Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: The Firecracker on August 25, 2007, 01:57:42 PM



Title: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 25, 2007, 01:57:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYW2ltW5SPo


Despite the title it Looks kinda talky.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: marmota-b on August 25, 2007, 02:05:43 PM
I watched it without sound... :P ... but the fire reminded me of one Winnetou film. ::)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 25, 2007, 02:12:16 PM
I just realized Paul Thomas Anderson is attached to direct. Not very excited anymore as I'm not a fan of his.
"Magnolia" was okay (the beginning was the best part) but PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE is one of the most tedious films I have ever sat through.



Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 25, 2007, 08:50:37 PM
The trailer makes it look boring.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 25, 2007, 09:35:44 PM
The trailer makes it look boring.


I liked the dialogue but it will probably be dry and dull due to the director.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 29, 2007, 07:58:16 AM
Not really a Western, apparently: http://www.variety.com/blog/1390000339/post/960015096.html


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 29, 2007, 08:05:17 AM
I saw the comming attractions, its more in the vein of a Zapata/Bonnie & Clyde/Matewan, but it looks good.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on September 29, 2007, 08:36:11 AM
It's a Paul Thomas Anderson film so it will not be boring to me. I love guy's films, and I think his direction is brilliant. I can't wait for this.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on September 29, 2007, 08:51:23 AM
I found a review for this film. Amazing review. Read on...

http://www.cinematical.com/2007/09/28/fantastic-fest-review-there-will-be-blood/



Oh sure, we've got Paul Thomas Anderson all figured out by now. After four very fine films -- Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love -- we've surely got the filmmaker's number by now: He makes strangely sweet and slyly witty ensemble pieces, right? So then what's he doing making an adaptation of Upton Sinclair's massive tome Oil!? A straight-faced period piece in which the most recognizable names are Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano? This is not what we've come to expect from good ol' Paul T. Anderson!

And I suppose that's what makes the director's There Will Be Blood such a stunning surprise. It's more than a "departure" for the director; it's a monumental display of "evolution" that'll wow the established fans and impress a helluva lot more new ones. This is a dark, compelling and effortlessly engrossing film, one bolstered by a lead performance that ranks among the very best of Lewis' impressive career.

The film will most often be compared to Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, so I guess I can get the ball rolling on that particular crutch -- but it's also an apt comparison. Which is not to say that There Will Be Blood will necessarily be dissected and revered 75 years from now, but the stories are certainly similar enough. Anderson's film opens with a long passage of dialog-free footage: A lone man hacks his way through a mine using a pick-ax and some dynamite. The year is 1898, and Daniel Planview is about to become an oil man. We witness the man's unwavering resolve as he pulls himself from a vertical shaft after breaking his leg in a fall -- and if you think that accomplishment displayed some tenacity ... just wait.

The 160-minute film covers Plainview's journey from rock-scratcher to oil tycoon as it runs over the course of 29 years. And while it might come as no surprise to learn that Plainview loses more of his soul with every package of professional success, the way in which this potentially predictable story unfolds is nothing short of hypnotic. Although our hero(?) struggles through numerous adversities and obstacles, his main combatant comes in the form of a young preacher named Eli Sunday. The young man seems to be well-aware of Plainview's rather mercenary approach to the oil game, so when the two butt heads over the oil beneath the Sundays' soil -- their battle of wills becomes some sort of epic clash: The rise of wealth and industry versus the sanctity of religion and faith.

Only ... the wealthy industrialist is kind of a crook -- and the preacher is sort of a schemer. So already we're dealing with conflicts, contradictions and a supremely satisfying sense of ambiguity. We should be rooting against the businessman, but we don't. And although it seems logical to side with the aspiring young preacher, there's something about the kid we just don't like. So what I'm basically saying is this: There Will Be Blood boasts one hell of a fantastic screenplay.

And gosh what a beautiful film to look at. The turn-of-the-century Texas landscape has rarely looked this, well, real, and Anderson paints his canvas with some masterful strokes. The establishing shot that introduces the central town is nothing short of stunning, and there are numerous sequences that simply dazzle the eye. Cinematographer Robert Elswit -- a frequent PTA collaborator -- should be preparing his "it's an honor just to be nominated" speech right now. And the musical score by Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood is more than a separate character in the film; the stunning score feels more like an aural Greek chorus.

Which brings us to the lead performance by the force of nature known as Daniel Day Lewis. One could cal his Plainview a cross between Charles Foster Kane and Al Swearengen: Driven to succeed, willing to cast aside anyone who becomes a liability, brutal yet human, undeniable nasty yet somehow worthy of some empathy. And Mr. Lewis delivers an anchor of a performance that's as multi-faceted as it is simply plain old entertaining. And I hate to overuse the Oscar predictions, but if there's a better 2007 lead performance ... I'd simply love to see it.

Easily one of the year's best films (so far), There Will Be Blood presents a side of Paul Thomas Anderson that we haven't really seen yet -- but it's proof positive that he's still one of the finest directors out there right now. You probably won't believe that this film came from the same man who directed (the awesome) Boogie Nights, and I mean that as a big compliment. It's just that different -- and just that damned good.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on September 29, 2007, 01:00:03 PM
This is not really a western in the traditional sense, but it's close enough. This film is going to win multiple awards, I can bet you anything. The buzz on this is amazing. Here's another trailer from youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37BwmU1Am1I


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 30, 2007, 02:23:37 PM
This is not really a western in the traditional sense, but it's close enough.
I guess "Giant" is close enough also?


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: lovelyrita on September 30, 2007, 02:37:59 PM
It hasn't been released yet, I in fact saw the trailer also. But how can you make assumptions and that is what they are until you see it. It did have a western feel to it. We shall see. It will be interesting to see if Daniel Day Lewis showers us with another Oscar worthy performance.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on September 30, 2007, 02:40:21 PM
I guess "Giant" is close enough also?

What are you talking about jenkins. I just said it's not a traditional western, which it isn't, and again you have to be a wise ass. Geez.  ::)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 30, 2007, 02:52:16 PM
My point is that it is not a Western in any sense, traditional or otherwise. I'm not being a wise ass (at least, not only), I'm trying to insist on semantic precision.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on September 30, 2007, 03:16:06 PM
My point is that it is not a Western in any sense, traditional or otherwise. I'm not being a wise ass (at least, not only), I'm trying to insist on semantic precision.

I agree it's not a western, but it appears to have that western setting is all I'm saying.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 30, 2007, 05:43:01 PM
Take a film like "Legends of the Fall" its not really a Western either, we should come up with some kind of description for these.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on September 30, 2007, 05:54:38 PM
Take a film like "Legends of the Fall" its not really a Western either, we should come up with some kind of description for these.

I actually think LEGENDS has a lot of traditional western elements in it though. But, you're right cigar, it's not a full blown western film.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on September 30, 2007, 05:57:15 PM
Quote
I actually think LEGENDS has a lot of traditional western elements in it though. But, you're right cigar, it's not a full blown western film.

  This might not apply to the whole movie, but its kind of a "chick western" and I don't mean that in a negative way. :)  Lots of romance, love story, that kind of thing.  It is a good movie though.

  That last shootout at the end, very Godfather-esque, even has elements of Peckinpah with the use of slow motion as the police are shot down.  Great performances all around as well, Pitt, Hopkins and Quinn.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on September 30, 2007, 05:59:00 PM
  This might not apply to the whole movie, but its kind of a "chick western" and I don't mean that in a negative way. :)  Lots of romance, love story, that kind of thing.  It is a good movie though.

  That last shootout at the end, very Godfather-esque, even has elements of Peckinpah with the use of slow motion as the police are shot down.  Great performances all around as well, Pitt, Hopkins and Quinn.

I personally love LEGENDS OF THE FALL. It won an academy award for it's gorgeous cinematography and rightfully so. I know it's a little overboard with the romance but I don't mind it. Nothing wronng with romance! You're right about the great performances as well Ben Tyreen!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on December 04, 2007, 04:48:09 PM
It's getting closer to the release date. I'm getting excited! I'm still hearing great things about this film.  :)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on December 04, 2007, 04:57:17 PM
Haven't seen it yet, but it gets 9/10 on IMBD (again, I know... IMBD...). But still, more than GBU... This aggression will not stand.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 04, 2007, 11:12:10 PM
Haven't seen it yet, but it gets 9/10 on IMBD (again, I know... IMBD...). But still, more than GBU... This aggression will not stand.


new releases, that get a lot of fanfare, always have high scores on IMDB because fanboys like to use alternate accounts to boost the ratings.

Give it about 6 months before you can get the actual rating.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on December 05, 2007, 09:49:40 AM

new releases, that get a lot of fanfare, always have high scores on IMDB because fanboys like to use alternate accounts to boost the ratings.

Give it about 6 months before you can get the actual rating.

That's true, but I somehow think this film will have a high rating when all said in done.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on December 05, 2007, 10:13:48 AM
That's true, but I somehow think this film will have a high rating when all said in done.

It's you, ha? Be honest!  ;D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Cusser on December 05, 2007, 11:12:02 AM
Most of the public can't remember any films over 6 months old as ever existing. 


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on December 05, 2007, 02:41:48 PM
Most of the public can't remember any films over 6 months old as ever existing. 

It's because 80% (if not more) of the members on IMBD don't go there to talk about about movies. It's just an excuse for squabbling. It's why I don't go there anymore.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 06, 2007, 04:29:12 AM
This aggression will not stand.

You're right Dude. This is not 'nam, these are movies, their are rules.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on December 06, 2007, 08:34:40 AM
You're right Dude. This is not 'nam, these are movies, their are rules.

Hehe, funny guy Jean-Pierre.  :D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on December 29, 2007, 05:03:20 AM
I saw the trailer the day before yesterday when I went to see 3:10 to Yuma. It looked actually pretty promising O0 But I have quite a few movies already on my to-see-list and too little money in my pockets so I'm not sure if I'm going to see this one. Maybe if it comes to the smaller and cheaper theater near to me...   


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on December 31, 2007, 08:36:15 PM
Here's a review from my good friend who seen it in NYC.

I must say that this film got me hooked during the first 20 minutes. I'v heard that PTA wanted to make something simular to "2001: A Space Odyssey." Well he came very close. The first 20 minutes has NO dialogue. Which was just perfect for the introduction of one of the most evil, and hateful characters that I have ever seen. But what makes it simular to "2001??" Well just think of the men as the apes, and the oil as the Monolith. The difference, is that the Monolith gave more life to humanity, thus creating more intelligence. Oil brings death, destruction, greed, and blood. This film doesn't make a political statement, it's already there in Anderson's direction. He makes the soul look like a sickness. A diseaser that came straight out of hell, to consume humanity's soul.

Now is "There Will Be Blood" Anderson's greatest achievement?? YES. It's also the best film of this decade, and it's definitly the best film of 2007. Sure, the protaganist is not that likeable. But he's very realistic, and authentic. Mostly due to Daniel Day Lewis's tour de force performance. The man is not an actor, he is a force of nature. He wasn't acting in this masterpiece, he was possessed by some kind of demon. He delives one of the greatest performances of all time. Is it up there with what Deniro did in his prime?? YES. Is it up there with what Brando did in "The Godfather??" YES. Is it up there with what Pacino, Burton, and O'Toole use to do in their primes?? Of course. Infact, I will say he is even more talented then Deniro, and Pacino. Acting is a tough job, but he makes it look so easy to immerse yourself into your characters, while staying in character throughout the entire film.

