. Stop fighting and thank God oil and money that Hollywood is finally making movies that offer an alternative to Spandex Muppets jumping off buildings in dumb costumes. Mr Anderson and Messrs Coen, I salute you. PS. Daniel Day Lewis can overblow it all he likes in my opinion. More of the same please!!

Tom, Dublin, Ireland

Mr. Christopher, without meaning to offend, I think you are one of the critics caught up in the phenomenon more commonly known as "The Emperor's New Clothes" when it comes to the movie There Will Be Blood. You complain that you could not understand the last reel of No Country For Old Men, but without the vapid and pretentious movie that you champion? There Will Be Blood looks like it's about something but the pieces don't add up. It looks like art. It appears to be about something. But in the end, it's merely a dull movie by a technically skilled but overrated filmmaker that desperately wants to make a movie about something but has nothing to say.

cinemoose.com/there-will-be-blood-and-the-emperors-new-clothes/

Cinemoose, Los Angeles, CA, USA

I cannot fathom the movie critics' fawning adoration of Daniel Day-Lewis. In my view his performances are pretentious and over done. In fact I wonder if he & Nic Cage were separated at birth.

But I digress. One of the joys of movies is that people will draw different conclusions. Ten years ago I winced as the Academy showered awards on the appalling Titanic, but I'm pleased to say that on this occasion thier votes have been more sensibly cast.

No Country For Old Men was easily the most accomplished creation of the year and deserved it's Oscar. If you had even bothered to read your peers' reviews, let alone McCarthy's book you would appreciate the bravery of the Coen Brothers' decision to reproduce the original ending.

But this is all moot. Pirates of the Caribbean turned the biggest money last year so my 8-year old nephew was probably right to judge that the best movie of 2007 and who are we to argue with that logic..?

John, Bournemouth,

There Will Be Blood is one of the most pretentious films I have ever seen, and I am happy it didn't get the Oscar.

Day Lewis's performance was overblown, and he should not have had the Oscar either.

My opinion!!

Martin Lovett, London, UK

THERE WILL BE BLOOD was robbed!!! One of the best movies EVER and without a shadow of a doubt and by a COUNTRY mile - the best film of the year....

Aranya Syed, London, England

Marion Cotillard was so fabulous as Edith Piaf and if she had not won the oscar for her performance there would be no justice. How a young girl could act like this is wonderful, I just imagined Edith Piaf on the screen, and could not believe a young girl could portray such a complex character. A wonderful film

elaine, Brighton, UK

The role of Piaf in LA VIE EN ROSE was much more challenging; Cotillard submerged her own star quality to bring her character to life. It is a bravura performance and will become iconic. Julie Christie's work has always been terrific; hers was a smaller film where delicacy was the goal, but it could not compete with the requirements of Cotillard's movie. Moreover, there was some distress in the US over the fact that voters at the SAG Awards received copies of AWAY FROM HER but not LA VIE EN ROSE, thus making Chistie the shoo-in for Best Actress. Once Oscar voters saw the French film, they simploy made the choice between the two, and (I think rightly) chose the more difficult performance. Also, Cotillard is a highly accessible person, charming, young, and gorgeous; none of this hurt her. But remember that she arrived for the Awards Season virtually unknown. Brava, Marion; a righteous choice. From anonymous to world-famous in three nights -- a true Hollywood story.

Kit van Cleave, Houston, TX/USA