Paul Dano was equally wonderful as well. He played the priest, who was also a con artist. He brought alot of innocence to his role. But he also let you know that his character is not a saint. And by the end of the film, he's just as bad as Daniel. Infact, you get to see things from Daniel's point of view. Thus understanding why he hates people. Everywhere he goes, he finds somebody who doesn't match his view of goodness. People lie to him, hit him, steele from him, and betray his trust. He wants to see something good in people, but he always gets dissapointed. He was an evil monster. But he was an evil monster that I could understand, and even sympathize with.

PTA has taken his directing to a whole new level. His motion tracking is not evident in this film at all. He paces the film beautifully, with long shots, and long tracking shots as well. His direction in "There Will Be Blood" is very simular to the likes of Kubrick, Malick, and Peter Weir. He made this masterpiece in the way that he wanted to make it. And he trusts the intelligence of film-goers to appreciate his art. He doesn't dumb down his films for a lesser audience. And I'm so happy that filmmakers like him still exist in this world of ADD, MTV, ADD editing, and acid editing.


The audience that I saw this film with, seemed to love it. There was an applause towards the end, and everybody loved Daniel Day Lewis's performance. If he doesn't win the oscar, then the world really is ending(lol). And "There Will Be Blood" is an instand classic. It will be compared to other masterpieces like "Citizen Kane", and "The Godfather." But it won't just be compared to American films. It will also be compared to the works of Tarkovsky, Bergman, Leone, and Kurosawa. I hope PTA will keep this up. Because right now, he is a master filmmaker.

I give "There Will Be Blood" a 10/10.

P.S: I would like to mention that the score was both wonderful, and haunting at the same time.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 01, 2008, 12:10:19 AM
TB, you can tell your friend that he gave me my first boner of 2008.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 01, 2008, 08:28:08 AM
TB, you can tell your friend that he gave me my first boner of 2008.

LOL, no problem rrpower. This kid has great taste in film, and from what I know, he's very hard to give a film a 10. This film must be fantastic. There's been many reviews just like this I've seen all over the net from many critics. Why is this film on limited release damnit!?!?! I need to see it.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 01, 2008, 02:42:25 PM
Hey, that review does what a positive review of a movie should do: makes me want to see the film.  O0 I'm also glad he mentioned the music; a review without such a mention is always incomplete.

Drawing the parallel with 2001 is an interesting idea, but he kind of spoils it with this: "The difference, is that the Monolith gave more life to humanity, thus creating more intelligence. Oil brings death, destruction, greed, and blood." Huh? As many have pointed out, the Monolith brings intelligence, and then the man-apes are able to use bone-tools to kill their enemies. Thus, the Monolith brings "death, destruction, greed, and blood." The parallel between 2001 and There Will Be Blood is actually stronger than the guy knows! He had an opportunity to ace this thesis, but faulted. You may want to pass this criticism on to him . . .

Anyway, I was vascillating about whether to see this or not (I'm not much of a PTA fan--well, Hard 8 was okay), but I'm sure gonna put this on my list now.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 02, 2008, 08:44:25 PM
Then again, maybe I won't.

Quote
JANUARY 2, 2008

ARMOND WHITE
A GUILT-SOAKED EPIC


There Will Be Blood
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson


“No!” is the first word spoken in There Will Be Blood, and it should be the last said in response to Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest pretend epic. That obstinate “No!” is Daniel Plainview’s refusal to accept the fate awaiting him when he falls on his back and breaks a leg in his California silver mine in 1898. “No!” startles our concentration on the mystery of who he is and what he’s doing. The lonely willfulness of an American pioneer is also the stubborn tenacity of a born isolate and naysayer.
As Daniel Day Lewis plays the part, Plainview is also a ferocious psychopath. His curious position as There Will Be Blood’s central character makes one recall the question Paul Newman asks in his soliloquy in Robert Altman’s Buffalo Bill and the Indians: “How come you took him to be a hero?”

The key problem of There Will Be Blood is that Anderson takes Plainview to be a hero—personifying everything that’s wrong in American character: greed, selfishness, stinginess and unchecked ambition. He’s a shock-and-awe hero who reduces all to shame. Mounting a large-scaled epic around such a characterization would be unthinkable before the 2000 presidential election unleashed the Left’s rage, and yet Altman-acolyte Anderson isn’t asking sympathy (like Altman did in his Richard Nixon movie, Secret Honor) because Blood is a guilt-soaked epic. Americans are meant to identify with Plainview for the worst aspects of themselves.

That makes the movie an oddball showcase for Day Lewis. His twisted charisma and commanding skill galvanize the 30-year plot developments and the parade of sketchy subordinate characters: a charlatan preacher, Eli (Paul Dano); an estranged brother (Kevin J. O’Connor) and a loyal but deaf adopted son (Russell Harvard). Plainview’s family-narrative tree suggests what Pauline Kael said about Days of Heaven: You can hang all your old metaphors on it. It’s never clear what Anderson intends these characters to mean—for Plainview or us. The movie’s interest lies simply in how Plainview reacts to them. Day Lewis digs deep into primordial madness—evoking Western culture’s most memorable freaks from Prospero to Captain Ahab to Gordon Gekko.

Plainview is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta. One must recognize that Day Lewis’ is also a postmodern comic turn. He gives Plainview the insinuating growl of John Huston’s Noah Cross in Chinatown—a Biblical allusion already tied to both Hollywood dynastic history and the corrupt pioneer spirit. And because Anderson anxiously pitches himself into American cinema tradition, Day Lewis’ flinty characterization resembles the same obdurate old man that Jason Robards Jr. etched so magnificently in Anderson’s overweening Magnolia—only Day-Lewis has two and a half hours to do it. A thousand times better than his Gangs of New York butcher, he keeps coming up with actorly surprises from his own British theatrical tradition. The way Plainview shames his son by calling him an “Oooorphan” combines cruelty and self-dramatization in a way that recalls the hammy grandeur of Olivier and Charles Laughton at their best.

There may be no contemporary director more self-dramatizing than Paul Thomas Anderson, always attempting a true epic and this time coming close. But Blood is an insipid epic. Anderson adapts Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel Oil, partly in response to the blood-for-oil arguments about the Iraq War—as if going back to Sinclair’s fictionalized history of the U.S. oil industry explained anything about Americans’ dependence on energy and exploitation of their natural and spiritual resources. But Anderson’s argument isn’t muckraking or cogent. Plainview’s robber-baron immorality and atheism—the way he cheats a family out of its oil-rich land, his cut-throat competitiveness and inability to express love—do not represent the essence of American culture or industry. It’s just nihilistic reaching.

Ironically, Anderson enjoys unearned good will among today’s film nerds. Since the silly Boogie Nights sentimentalized the porn industry with a fake rubber penis, Anderson has been the small white hope for Gen-Xers wishing there was a Griffith, Stroheim, Ford, Wyler, Vidor or Stevens among them. It reveals the naive cynicism that infects today’s movie geeks. (Embarrassingly, There Will Be Blood won IndieWire’s online poll of real and wannabe critics yearning for a film that depicted America as land of the greedy and the home of the great Satan.) Yet, There Will Be Blood isn’t a unifying American epic like Giant or The Best Years of Our Lives; it’s the Worst Years of Our History, a post-Iraq War Termigant.
Anderson’s grandiose narrative gives the impression of depth when there’s only jumbled, surface breadth. It’s strange to watch a confidently-made film by a director who doesn’t know what he’s doing. Each dramatic segment is impressively paced—as if Anderson was showing Stevens how magnanimity ought to be done—but the result is piddling; inexpressive of universality. Have Anderson’s boosters noticed, there are virtually no women in this epic? No single contradiction to Plainview’s masculinist cruelty? None of the richness found in Gone With the Wind, Giant, The Sundowners, Sounder?
Yes, Blood has photographic detail. Cinematographer Robert Elswit records nature more tastefully than the great Roger Deakins’ show-offy work in the fake-epic Jesse James/Robert Ford, instilling genuine visionary heft. And Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood provides a wondrous emotive score, as eclectic as Carl Stalling and expressive as Max Steiner. Musical wit disguises the story’s incoherence—its meaningless siblings, silences and opportunistic sadism.

Yet, Anderson’s story becomes stupidly fashionable in its stacked contest of Plainview vs. Eli, capitalist ruthlessness vs. religious fanaticism. The shabby set-up of Plainview and Eli’s ultimate confrontation in a bowling alley is so confusing and slapdash that their symbolic clash—where one forces the other to confess his shallowness and deny his beliefs—comes across as just secular-progressive prejudice and loopy, unconvincing drama. Each man is a thesis position, not a character. Is There Will Be Blood an undeniable expose of American ruthlessness, or a formidable dramatization of the struggle between power and faith? No!

Volume 21, Issue 1

© 2008 New York Press


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 02, 2008, 09:42:15 PM
See it jenkins! Look at rottentomatoes.com. The film is getting RAVE reviews left and right.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 02, 2008, 09:43:34 PM
sorry for being the village idiot here, but when is this thing coming out?


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 02, 2008, 09:50:19 PM
sorry for being the village idiot here, but when is this thing coming out?

You're not an idiot. The film opened last weekend, but it's limited right now. Hopefully it gets a wide release soon which I'm most certain it will. It's getting OUTSTANDING reviews.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 02, 2008, 10:33:56 PM
Yea but so did "The Assassination of Jesse James...."  :'(


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 03, 2008, 08:21:15 AM
Yea but so did "The Assassination of Jesse James...."  :'(

Exactly. I haven't seen that yet because of the limited release bullcrap! Thankfully it's being released on DVD soon.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 03, 2008, 08:31:14 AM
Exactly. I haven't seen that yet because of the limited release bullcrap! Thankfully it's being released on DVD soon.
Guess who's going to see it on silver screen by shall we say 80% chance.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on January 03, 2008, 08:43:36 AM
Guess who's going to see it on silver screen by shall we say 80% chance.

Your mom. You'll be in bed already.  >:D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 03, 2008, 09:00:40 AM
Your mom. You'll be in bed already.  >:D

hahahaha, poor moviesceleton. Well, his mother can tell him about it later on.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 03, 2008, 09:23:10 AM
Your mom. You'll be in bed already.  >:D
Yea, she promised to tell me how it ends, you know, whether Jesse James dies or not.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 03, 2008, 10:46:07 AM
Yea, she promised to tell me how it ends, you know, whether Jesse James dies or not.

Jesse James dies?!?!?! You bastard, thanks for spoiling it for me! ;)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: marmota-b on January 03, 2008, 12:44:09 PM
Guess who's going to see it on silver screen by shall we say 80% chance.

Me! :D
I hope.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 03, 2008, 12:48:22 PM
Me! :D
I hope.
I know we're running off topic, but when are you going? It opens here tomorrow, but I won't be able to go for a week at least.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: marmota-b on January 03, 2008, 01:31:35 PM
I know we're running off topic, but when are you going? It opens here tomorrow, but I won't be able to go for a week at least.

I was a bit exaggerating. I don't know yet. I only know it had Czech premiere already... or it should have had! I cannot find that it would be playing anywhere now. >:(
But I found Once and Aguirre, the Wrath of God playing in a cinema in Brno. (Now I'm extremely off topic...)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 03, 2008, 03:06:39 PM
I was a bit exaggerating. I don't know yet. I only know it had Czech premiere already... or it should have had! I cannot find that it would be playing anywhere now. >:(
But I found Once and Aguirre, the Wrath of God playing in a cinema in Brno. (Now I'm extremely off topic...)
Oh it was already in September. Probably isn't playing anymore... But Aguirre! I'm moving there. Now.
(I think we'd better end this here. ;D)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on January 05, 2008, 06:28:05 PM
Has anyone seen this yet?

I really want to watch it but it's not playing anywhere near me. Is it worth the trip into the city?


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: titoli on January 05, 2008, 06:46:52 PM
Another western?


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 05, 2008, 06:52:53 PM
Another western?

It's not really a western. I dunno why people continue to post this movie in the western category.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 05, 2008, 08:51:58 PM
I hope to god it comes closer on the 11th (I assume it will, I usually get it a week after limited release).

I must see this movie.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 05, 2008, 11:07:48 PM
It's not really a western. I dunno why people continue to post this movie in the western category.


The turn of the century setting and attire for sure.


There was a special midnight screening down here about a week ago. Missed it. I'm now waiting for the release.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 05, 2008, 11:10:37 PM
It's not really a western. I dunno why people continue to post this movie in the western category.
Actually they don't. They post it here: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=6355.0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 06, 2008, 04:54:31 AM
It's not really a western. I dunno why people continue to post this movie in the western category.
It's more of a western than what No Country for Old Men is.

I really want to watch it but it's not playing anywhere near me. Is it worth the trip into the city?
Judging from the trailer, I'd say it's worth that.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 06, 2008, 11:24:32 AM
A friend of mine saw it in L.A. and said it was not "audience friendly" and "totally uninvolving".


I'll have to see what he means by these statements.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on January 06, 2008, 11:38:56 AM
Judging from the trailer, I'd say it's worth that.

I agree.

But trailers can be deceiving.  ;)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 06, 2008, 11:45:11 AM
I agree.

But trailers can be deceiving.  ;)
True. How long would it take for you to get into the city?


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on January 06, 2008, 11:47:35 AM
True. How long would it take for you to get into the city?

About 1 hour and 15 minutes. Sometimes longer.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 06, 2008, 11:50:12 AM
This is coming to my city on the 18th... ;D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 06, 2008, 11:50:55 AM
About 1 hour and 15 minutes. Sometimes longer.
And cost some money, of course :-\ I'm probably gonna see it over 200km from here (if I'm going to see it at the first place) but I'm going there anyway. And if not there, then probably 60km away... You get the picture where I'm living? ;D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 06, 2008, 11:58:35 AM
And cost some money, of course :-\ I'm probably gonna see it over 200km from here (if I'm going to see it at the first place) but I'm going there anyway. And if not there, then probably 60km away... You get the picture where I'm living? ;D

The boonies? Yikes. When are you going to "The Assassination..."?


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 06, 2008, 12:03:10 PM
The boonies? Yikes. When are you going to "The Assassination..."?
I don't know, probably before There Will Be Blood. Jesse James has opened here already but the other won't be here before late February.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 14, 2008, 08:09:41 PM
There Will Be Blood - 11/10

I'm nuts over this film.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on January 16, 2008, 06:19:18 PM
Coming to San Diego on FRIDAY!! O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 17, 2008, 03:41:49 AM
Coming to San Diego on FRIDAY!! O0

It's been here since last Friday, buddy. I've seen it twice. Friday will be my third venture into Blood. O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 17, 2008, 10:08:25 AM
It's been here since last Friday, buddy. I've seen it twice. Friday will be my third venture into Blood. O0
damn! is it really that good? ive been dieing to see this but unfortunately there isn't a theater nearby enough to convince my parents to drive to. hopefully it'll come to my city soon  :'(.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 17, 2008, 11:27:07 AM
It finally comes here FRIDAY!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 17, 2008, 02:54:12 PM
damn! is it really that good? ive been dieing to see this but unfortunately there isn't a theater nearby enough to convince my parents to drive to. hopefully it'll come to my city soon  :'(.

I really, really liked it. It's very much a movie that deserves a movie-going experience. Definitely don't wait 'til it hits DVD. In the US, so far, it seems to be expanding every Friday, so just keep checking if you live here.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 17, 2008, 03:39:54 PM
TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW

OMG

OMG

OMG

OMG

OMG


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 17, 2008, 03:50:12 PM
TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW

OMG

OMG

OMG

OMG

OMG
O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 17, 2008, 07:35:25 PM
I really, really liked it. It's very much a movie that deserves a movie-going experience. Definitely don't wait 'til it hits DVD. In the US, so far, it seems to be expanding every Friday, so just keep checking if you live here.
yay i think i just found a place nearby that i can go see it at! maybe i can go sunday  O0

EDIT:YES! YES YES YES!!!!!!
i FINALLY found a place real close by that is showing this film. im going either sunday or monday.

I hope this lives up to expectations O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 18, 2008, 08:18:40 PM
There Will Be Blood - 10/10
Wow. Best movie so far of the decade. No performance has been equally as astounding since, well, DDL's last role in Gangs of New York. Without writing a detailed explanation of how perfect this movie is, I'll just do this:

Best Picture
Best Actor
Best Cinematography
Best Score
Best Adapted Screenplay

Almost Best Director, too. Herzog in Rescue Dawn beats out Anderson by a margin.

But seriously. This movie is perfect. Instant access to my TOP 30 of all time.

See this immediately. Don't want for the DVD. Don't even think about waiting for the DVD.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 18, 2008, 08:50:32 PM
There Will Be Blood - 10/10
Wow. Best movie so far of the decade. No performance has been equally as astounding since, well, DDL's last role in Gangs of New York. Without writing a detailed explanation of how perfect this movie is, I'll just do this:

Best Picture
Best Actor
Best Cinematography
Best Score
Best Adapted Screenplay

Almost Best Director, too. Herzog in Rescue Dawn beats out Anderson by a margin.

But seriously. This movie is perfect. Instant access to my TOP 30 of all time.

See this immediately. Don't want for the DVD. Don't even think about waiting for the DVD.

I agree. Glad you liked it as much as me. I'm just about to see if for the third time tonight. O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 20, 2008, 02:05:07 AM
Saw this tonight. I don't like any of Anderson's films but this was a surprise.

I'd say it's his most accessible film to date.

SPOILER






What do you think was the significance of the final bit of dialogue ("I'm finished!")?








SPOILER END


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 20, 2008, 02:17:23 AM
Saw this tonight. I don't like any of Anderson's films but this was a surprise.

I'd say it's his most accessible film to date.

SPOILER






What do you think was the significance of the final bit of dialogue ("I'm finished!")?








SPOILER END
<SPOILERS>





Honestly, I think it was more of Plainview's way of saying, "I've accomplished everything I ever wanted!". He became rich, built the house he wanted, got away from everyone (and in the process became bitter as time passed and managed to ostracize his son [which I technically don't think was a negative thing]), and killed Eli Sunday; whom he promised to not only 'eat alive', but 'bury him underground'.




</SPOILERS>


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 20, 2008, 02:23:23 AM
n [which I technically don't think was a negative thing])


Why? Because the kid was better off?



EDIT: in addition to my mini review I thought there were only two flaws.
One: Some music felt out of place for some scenes (The scene in which the derrick explodes comes to mind).
two: Day-Lewis's performance was, at times, over the top.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 20, 2008, 02:29:56 AM

Why? Because the kid was better off?

Exactly. Plus, maybe it was just me, but it seemed like Plainview's way of letting go of his son; instead of a pat on the back and a "good luck" - he got a deemed a competitor and a called a "bastard in a basket". By no means do I think Plainview wanted his son to leave, I think he loved him, especially given the painful look on D-Day's face and the silent flashback sequence.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 20, 2008, 02:32:14 AM
, I think he loved him


The flashback confirms that, although I have no doubts he used his "fresh face" to assist in buying land.



Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 20, 2008, 02:37:35 AM

The flashback confirms that, although I have no doubts he used his "fresh face" to assist in buying land.



I'm used to IMDBers talking about how much Plainview HATED H.W.

Of course he used H.W., but had it been his own son, I have no doubt he would of done the same. What I really liked was, when Daniel was telling H.W. that he was an orphan, he said, "You have none of me in you, you've been building your hate for me bit by bit over the years..." or something to that effect. But really, that's exactly how Plainview described himself to his brother.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 20, 2008, 10:00:03 AM
The last line, "I'm done", I thought signified that he was "done" with people. He had gotten rid of any kind of person he personally knew at the time, he was finally alone, away from all people (think of his monologue between the fake brother). Eli was the last step.

And I do think that although he used his son, he did show care for him. Think of the ways they interacted before his greed started to consume him, how he rushed out to save him after the explosion, how he cared for him after he had gone deaf, and most importantly the scene where he attacked Eli, yelling "I THOUGHT YOU WERE A HEALER AND VESSEL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT! WHY CAN YOU NOT CURE MY SON'S HEARING?!". But between the greed and his son's attempted murder of him and the brother, he had no choice but to leave him on the train.

I just can't stop thinking about this movie. It has gained easy entrance to my Top 20 movies I've ever seen ...I just love it.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 20, 2008, 12:51:58 PM
I'm not so sure. I'm certain, as pretentious as it may sound, that "I'm finished" holds a lot more deeper significance.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 20, 2008, 12:57:47 PM
I'm not so sure. I'm certain, as pretentious as it may sound, that "I'm finished" holds a lot more deeper significance.

Well, what do you think it means? We showed you ours, now show us yours.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 20, 2008, 12:59:57 PM
Well, what do you think it means? We showed you ours, now show us yours.


I'm still pondering about it.

At the moment it only means that he'll be spending the remainder of his life in prison after murdering the boy.
"I'm finished"=my business is ruined. I fail at life.


It must be more than that though.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 20, 2008, 01:11:34 PM

I'm still pondering about it.

At the moment it only means that he'll be spending the remainder of his life in prison after murdering the boy.
"I'm finished"=my business is ruined. I fail at life.


It must be more than that though.

I don't want to think about Plainview in prison. Are you sure he wasn't going to pick up another bowling pin and have at it with his butler? Eh, eh? >:D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 20, 2008, 04:35:56 PM
WHEN IS THE DVD COMING OUT?!

Shit, I just saw it two days ago...

That still means I have 4-6 months left.

DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 21, 2008, 03:39:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCCdZmHk5Fk


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 21, 2008, 03:45:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCCdZmHk5Fk

Haha, I already saw this. So good. Hey, rr, don't let the wait for the DVD kill you too bad, go see the movie again. ^-^


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 21, 2008, 04:59:44 PM
Im going to see this today!!! Yay for me!!  O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 21, 2008, 06:03:12 PM
I just got back from seeing this. I'm still drooling over what I just saw. It's easily the best film I've seen in YEARS. It's old-school filmmaking at it's finest. Paul Thomas Anderson is arguably on his way to becoming the best filmmaker working today. From the opening minutes with virtually no diologue whatsoever, you're instantly hypnotized into greatness. The music by Jonny Greenwood of RADIOHEAD fame puts this hypnotizing effect on you. The camera work by Paul Anderson is fantastic, echoing that of Stanley Kubrick and Sergio Leone from my perspective. Last but not least, Daniel Day-Lewis gives the performance for the ages. The man was lost in this character. You were watching pure evil work at it's finest. Daniel Day-Lewis seemed possessed by some special power as he performed. This man amazes me. Paul Dano also gives a great performance. This is not to be missed.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 21, 2008, 06:44:27 PM
Haha, I already saw this. So good. Hey, rr, don't let the wait for the DVD kill you too bad, go see the movie again. ^-^
Those are my plans brotha!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 21, 2008, 09:39:54 PM
There Will Be Blood - Well, thanks to a conversation with Tucumcari Bound I figured out how to spend my MLK Day today. O0

Let's see... what to say about it? First, let's focus on the good. Daniel Day-Lewis was utterly mesmerizing from beginning to end. Give that man the Oscar now, he deserves it. I've rarely been so impressed by a performance. Also, good cinematography and great pacing, I didn't feel bored for a second as long as the film was. I was completely mesmerized until the very end, when I realized...

There is no discernable plot. It seems like things are happening and we should accept it. There's no true narrative flow, just scenes that seem episodic and barely connected (the whole bit with DDL's "brother" - WTF was that?). DDL's character had no real character arc, he just did bad things to people through out the whole film. It wasn't like he was likeable at the beginning or anything, he was just a greedy jerk throughout. Also, no commentary of any kind, no political or historical context, just things happened. And I HATED the ending - too long, poorly acted (at least by the pathetic preacher guy), and a completely pointless denouement.

String me up from the rafters, if I'm the only one who doesn't think this film is a masterpiece than so be it. I give it a 6/10, or a 7/10 if I'm really feeling generous. I'd be willing to re-watch it, but not in the place of other films.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 21, 2008, 09:41:09 PM
6/10. :P


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 21, 2008, 10:09:42 PM
There Will Be Blood (2007) 10/10


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 12:51:27 AM
6/10. :P

I'll drink your milkshake, Groggy. >:(


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 12:55:09 AM
Only the scenes he likes.

There are scenes people like?

There Will Be Blood - Well, thanks to a conversation with Tucumcari Bound I figured out how to spend my MLK Day today. O0

Let's see... what to say about it? First, let's focus on the good. Daniel Day-Lewis was utterly mesmerizing from beginning to end. Give that man the Oscar now, he deserves it. I've rarely been so impressed by a performance. Also, good cinematography and great pacing, I didn't feel bored for a second as long as the film was. I was completely mesmerized until the very end, when I realized...

There is no discernable plot. It seems like things are happening and we should accept it. There's no true narrative flow, just scenes that seem episodic and barely connected (the whole bit with DDL's "brother" - WTF was that?). DDL's character had no real character arc, he just did bad things to people through out the whole film. It wasn't like he was likeable at the beginning or anything, he was just a greedy jerk throughout. Also, no commentary of any kind, no political or historical context, just things happened. And I HATED the ending - too long, poorly acted (at least by the pathetic preacher guy), and a completely pointless denouement.

String me up from the rafters, if I'm the only one who doesn't think this film is a masterpiece than so be it. I give it a 6/10, or a 7/10 if I'm really feeling generous. I'd be willing to re-watch it, but not in the place of other films.

Is that a cross on your back that I see?

 :-X


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 22, 2008, 07:53:10 AM
up for best picture oscar!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 22, 2008, 10:07:46 AM
Oh yeah, I'm a "hater" now. I didn't absolutely love the movie so now I'm going to be executed by the enlightened ones. :D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 10:15:48 AM
Oh yeah, I'm a "hater" now. I didn't absolutely love the movie so now I'm going to be executed by the enlightened ones. :D

 ;)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 22, 2008, 10:32:19 AM
I'll drink your milkshake, Groggy. >:(

I have a Pepsi, sorry. If you can find any oil underneath my dorm though, I'd be glad to sell it to you. O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 10:36:57 AM
I have a Pepsi, sorry. If you can find any oil underneath my dorm though, I'd be glad to sell it to you. O0

All I can do is promise you a signing bonus and to start drilling in 10 days. Now, you won't find that anywhere else...


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 22, 2008, 10:51:03 AM
If you try to hit me with a bowling pin I'll gouge your eyes out with thumb tacks. :D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 11:13:14 AM
If you try to hit me with a bowling pin I'll gouge your eyes out with thumb tacks. :D

YIKES! :o


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 22, 2008, 11:14:41 AM
There Will be Blood 7.5/10


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 22, 2008, 02:48:01 PM
There Will be Blood 7.5/10

You and Groggy, you're both crazy!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 22, 2008, 03:21:36 PM
6/10. :P

Whyness  ???


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 03:24:23 PM
Whyness  ???

Check his post in... Rate the Last Movie You Saw


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 22, 2008, 03:24:59 PM
Check his post in... Rate the Last Movie You Saw

Okay, thanks.

But why not copy and paste it here? :-\


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 22, 2008, 03:28:07 PM
You and Groggy, you're both crazy!

Don't ever say that to me - DON'T YOU EVER SAY THAT TO ME AGAIN! >:(


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 03:28:54 PM
Don't ever say that to me - DON'T YOU EVER SAY THAT TO ME AGAIN! >:(

Settle down, Max.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 03:29:18 PM
Okay, thanks.

But why not copy and paste it here? :-\

Will do O0

There Will Be Blood - Well, thanks to a conversation with Tucumcari Bound I figured out how to spend my MLK Day today.

Let's see... what to say about it? First, let's focus on the good. Daniel Day-Lewis was utterly mesmerizing from beginning to end. Give that man the Oscar now, he deserves it. I've rarely been so impressed by a performance. Also, good cinematography and great pacing, I didn't feel bored for a second as long as the film was. I was completely mesmerized until the very end, when I realized...

There is no discernable plot. It seems like things are happening and we should accept it. There's no true narrative flow, just scenes that seem episodic and barely connected (the whole bit with DDL's "brother" - WTF was that?). DDL's character had no real character arc, he just did bad things to people through out the whole film. It wasn't like he was likeable at the beginning or anything, he was just a greedy jerk throughout. Also, no commentary of any kind, no political or historical context, just things happened. And I HATED the ending - too long, poorly acted (at least by the pathetic preacher guy), and a completely pointless denouement.

String me up from the rafters, if I'm the only one who doesn't think this film is a masterpiece than so be it. I give it a 6/10, or a 7/10 if I'm really feeling generous. I'd be willing to re-watch it, but not in the place of other films.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 22, 2008, 03:29:45 PM
It wasn't like he was likeable at the beginning or anything

I found him likable.

He was an every man working his ass off to become succesful (like us all).

When he was succesful he turned into a bastard. Some critics have cried "NO STORY ARC" because Plainview never changed back into a likable guy. "So what?" I say.
I never wanted Plainview to learn the error of his ways and say to everybody "ahhhh shuckums, can ya ever forgive me?". That would have been completely out of character.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 03:31:36 PM
I found him likable.

He was an every man working his ass off to become succesful (like us all).

When he was succesful he turned into a bastard. Some critics have cried "NO STORY ARC" because Plainview never changed back into a likable guy. "So what?" I say.
I never wanted Plainview to learn the error of his ways and say to everybody "ahhhh shuckums, can ya ever forgive me?". That would have been completely out of character.

Exactly. The arc of his character was less of an arc, and more of a nosedive, decension into madness. Plus, he worked his ass off (as you said), deserved all the money he got, let him be rich-ass gangsta with a bowling alley. 8)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 22, 2008, 03:50:13 PM
There Will Be Blood - Well, thanks to a conversation with Tucumcari Bound I figured out how to spend my MLK Day today. O0

Let's see... what to say about it? First, let's focus on the good. Daniel Day-Lewis was utterly mesmerizing from beginning to end. Give that man the Oscar now, he deserves it. I've rarely been so impressed by a performance. Also, good cinematography and great pacing, I didn't feel bored for a second as long as the film was. I was completely mesmerized until the very end, when I realized...

There is no discernable plot. It seems like things are happening and we should accept it. There's no true narrative flow, just scenes that seem episodic and barely connected (the whole bit with DDL's "brother" - WTF was that?). DDL's character had no real character arc, he just did bad things to people through out the whole film. It wasn't like he was likeable at the beginning or anything, he was just a greedy jerk throughout. Also, no commentary of any kind, no political or historical context, just things happened. And I HATED the ending - too long, poorly acted (at least by the pathetic preacher guy), and a completely pointless denouement.

String me up from the rafters, if I'm the only one who doesn't think this film is a masterpiece than so be it. I give it a 6/10, or a 7/10 if I'm really feeling generous. I'd be willing to re-watch it, but not in the place of other films.
Actually, I'd give the film even lower marks.

Groggy, it's a pleasure to read you. Your thinking is on target as usual. You've got the film's good points covered, although I'd add a positive comment for the score (a mixture of re-purposed classical pieces and new Johnny Greenwood material). But what you say against the film is also correct, and the problems you outline really do pull the whole thing down. I wouldn't say there is no discernable plot, however. There is a plot, but the film is less concerned with it than something else. The film is really a character study. The big problem is that Daniel Plainview is not a very interesting character, and therefore, unworthy of our study.

It's like the Citizen Kane problem, but even more extreme. Kane as a character isn't very interesting either, but that realization is withheld until the end of the story. The film itself is interesting because it maintains its puzzle-solving conceit throughout, it shows a chronological decline of the character (Kane doesn't start out as the void he ends up as), and because the interview device allows us to meet other personalities who are interesting.

By contrast, the character of Plainview (plain + view: gedit?) is an unvarying monad throughout TWBB . At about the mid-way point he confesses to his "brother" that he hates people, but that isn't much of a revelation. Plainview is as Plainview does, and from first to last he's someone who shafts his fellow man. The only thing that changes is his prosperity. At various points we are given the hope that his relationship with H.W. will provide an opening for his development, but that comes to nothing.

So we are left with an uninteresting, unchanging central character (uninteresting because he's unchanging), and without any characters to provide contrasting interest. There are only three kinds of people in this world: scoundrels, weaklings, and fools. Sometimes all three qualities inhabit a single individual (as in the character of the religious charlatan, Eli Sunday), but there are no other types, certainly no positive characters, no heroes. Plainview, neither a weakling nor a fool in the view of the film, becomes the character to root for by default. Films, successful ones, have centered on scoundrels before, but in the present case we’re given a scoundrel who is a scoundrel only for the sake of being one. No hidden depths are suggested, no latent greatness revealed. In fact, the man is completely without redeeming features of any kind.

This is no fault of Daniel Day-Lewis, who delivers a fine performance (it is a pleasure to see these days a movie star who actually acts). In fact, all the way through the picture I marveled at his John Huston impression (or rather, his impression of Huston doing Noah Cross). The evocation of Huston, however, brings to mind again what’s wrong with the film. It’s as if we were watching Chinatown, but entirely from the perspective of Noah Cross, and without ever getting a jaundiced glimpse of Jake Gittes. Such things entertain--for a time. But they cannot sustain my interest. At the end of TWBB I had the profound sense that I never wanted to watch the film again.



Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 22, 2008, 04:15:25 PM
I never thought I'd say this but: Thanks Jenkins! O0 Your review is spot-on with my feelings. Particularly agree with this paragraph:

Quote
By contrast, the character of Plainview (plain + view: gedit?) is an unvarying monad throughout TWBB . At about the mid-way point he confesses to his "brother" that he hates people, but that isn't much of a revelation. Plainview is as Plainview does, and from first to last he's someone who shafts his fellow man. The only thing that changes is his prosperity. At various points we are given the hope that his relationship with H.W. will provide an opening for his development, but that comes to nothing.


There's no significant character development of Plainview. He's an interesting character BUT there isn't any significant difference in his character from point A to point B. He's a slightly more sociopathic person than he was at the beginning of the movie.

But we don't see him even develop an empire. He has the same oil field at the end of the film at the beginning. It might have been interesting if he'd gotten more crazy as he got more successful but he just seemed to go crazy as the film went along.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 22, 2008, 04:17:39 PM
I copy and paste my reply, also from the other thread.
Quote
There Will Be Blood - Well, thanks to a conversation with Tucumcari Bound I figured out how to spend my MLK Day today.

Let's see... what to say about it? First, let's focus on the good. Daniel Day-Lewis was utterly mesmerizing from beginning to end. Give that man the Oscar now, he deserves it. I've rarely been so impressed by a performance. Also, good cinematography and great pacing, I didn't feel bored for a second as long as the film was. I was completely mesmerized until the very end, when I realized...

There is no discernable plot. It seems like things are happening and we should accept it. There's no true narrative flow, just scenes that seem episodic and barely connected (the whole bit with DDL's "brother" - WTF was that?). DDL's character had no real character arc, he just did bad things to people through out the whole film. It wasn't like he was likeable at the beginning or anything, he was just a greedy jerk throughout. Also, no commentary of any kind, no political or historical context, just things happened. And I HATED the ending - too long, poorly acted (at least by the pathetic preacher guy), and a completely pointless denouement.

String me up from the rafters, if I'm the only one who doesn't think this film is a masterpiece than so be it. I give it a 6/10, or a 7/10 if I'm really feeling generous. I'd be willing to re-watch it, but not in the place of other films.
Actually, I'd give the film even lower marks.

Groggy, it's a pleasure to read you. Your thinking is on target as usual. You've got the film's good points covered, although I'd add a positive comment for the score (a mixture of re-purposed classical pieces and new Johnny Greenwood material). But what you say against the film is also correct, and the problems you outline really do pull the whole thing down. I wouldn't say there is no discernable plot, however. There is a plot, but the film is less concerned with it than something else. The film is really a character study. The big problem is that Daniel Plainview is not a very interesting character, and therefore, unworthy of our study.

It's like the Citizen Kane problem, but even more extreme. Kane as a character isn't very interesting either, but that realization is withheld until the end of the story. The film itself is interesting because it maintains its puzzle-solving conceit throughout, it shows a chronological decline of the character (Kane doesn't start out as the void he ends up as), and because the interview device allows us to meet other personalities who are interesting.

By contrast, the character of Plainview (plain + view: gedit?) is an unvarying monad throughout TWBB . At about the mid-way point he confesses to his "brother" that he hates people, but that isn't much of a revelation. Plainview is as Plainview does, and from first to last he's someone who shafts his fellow man. The only thing that changes is his prosperity. At various points we are given the hope that his relationship with H.W. will provide an opening for his development, but that comes to nothing.

So we are left with an uninteresting, unchanging central character (uninteresting because he's unchanging), and without any characters to provide contrasting interest. There are only three kinds of people in this world: scoundrels, weaklings, and fools. Sometimes all three qualities inhabit a single individual (as in the character of the religious charlatan, Eli Sunday), but there are no other types, certainly no positive characters, no heroes. Plainview, neither a weakling nor a fool in the view of the film, becomes the character to root for by default. Films, successful ones, have centered on scoundrels before, but in the present case we’re given a scoundrel who is a scoundrel only for the sake of being one. No hidden depths are suggested, no latent greatness revealed. In fact, the man is completely without redeeming features of any kind.

This is no fault of Daniel Day-Lewis, who delivers a fine performance (it is a pleasure to see these days a movie star who actually acts). In fact, all the way through the picture I marveled at his John Huston impression (or rather, his impression of Huston doing Noah Cross). The evocation of Huston, however, brings to mind again what’s wrong with the film. It’s as if we were watching Chinatown, but entirely from the perspective of Noah Cross, and without ever getting a jaundiced glimpse of Jake Gittes. Such things entertain--for a time. But they cannot sustain my interest. At the end of TWBB I had the profound sense that I never wanted to watch the film again.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 22, 2008, 04:39:26 PM


But we don't see him even develop an empire. He has the same oil field at the end of the film at the beginning.

He has a tiny wooden rig in the beginning and then moves on to Eli's property where he finds a "whole ocean of Oil".
It is safe to say he builds his riches in that one town.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 22, 2008, 04:52:49 PM
There's no significant character development of Plainview. He's an interesting character BUT there isn't any significant difference in his character from point A to point B. He's a slightly more sociopathic person than he was at the beginning of the movie.

But we don't see him even develop an empire. He has the same oil field at the end of the film at the beginning. It might have been interesting if he'd gotten more crazy as he got more successful but he just seemed to go crazy as the film went along.
Plainview is only interesting for a time. Because he doesn't develop, my interest in him vanished by the end.

The other thing is: Plainview is obviously crazy, so why doesn't anyone ever call him on it? He can get away with murder apparently (he kills the false brother without legal consequences), and people will do business with him no matter what (even after the restaurant scene where he embarrasses himself in front of H.W. and the oil men). How does he operate in the world you and I know? I guess he doesn't; all the action must take place someplace in the vicinity of Steve Erickson's America 2.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 22, 2008, 04:57:32 PM
That too Dave. If we'd been given SOME historical or political context we could see him getting away with it because he's rich or has gained influence in government etc. However, in the film we don't see that he has any influence beyond being a successful oilman. There's no real sense of how powerful he's supposed to be.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 05:14:36 PM
Plainview is only interesting for a time. Because he doesn't develop, my interest in him vanished by the end.

The other thing is: Plainview is obviously crazy, so why doesn't anyone ever call him on it? He can get away with murder apparently (he kills the false brother without legal consequences), and people will do business with him no matter what (even after the restaurant scene where he embarrasses himself in front of H.W. and the oil men). How does he operate in the world you and I know? I guess he doesn't; all the action must take place someplace in the vicinity of Steve Erickson's America 2.

By that point of the film, he's already made the deal with Union oil; he can do "whatever he wants" as his brother points out. Also, do we really think it was vastly hard to get away with murder back in the day? That old man didn't care that he killed his "brother"--no one did. Self-interest plays a huge part in the movie. The old man didn't care because he wanted the Church of the Third Revelation to prosper, just as I'm sure the butler won't care because he wants to keep a job. Okay. Maybe the butler will care. But that is why there are more bowling pins.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 22, 2008, 05:40:21 PM
By that point of the film, he's already made the deal with Union oil; he can do "whatever he wants" as his brother points out. Also, do we really think it was vastly hard to get away with murder back in the day? That old man didn't care that he killed his "brother"--no one did. Self-interest plays a huge part in the movie. The old man didn't care because he wanted the Church of the Third Revelation to prosper, just as I'm sure the butler won't care because he wants to keep a job. Okay. Maybe the butler will care. But that is why there are more bowling pins.

 O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 22, 2008, 06:05:05 PM
By that point of the film, he's already made the deal with Union oil; he can do "whatever he wants" as his brother points out. Also, do we really think it was vastly hard to get away with murder back in the day? That old man didn't care that he killed his "brother"--no one did. Self-interest plays a huge part in the movie. The old man didn't care because he wanted the Church of the Third Revelation to prosper . . .
And it wouldn't occur to the guy that for his church to prosper by such means he or his church or both would have to abandon the very basis on which the church was (at least putatively) founded? What was the point of starting the church, then? This is a movieland view of the world, and has nothing to do with actual churches, just as the film as a whole has nothing to do with the actual California of history. That may be all you require from your entertainment, but I prefer movies that actually make a stab at portraying reality.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 06:26:28 PM
And it wouldn't occur to the guy that for his church to prosper by such means he or his church or both would have to abandon the very basis on which the church was (at least putatively) founded? What was the point of starting the church, then? This is a movieland view of the world, and has nothing to do with actual churches, just as the film as a whole has nothing to do with the actual California of history. That may be all you require from your entertainment, but I prefer movies that actually make a stab at portraying reality.

How is it abandoning the basis their church was based on?* Daniel owed them $5,000 big ones; he wanted him to join the church and hand it over after being washed in the blooooooood. The point of starting the church? Well, why do or have many religious folks started anything in the past? Power. Eli wanted it. He wanted followers, he wanted worshippers, and he took all the credit with ease.

*Unless of course you mean covering up the murder. Which then I understand. I think I read into your post wrongly. But if that's the case, people have been going back on their doctrines, beliefs, and ideals for years for a "greater good", or whatever you want to call it.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 06:28:15 PM
http://www.dvdaf.com/search.html?has=there+will+be+blood&init_form=str0_0_has_there+will+be+blood

I don't know how reliable DVD aficionado is... but that is when they think TWBB is going to be released on DVD.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 22, 2008, 06:39:07 PM
And it wouldn't occur to the guy that for his church to prosper by such means he or his church or both would have to abandon the very basis on which the church was founded?


Churchs are built to make money.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on January 22, 2008, 06:53:06 PM

Churchs are built to make money.

Dirty infidel.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 22, 2008, 06:54:26 PM
Dirty infidel.

No, that's Groggy and Dave Jenkins not calling TWBB a masterpiece ;) :D

This is a joke. Just so no one gets butt hurt. I like that people are having different opinions on this movie.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Sonny on January 24, 2008, 04:42:38 PM
Dirty infidel.


yeah FC, how dare you criticize the sanctity of the blessed holiness that is the Church.!!!!  You shall burn in hell for your doubtful ways.

Make room for me, don't forget.!!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on January 24, 2008, 05:27:00 PM

yeah FC, how dare you criticize the sanctity of the blessed holiness that is the Church.!!!!  You shall burn in hell for your doubtful ways.

Make room for me, don't forget.!!

Twice the pride - double the fall. >:D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on January 24, 2008, 08:03:03 PM
FINALLY! I get to see it tonight. Mission Valley at 7:35 O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 24, 2008, 08:21:14 PM
I can't wait for this release. I will cherish this DVD.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 25, 2008, 05:44:45 PM
(http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/entertainment/08/01/08_ddl_lgl.jpg)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 25, 2008, 05:50:05 PM
You kidding me?!?! that star needs to be at least 15 times bigger! how else is he gonna drink up Eli's milkshake!




but thats an awesome picture  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 26, 2008, 12:51:47 AM
Hey, here's a question for all you nascent oil men out there. When Plainview first starts telling Eli that he's already drained the oil out from under the land Eli wants to sell, he uses the term "seepage" (if I remember correctly). However, later, when he's using the straw analogy, he's clearly talking about slant drilling. Aren't these two different things? And in fact, wouldn't acquiring oil via seepage be somewhat legit, whereas slant drilling under someone else's property would be illegal? Just want to clarify whether Plainview gets the extra oil legally or not . . . .


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 26, 2008, 01:18:17 AM
"seepage"


Draaainaaaaaaaaaaaage!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 26, 2008, 10:59:05 AM
(http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/entertainment/08/01/08_ddl_lgl.jpg)

LOL!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 26, 2008, 11:53:31 AM
Okay, right, drainage. My question still stands.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on January 26, 2008, 12:32:11 PM
There Will Be Blood -  ???/10

EDIT: This movie is a pain in the ass to rate. Everything was great about the film but then it has its drawbacks like after he finds the oil in the hills the movie just SLOWS down for me.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 26, 2008, 09:58:48 PM
There Will Be Blood -  ???/10

EDIT: This movie is a pain in the ass to rate. Everything was great about the film but then it has its drawbacks like after he finds the oil in the hills the movie just SLOWS down for me.
Damn, looks like TB, Whales and I are the only lovers of this movie on here.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Sonny on January 26, 2008, 10:41:32 PM

Not true. I liked it quite a bit myself, and so did FC.  O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 26, 2008, 10:43:42 PM
Yea it was a bit confusing the way he was expalining it. But drainage makes sence, dill and tap and pump out the oil all the way around the surrounded parcel.  I don't think they could slant drill back then in that time period.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 27, 2008, 10:37:11 AM
Damn, looks like TB, Whales and I are the only lovers of this movie on here.

If you can't see the brilliance in THERE WILL BE BLOOD, I honestly think you're nit-picking. If this film was fourty years old, everyone here would be loving it. I haven't seen a film like this in years. It's old school filmmaking at it's best.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 27, 2008, 12:12:39 PM
If you can't see the brilliance in THERE WILL BE BLOOD, I honestly think you're nit-picking. If this film was fourty years old, everyone here would be loving it. I haven't seen a film like this in years. It's old school filmmaking at it's best.

Way to generalize dude! O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 27, 2008, 12:19:14 PM
They made bad films 40 years ago too.

The problems with TWBB are not nitpicky ones, they're fundamental; to wit: the film has a deficient view of human character and a deficient view of the world we live in. These failings are insuperable. No amount of technical excellence (and as I've said the film abounds with great photography, music, acting) can save it.

Perhaps the problem stems from the source material. I've never read Oil, or any Upton Sinclair, but I've gleaned a few things about Sinclair's novels over the years. Oil is an exposé of the California oil business, The Jungle, his most famous novel, is an exposé of the Chicago meat packing business, KIng Coal is an exposé. . . . you get the idea. The formula, I gather, varies little: in each case, good characters are corrupted and/or destroyed by an evil system. Somewhere along the line, Sinclair introduces as an alternative the only hope for mankind: socialism.

In adapting Oil (and perhaps "adapting" isn't the right word), PTA (rightly) jettisoned the sermons on socialism. Those were a tough sell even in Sinclair's day, but no one would buy them now. But having thrown out the only element of hope the novel offered, PTA did not put anything else back in its place. Furthermore, rather than present a corrupt system destroying good people, PTA decided to present everyone in general (and Daniel Plainview in particular) as inherently evil. Characters are either scoundrels, weaklings, or fools, or all three at once. There are no good characters, and there is no mechanism by which evil characters can change. It's a completely cynical view of the world, one that does not accord with the view from my window.

I'm not saying that PTA should have followed Sinclair more faithfully. Those novels have never sounded good to me. But he should have demanded a script that allowed human beings into his fictional world, if only to provide contrast to Plainview. TWBB, in its finished form, seems to me like a well-executed science fiction movie, entertaining, certainly, but like so many in the genre, bearing little or no application to real life.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 27, 2008, 06:34:43 PM
Thanks, Joe. So the oil fields are continuous in a given area? If you drain one, it will refill from the drainage of those nearby (which can then be drained in turn)? What was all that talk about a straw, then?


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 27, 2008, 07:09:49 PM
I don't know what he was talking about with the straw for sure.

Every profile that I've seen of oil fields show the oil in an oil bearing horizontal porous strata of rock stretching over many miles (like a subsurface lake), with the wells driven down into that strata, in some areas the strata is enlarged shaped like a lens (I think they call these domes), some are in faulted rock so they dipped on a angle.

So if Planeview knew the depths that he hit oil in each well he would know if it was a horizontal substrata ( all the strikes at approximately the same elevation) or if it dipped (each well in a cardinal direction requiring more depth to reach the oil), if it was horizontal then it would be like the oil was in the bottom of a soda glass and the straw(s) would suck it all out. If it dipped then the wells on the deepest side would drain the oil off from the high side through the porous strata.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 27, 2008, 07:19:33 PM
There Will Be Blood 7/10, nice cinematography, great acting but absolutely no likable characters.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 27, 2008, 07:22:06 PM
There Will Be Blood 7/10, nice cinematography, great acting but absolutely no likable characters.

That was the point of the film.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 27, 2008, 07:40:52 PM
Quote
That was the point of the film.

Its the same reason I don't rate OUTIA as high as Leone's other films


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 27, 2008, 07:50:02 PM
Its the same reason I don't rate OUTIA as high as Leone's other films

I see what you're saying to some extent but that didn't take away from how great the film was from my perspective. I absolutely loved the acting, even though the characters were assholes.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Sonny on January 27, 2008, 10:53:34 PM

CJ or Dave Jenkins, have either of you read the book Oil!?

Seems like it could be very interesting to read.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 28, 2008, 05:25:44 AM
No Sonny, Upton Sinclair was and author that was on a suggested reading list in high school if I remember. And you know how that kind of goes when you are in high school.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 28, 2008, 09:56:52 AM
No Sonny, Upton Sinclair was and author that was on a suggested reading list in high school if I remember. And you know how that kind of goes when you are in high school.
My experience exactly.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 28, 2008, 02:11:18 PM
I tried reading The Jungle and I got bored very, very fast. I'm not much for socialist propaganda, personally.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 28, 2008, 05:15:24 PM
Quote
I tried reading The Jungle and I got bored very, very fast. I'm not much for socialist propaganda, personally.

 O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Sonny on January 28, 2008, 08:40:10 PM
I tried reading The Jungle and I got bored very, very fast. I'm not much for socialist propaganda, personally.

:) why? is that what he's known for?  I had a different idea from watching There Will Be Blood, but then, of course, Oil!'s main focus is probably completely different from either the movie or from Sinclair's other books. 



Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 28, 2008, 08:50:28 PM

:) why? is that what he's known for?  I had a different idea from watching There Will Be Blood, but then, of course, Oil!'s main focus is probably completely different from either the movie or from Sinclair's other books. 


Sinclair is probably one of the most prime examples of a Muckraker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker), As well as being one of the Big fighters for socialism.

To be honest, when i saw the credits roll and Sinclair's "oil" was shown to be the basis of the film, i felt a lot more aware of why i didn't like the film as much as i thought i would.

From Wikipedia: Originally, Paul Thomas Anderson had been working on a screenplay about two fighting families. He struggled with the script and soon realized it just wasn't working.[1] Homesick, he purchased a copy of Upton Sinclair's Oil! in London and was immediately drawn to the cover illustration of a California oilfield.[2] As he read, Anderson became even more fascinated with the novel and adapted the first 150 pages to a screenplay. He began to get a real sense of where his script was going after making countless trips to museums dedicated to early oilmen in Bakersfield.[3] He changed the title from Oil! to There Will Be Blood because, "at the end of the day, there [was] not enough of the book to feel like it [was] a proper adaptation."

there's no real summary for Oil! so im afraid i don't know if it was a good adaptation or not  :-\


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 28, 2008, 09:18:48 PM
Someone posted this over at criterionforum, and it's so spot-on I decided to paste it here:
Quote
I simply cannot understand the fawning-over that this film is receiving from apparently intelligent people and need to re-assert my dismay. Despite the considerable craft that went into making it -- I quite liked the first hour - I don't see TWBB as saying anything profound or at all interesting about capitalism or religion ("Christian hypocrisy is bad? Unbridled capitalism is bad?" Oh, how thought-provoking). As someone else suggested above, in fact, the film is only interesting to the extent that Plainview is humanized and made almost sympathetic (ie., when confessing to his "brother" that he hates everyone); only there does he stop seeming a caricature - only there does his darkness illuminate aspects of our own psyches and open a path to genuine thought. Eli Sunday, alas, remains a cartoon throughout; the business with Plainview's "son" is painfully underdeveloped and his son is never convincing as a character unto himself; there are no other characters in the film of note - even his "brother" is given very little screentime; and what subplots do exist (the pipeline, the business with Standard Oil) feel tacked-on and in no way engaging or particularly meaningful. Having built us up with great craft to believe "There Will Be a Payoff," what we get is an abrupt, unsatisfying, and not particularly illuminating ending that almost reduces the film to farce. If it were a humbler, smaller film, I'd perhaps be less disappointed, but given the grandiosity of its ambitions, I think this is the least of PTA's films, and the most overrated piece of American cinema in years.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 28, 2008, 09:25:32 PM
Having built us up with great craft to believe "There Will Be a Payoff," what we get is an abrupt, unsatisfying, and not particularly illuminating ending
that is exactly what i was thinking when i was watching this. As i watched it i kept thinking "dont worry, something big will happen soon". There is no payoff for your investments in the characters.

that is a great post you found Dave  O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 28, 2008, 09:27:55 PM
Well if you mention Sinclair to 100 people and ask them to name a book of his, chances are 99 will say "The Jungle" (I'm assuming they have at least heard of Sinclair to begin with). I'd never even heard of "Oil!" until I started seeing previews for this movie.

Dave, I could not agree more with the article you post. Plainview bashing Eli's head in with a bowling pin was NOT an appropriate payoff for all that I'd had to sit through up to that point. That scene defines anti-climax. I watched the movie, enjoying it, but towards the end I started asking myself, "Where are we going with this?" I never got an answer.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Sonny on January 28, 2008, 10:28:09 PM

Isn't the director of There Will Be Blood Paul thomas Anderson?  Didn't he direct that awful movie, Punch Drunk Love? 

So why expect a lot from him?  I think that by the standard of his other films, There Will Be Blood is what TB would call "a masterpiece". lol


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 28, 2008, 10:35:42 PM
he also directed Magnolia and Boogie Nights. Personally, ive never seen any of his other movies but T_B can probably give you the skiddy on how good Mr Anderson's movies are


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on January 28, 2008, 10:35:51 PM
Isn't the director of There Will Be Blood Paul thomas Anderson?  Didn't he direct that awful movie, Punch Drunk Love? 

So why expect a lot from him?  I think that by the standard of his other films, There Will Be Blood is what TB would call "a masterpiece". lol

But you like Boogie Nights? >:D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 28, 2008, 10:36:00 PM
Dave, I could not agree more with the article you post. Plainview bashing Eli's head in with a bowling pin was NOT an appropriate payoff for all that I'd had to sit through up to that point. That scene defines anti-climax. I watched the movie, enjoying it, but towards the end I started asking myself, "Where are we going with this?" I never got an answer.
That squares with my experience. The ending did not provide me with the necessary quantum of solace.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 28, 2008, 11:30:20 PM
That squares with my experience. The ending did not provide me with the necessary quantum of solace.

Really, DJ--I'm lovin' all the 007 jokes. Classic.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 29, 2008, 08:38:00 AM
Quote
Quote from: Whalestoe on January 06, 2008, 08:58:35 PM
The boonies? Yikes. When are you going to "The Assassination..."?

I don't know, probably before There Will Be Blood. Jesse James has opened here already but the other won't be here before late February.
Not much hope for Jesse James, there are only four copies of it running in Finland :(. If I won't be able to see this either, I'm gonna find out who's the fucker responsible of that, gouge out his eyeballs and skull-fuck him!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 29, 2008, 01:33:55 PM
This article from the Independent Weekly makes some excellent points:

Quote
POSTED ON JANUARY 16, 2008:

There Will Be Blood

The first hour is brilliant, then ...

By Godfrey Cheshire

When any art tilts toward decadence, an anxious aesthetic nostalgia brings forth young would-be artists who produce florid, half-baked imitations of earlier, better works and critics who exhaust the thesaurus in hailing their derivative creations as nothing short of exalted perfection.

This, in a nutshell, is the story of Paul Thomas Anderson. It's not just the story of one obviously talented but imitative, unsure and very uneven writer-director who manages to produce five diverse features by the time he's 37, films that would have had him regarded as an interestingly ambitious wannabe 30 years ago yet today have him headed "into the pantheon," according to The New York Times. It's also, necessarily, a story of old-line cinephile culture sucking its own fumes, of critics old and young not only wishing They Still Made'em Like They Used To, but convincing themselves that They Still Do—And Even Better, By Golly!

When I wrote about Boogie Nights, Anderson's 1997 breakthrough, I started out opining that the extravagantly over-the-top critical reaction to the film struck me as far more interesting than the film itself, a well-acted but sitcom-like and satirically limp romp through the SoCal porn industry. "When," I wondered, "did so many reputable critics write so many preposterous things all at once?"

If Boogie Nights set some kind of record in that regard, and Anderson's subsequent woozy-mystical and more-imitative-than-ever Magnolia upped the ante even further, his new There Will Be Blood seems headed for the Mount Rushmore of Ecstatic Overreaction. Numerous critics' polls and awards have named it the best film of 2007, and if the Oscars are held this year, it will surely be the film to beat for Best Picture. So the following dissent is, once again, very much a minority opinion.

Though I've regarded Anderson as something of a fraudulent striver from the first, I go into every new film hoping to be won over. And I must stress that in the first half of There Will Be Blood, I was—completely. If there were Oscars for portions of movies, I'll grant you that the initial hour of Anderson's opus would deserve that Best Picture trophy.

The first 10 minutes alone, which show tyro oil tycoon Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) getting his start in primitive wells and dusty Western landscapes, comprise a wordless visual poem worthy of Flaherty or Murnau. Subsequently, Anderson lays down the foundations of a fascinating tale as he traces Plainview's rise in the early oil industry, his doting relationship with his young son H.W. (as a child, Dillon Freasier; as an adult, Russell Harvard), and his scouting new drill sites, including one in California where there's a growing fundamentalist congregation led by a demanding young preacher named Eli Sunday (Paul Dano, who's terrific).

Happily, this part of the movie offers compelling evidence that Anderson is finally melding all those influences that previously were so blatantly displayed—Altman, Scorsese, Kubrick, et al.—into a coherent style of his own. His superb work with cinematographer Robert Elswit (also responsible for the brilliant images of Michael Clayton), production designer Jack Fisk and an exemplary cast show a filmmaker in impressive control of his medium. (In fact, the director's only lapse back into imitativeness lies in allowing Day-Lewis' shameless vocal impersonation of John Huston.) And in storytelling skills, Anderson is just as convincing—to a point.

I'll tell you exactly where he loses it. There's a scene where Sunday comes to Plainview to demand money, and the oilman goes berserk, knocking the preacher to the ground and smearing his face in the mud. Now, the violent emotionalism of Plainview's behavior here struck me as anomalous, but it could be put down to the shock he recently suffered when an explosion left his son deaf. The real problem is that this is where the film begins to sacrifice sense to sensation, commencing a spiral from well-calibrated drama into an ever more portentous and overwrought Grand Guignol. It's as if Paths of Glory suddenly morphed into The Shining.

Just after that scene there's one where Sunday screams repeatedly at his frail father that the old man is "stupid"—another anomalous outburst that shows the breakdown we're witnessing is not Plainview's—it's the film's. The downward spiral continues up to, and climaxes with, the movie's final scene, which is atrocious not because it is so violent but because it uses violence to cover an intellectual vacancy as well as numerous inconsistencies and absurdities displayed by the characters.

There are two salient hallmarks of screenwriting that's overly influenced by the banalities of TV writing, which I think has been Anderson's big problem all along. First, the drama is devoid of ideas that are not entirely trite or predigested. In a screenplay loosely based on Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil!, in which there are communists, socialists, strikes and other hard-edged political realities, all Anderson can manage to suggest are vague slogans along the lines of "Capitalism Is Bad," "Religion Is Stupid" and, of course, "It's All About Oil" (no less simple-minded here than it was in Fahrenheit 9/11).

Second, just as political and historical issues are reduced to clichés, so are human personalities flattened into cartoons. That's really the biggest flaw of Blood. From the drama's early parts, when Plainview seems like an interestingly complex guy, he gradually congeals into a plastic gargoyle—a movement that's taken as significant simply because we live in an era where glib cynicism is constantly mistaken for profundity.

Ultimately, I think Anderson has nothing to say other than that he wants to make movies like the great ones of yore. And critics, seeing no new Altmans or Kubricks on the horizon, are all too ready to mistake his pretensions for the real thing.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 29, 2008, 03:37:20 PM
Not much hope for Jesse James, there are only four copies of it running in Finland :(. If I won't be able to see this either, I'm gonna find out who's the fucker responsible of that, gouge out his eyeballs and skull-fuck him!

Wow. That's annoying. Hopefully you'll get to catch Blood.

This article from the Independent Weekly makes some excellent points:


I don't really see how he see's either of those scenes as anomalous. Not only is the first scene set up like a showdown (so you should at least have some context clues that shit is gonna go down), but Plainview had just seen Eli's sermon earlier when he healed the old women. Then H.W. is hurt. So the first thing Eli does is to come and ask Daniel for money? People don't respond asking for favors well after tragedy has just occurred (because yes, it was a tragedy to Daniel--not only did he love H.W., but it was also going to throw a wrench into his scheme); add that onto the fact that Daniel already thinks Eli is a farce and clearly dislikes him (he's even shown brooding over Eli while his new church is being built), so why not smack him around? It's easy enough for Plainview to make the reason "when are you gonna come over and heal my son".

Also, how is Eli's outburst anomalous? He was just beaten and embarrassed by a man his father let have the land. His pride was hurt, so why not take it out on the person who vicariously allowed his pride to become hurt. He couldn't beat Daniel, so he beat his father, who by selling the land allowed Eli to be beaten.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 29, 2008, 04:16:40 PM
I don't really see how he see's either of those scenes as anomalous. Not only is the first scene set up like a showdown (so you should at least have some context clues that shit is gonna go down), but Plainview had just seen Eli's sermon earlier when he healed the old women. Then H.W. is hurt. So the first thing Eli does is to come and ask Daniel for money?
Cheshire does concede this in the passage above:
Quote
Now, the violent emotionalism of Plainview's behavior here struck me as anomalous, but it could be put down to the shock he recently suffered when an explosion left his son deaf. The real problem is that this is where the film begins to sacrifice sense to sensation, commencing a spiral from well-calibrated drama into an ever more portentous and overwrought Grand Guignol. It's as if Paths of Glory suddenly morphed into The Shining.
Chesire's larger point, that the scene itself is less significant than the change it signals in the rest of the film, is what's important. I too experienced a gradual disillusionment with the film as I watched it, although I put the turning point later (in the murder of the false brother scene). Regardless, the fact remains that TWBB starts out as great epic cinema, but by the end all we're watching is a live-action cartoon.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 29, 2008, 04:48:59 PM
Cheshire does concede this in the passage above:Chesire's larger point, that the scene itself is less significant than the change it signals in the rest of the film, is what's important. I too experienced a gradual disillusionment with the film as I watched it, although I put the turning point later (in the murder of the false brother scene). Regardless, the fact remains that TWBB starts out as great epic cinema, but by the end all we're watching is a live-action cartoon.

Fact =/= opinion, DJ.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on January 29, 2008, 05:01:07 PM
Well... I can't point to a specific point where I realized that the movie was going downhill unlike Dave. The whole thing with the fake brother struck me as pointless but I didn't mind it. Towards the end I just realized nothing was going to happen.

I have to agree with Cheshire's argument. Furthermore, and I've said this already: I still don't see how you can possibly take a story set in the oilfields of turn-of-the-century Texas and add NO political, historical, or even cultural context to the film beyond a few brief references to Standard Oil (who don't really factor into the story in any significant way). The movie didn't need to focus on the time period, but we should have included more than a few supertitles.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Sonny on January 29, 2008, 07:52:16 PM
But you like Boogie Nights? >:D


haven't had the pleasure of seeing it.  ;)

any good?


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on January 29, 2008, 08:09:42 PM
any good?

Yes, a bit too long though.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 29, 2008, 08:16:30 PM
Yes, a bit too long though.

Boogie Nights rules. O0

But I like P.T. Anderson unlike a lot of people, I guess.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Sonny on January 29, 2008, 08:18:33 PM
Boogie Nights rules. O0

But I like P.T. Anderson unlike a lot of people, I guess.


Did you like Punch Drunk Love?  (not his best)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 29, 2008, 08:50:58 PM

Did you like Punch Drunk Love?  (not his best)

I think it's the worst of all the films he had done. That being said, I still have a soft spot in my heart for it, but I'm biased because of my extreme liking of PTA's other films.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 29, 2008, 11:36:28 PM
Yes, a bit too long though.


I don't know if I'm reading to much into that comment but I found it funny anyway ;D




Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on January 30, 2008, 07:50:36 PM

I don't know if I'm reading to much into that comment but I found it funny anyway ;D

Hahaha! No, that wasn't my intention, but it turned out great. ;D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 30, 2008, 08:49:04 PM

I don't know if I'm reading to much into that comment but I found it funny anyway ;D



Hahaha, great you pointed that out.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on February 01, 2008, 03:06:06 PM
Just wanted to add that my room mate saw TWWB last night, and he disliked it even more than me. :D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 01, 2008, 03:35:19 PM
Just wanted to add that my room mate saw TWWB last night, and he disliked it even more than me. :D
You mean he dislikes you?


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on February 01, 2008, 04:30:36 PM
You mean he dislikes you?

 ;D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 01, 2008, 10:57:27 PM
Just wanted to add that my room mate saw TWWB last night, and he disliked it even more than me. :D

I guess he forgot his glasses.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on February 02, 2008, 11:19:50 PM
"Sweet fucking mother of jesus god."



That was the review of There Will Be Blood I left for my friends, but I figured you guys would want something more in-depth.




I used to wonder if I had a natural bias against new movies.  I wondered if I inevitably compared new movies to old masterpieces just because deep down I really, truly, was a snob.

But There Will Be Blood disproved that.


Genuinely, one of the best movies I've ever seen.  It's like if Kubrick directed a Western version of Citizen Kane.*


Everything about this movie excells.  The ACTING!, WRITING!, DIRECTION!, CINEMATOGRAPHY!, and MUSIC! were near impeccable.  Our own Roy Power described this movie as an "orgasm in a cup."  And I must say I agree.


Even though I haven't read the other reviews on this board (i've been absent lately), I doubt there's anything I can say about this movie that hasn't been said in the last ten pages.  But what I would like to make a special comment on is the absolutely astounding music, composed by Radiohead guitarist Johnny Greenwood.  I already knew that Greenwood was the man, but this proved that he's one of the greatest musical minds of the present day. 

It's also interesting to note that, in preparation for the writing and recording of the superlative Radiohead album OK Computer, Greenwood went out to the countryside and listened to "nothing but Ennio Morricone and Bitches Brew."  Wow, great taste. 

Anyways, moving on.  The score was an absolute inspiration for me.  It's like a culmination of a lot of the things that have influenced him (which are a lot of the things that have influenced me).  The music itself is something very different for films, as it is much more rhythmically minded.  Most film scores (especially in the classics) are much more melodious that what you'll hear in There Will Be Blood.  There Will be Blood's "chugging" rhythm and dissonant harmonies that largely disregard time signature (a characteristic you will definitely see in the music of free jazz masters such as Sun Ra and Ornette Coleman) make a perfect musical backdrop for the equally steady and unsettling images you see in the film. 


Whoo!  Just wanted to get that out there.  BRILLIANT MOVIE.  You bet your behind I'll be watching it at least once or twice more in the theatre to reach my verdict.  But it's probably in my top 20.





*I know this movie isn't really a western.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Sonny on February 02, 2008, 11:42:09 PM
"Sweet fucking mother of jesus god."



That was the review of There Will Be Blood I left for my friends, but I figured you guys would want something more in-depth.




I used to wonder if I had a natural bias against new movies.  I wondered if I inevitably compared new movies to old masterpieces just because deep down I really, truly, was a snob.

But There Will Be Blood disproved that.


Genuinely, one of the best movies I've ever seen.  It's like if Kubrick directed a Western version of Citizen Kane.*


Everything about this movie excells.  The ACTING!, WRITING!, DIRECTION!, CINEMATOGRAPHY!, and MUSIC! were near impeccable.  Our own Roy Power described this movie as an "orgasm in a cup."  And I must say I agree.


Even though I haven't read the other reviews on this board (i've been absent lately), I doubt there's anything I can say about this movie that hasn't been said in the last ten pages.  But what I would like to make a special comment on is the absolutely astounding music, composed by Radiohead guitarist Johnny Greenwood.  I already knew that Greenwood was the man, but this proved that he's one of the greatest musical minds of the present day. 

It's also interesting to note that, in preparation for the writing and recording of the superlative Radiohead album OK Computer, Greenwood went out to the countryside and listened to "nothing but Ennio Morricone and Bitches Brew."  Wow, great taste. 

Anyways, moving on.  The score was an absolute inspiration for me.  It's like a culmination of a lot of the things that have influenced him (which are a lot of the things that have influenced me).  The music itself is something very different for films, as it is much more rhythmically minded.  Most film scores (especially in the classics) are much more melodious that what you'll hear in There Will Be Blood.  There Will be Blood's "chugging" rhythm and dissonant harmonies that largely disregard time signature (a characteristic you will definitely see in the music of free jazz masters such as Sun Ra and Ornette Coleman) make a perfect musical backdrop for the equally steady and unsettling images you see in the film. 


Whoo!  Just wanted to get that out there.  BRILLIANT MOVIE.  You bet your behind I'll be watching it at least once or twice more in the theatre to reach my verdict.  But it's probably in my top 20.





*I know this movie isn't really a western.


No, it's not really a western, contrary to some really strange popular belief.  Just because it takes place in the same time period and setting doesn't make the plot anything like that of a western.

Somehow i knew you'd love this one.  And I don't get what it's got to do with Kubrick really, but i understand what you mean.. i don't know how, so don't ask me.





Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on February 03, 2008, 03:45:33 PM
In order to thoroughly beat a dead horse, I just submitted this comment on IMDB. I did about as good a job as I could of articulating my grievances with this movie.

Quote
Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is an ambitious, slimy oil tycoon who begins building up an empire in the southwest using his considerable charm, his adoptive son H.W. (Dillon Freasier/Russell Harvard), and ruthless business acumen. He descends on the town of Little Boston, California, building a huge oil derrick and enriching the town. He clashes with Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), the fanatical young preacher, develops a strained relationship with his son (who is deafened in an accident), and solidifies his empire - but at the same time begins to unravel as a person.

"There Will Be Blood" has received mountains of acclaim, as one of the best films not only of the year, but of the decade - and by some, of all time. It's easy to see why, as the film has a great deal going for it: an interesting-on-paper story, impressive direction and cinematography, and most of all, an amazing performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. But at the heart of TWBB is an emptiness, which not even the greatest performance can assuage, and that is the character of Daniel Plainview.

The film begins promisingly, with a brilliant fifteen-minute opening scene devoid of dialogue, as Plainview and his associates dig out their first oil well. The introduction to Plainview as a slippery, manipulative man is well-done, and the first two hours or so are gripping. I sat engrossed, comfortable in knowing that all of the build-up would lead somewhere great. Unfortunately, towards the end, I realized that the opposite was true; the film wasn't leading anywhere, and indeed my enjoyment of it largely ended with a painfully contrived and ridiculous anti-climax.

The movie has a number of problems in narrative structure. It doesn't have much in the way of a traditional storyline. This is not inherently a bad thing, but the detached nature of the film makes it hard to care about what goes on. The only fully developed thread is the troubled relationship between Plainview and his son H.W., whom the former views as prop to manipulate his competitors and showcase his success. And even this is dropped like a potato at the end of the film. There is also the digressive nonsense of Plainview's "brother" (Kevin J. O'Conner) which adds nothing to the film.

Another flaw is the movie's lack of context. Though it is set in the early 1900's - a turbulent time when the US government led by Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson were tearing down business monopolies - there is no political or historical context beyond super-titles and a few brief mentions of Standard Oil. As the film was essentially a character study, I wasn't expecting an in-depth examination of politics and history, but a few illusions to the time period beyond "1911" flashing on the screen would have helped. The attacks on the hypocrisy of religion and big business are socialist primer material (unsurprising given the source is an Upton Sinclair novel) and bring nothing new to the table.

The basic problem of the film is in its lead, Daniel Plainview. Not in Daniel Day-Lewis, mind you, who gives one of the greatest performances in recent memory, but in the character itself. Plainview would be an interesting supporting character or villain, a slimy, manipulative man who thoroughly hates everyone besides himself. But there really isn't any depth to Plainview. He doesn't develop over the course of the story; he remains the same character throughout, a bitter, greedy misanthrope, and after awhile he becomes little more than a caricature of an evil businessman.

The main reason to see this film is Daniel Day-Lewis. While I wasn't particularly enamored of his turn as Bill the Butcher, Day-Lewis's amazing turn as Plainview almost overcomes the script's shortcomings. Day-Lewis is a fascinating premise, and the brilliance of his performance conversely accentuates the weakness of his character. If it were in aide of something better, Plainview would be the most memorable character in the last twenty years of cinema. As it stands, it's still a remarkable achievement, and if Day-Lewis doesn't win an Oscar there is no justice.

Other than Day-Lewis, the cast is non-descript. Paul Dano has received acclaim for his performance as Eli Sunday, but the role requires little more than elementary ham acting. The film's climax in particular illustrate the weakness of his performance. There are a few names in the supporting cast (Ciaran Hinds, Kevin J. O'Connor), but they remain in the background throughout. Cinematography, music and direction by Paul Thomas Anderson are all fabulous, with memorable set-pieces such as the oil explosion and the aforementioned beginning stand-out, but they do little more than cover up the weakness at the heart of the film.

"There Will Be Blood" looks like it should be a great film, but it is a deeply flawed movie with a weak central character. Nonetheless, it's worth a look, and if nothing else Day-Lewis should make it interesting.

6/10


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on February 03, 2008, 04:44:44 PM
I think you sum it up pretty good. O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 04, 2008, 01:24:57 AM
Good job, Groggy. I should point out that Plainview at the very beginning is a mineral prospector (silver or gold, I don't remember which).


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on February 04, 2008, 01:26:32 AM
Good job, Groggy. I should point out that Plainview at the very beginning is a mineral prospector (silver or gold, I don't remember which).

I think it was silver. Thanks for pointing it out though.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 05, 2008, 01:52:46 PM
I think it was silver. Thanks for pointing it out though.

Yes, it was silver.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: T.H. on February 06, 2008, 05:51:12 PM
Just a few random thoughts (a lack of desire to write a formal review).

I'm with DJ and Groggy on Blood, although I would still rate this film rather highly (*** of 4 despite its glaring flaws).

The first act, in my interpetation everything leading up to the meeting of his brother, is brilliant. The brother should have been scrapped and instead Plainview should have paired with Eli and the plot should have focused on their relationship and travels together. Had this been properly implemented and executed, then maybe the final sequence would have some weight, maybe. Plainview is an opportunist, and should have seen Eli as a potential goldmine in the art of brokering deals, all hatred would have been put aside.

Plainview is 1D and does not evolve in the least once the audience sees his true nature. PTA's point that a businessman is a murder in the literal form just isn't interesting as the businessman's true role in society, the killer of souls and pilager of the earth.

Again, I'm with DJ and Groggy about the lack of historical significance and subplots. We truly don't experience Plainview's rise in the business, it's left somewhere in the background and largely ignored.

Johnny's score is excellent. As a fervent Radiohead fan, my unrealistic expectations were reached.

PTA needs a team of writers.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on February 06, 2008, 07:56:16 PM
So basically... WE WIN! ;D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 06, 2008, 11:00:46 PM
Then all that remains is the falling out. I'll start sharpening my knife . . .  >:D


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on February 10, 2008, 07:48:38 PM
Just a few random thoughts (a lack of desire to write a formal review).

I'm with DJ and Groggy on Blood, although I would still rate this film rather highly (*** of 4 despite its glaring flaws).

The first act, in my interpetation everything leading up to the meeting of his brother, is brilliant. The brother should have been scrapped and instead Plainview should have paired with Eli and the plot should have focused on their relationship and travels together. Had this been properly implemented and executed, then maybe the final sequence would have some weight, maybe. Plainview is an opportunist, and should have seen Eli as a potential goldmine in the art of brokering deals, all hatred would have been put aside.

Plainview is 1D and does not evolve in the least once the audience sees his true nature. PTA's point that a businessman is a murder in the literal form just isn't interesting as the businessman's true role in society, the killer of souls and pilager of the earth.

Again, I'm with DJ and Groggy about the lack of historical significance and subplots. We truly don't experience Plainview's rise in the business, it's left somewhere in the background and largely ignored.

Johnny's score is excellent. As a fervent Radiohead fan, my unrealistic expectations were reached.

PTA needs a team of writers.

HIGHER

------  Me


-------


------- You

LOWER


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: T.H. on February 13, 2008, 08:24:22 PM
*reaches for bowling pin*


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 13, 2008, 08:42:04 PM
2 Disc Collector's DVD due April 8 (according to web scuttlebutt). No details yet.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on February 14, 2008, 11:01:51 AM
*reaches for bowling pin*

 ;D I've got a bowling ball, myself.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on February 14, 2008, 05:38:28 PM
2 Disc Collector's DVD due April 8 (according to web scuttlebutt). No details yet.

I'll be there to pick this up that day. I cannot wait to add this to my collection.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: T.H. on February 14, 2008, 11:52:00 PM
;D I've got a bowling ball, myself.

All we need is a pair of the Iron Sheik's bowling shoes and we have a deadly arsenal of weaponry.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 02, 2008, 06:30:21 PM
From jamesbowman.net:

Quote
There Will Be Blood
(Reviewed January 29, 2008)
   
Rating:    Not worthy of a star

Among the things I disliked about the very talented Paul Thomas Anderson’s movie There Will Be Blood, perhaps the thing I disliked most was its use of music. I could put up with a bit of Arvo Pärt to illustrate the otherworldliness of the Western landscapes through which the film’s hero, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), had to slime his way to make his fortune in the early days of the oil industry, and even the more constant and anachronistic static of Radiohead is not positively offensive. But the nobility of Brahms’s Violin Concerto as background music to a tale otherwise unredeemed by any but the slightest hints that there might be such a thing as human goodness or unselfishness was too much. It only served to underscore how pointless the movie was as anything but an opportunity for Mr Day-Lewis to play, as he so often does, the Great Actor and for Mr Anderson to play Orson Welles with this shot at a latter-day Citizen Kane, set in the heroic days of American "capitalism" — of which, of course, it is also a critique.

I’ve never been all that fond of Citizen Kane (1941) itself, to tell the truth, though cinéastes routinely vote it the greatest film of all time. Like There Will be Blood, it is obviously the work of a film-maker of corruscating genius, but the genius of the film-makers, great director and great actor, is the problem with their films. Both are too self-conscious and, ultimately, self-regarding. The artist is the hero of both (Welles doing both the directing and the acting in his), and in both he patronizes the life out of his principal character. Classical tragedy was supposed to inspire, according to Aristotle, pity and terror. These stabs at a kind of cinematic tragedy give us the pity without the terror, or with disgust in its place. No one looks at Charles Foster Kane or Daniel Plainview and sees himself the way we can see ourselves in Oedipus or Hamlet or Macbeth. Plainview, like Kane, is a would-be great man who has been set up only in order that his creator can tear him down — while leaving him, to be sure, a modicum of humanity with which to certify not his but his author’s spiritual largesse.

Plainview is an oil-man who, with a combination of trickery and ruthlessness, buys up all the prime oil leases around Bakersfield, California at a time (1911) when the area is inhabited by poor subsistence farmers. The farmers do not get rich off their land, but Plainview does. And he takes as much savage satisfaction from mastering them as he does from resisting the attempts of the big oil companies to buy him out. "I have a competition in me," he says in a rare moment of self-revelation. "I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people. . .There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone. . . I see the worst in people. I don't need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I want to rule and never, ever explain myself."

Of course he is explaining himself here, to a man he believes to be his long-lost half brother, Henry (Kevin J. O'Connor). "I’ve built my hatreds up over the years, little by little, Henry," he goes on to confide: "to have you here gives me a second breath. I can't keep doing this on my own with these — people." But Henry, instead of relieving his misanthropy only confirms him in it. And, indeed, for all we see of these "people," he seems to be more or less right about them. The words of Eli Wallach’s bandito, Calvera, in The Magnificent Seven come to mind. "If God didn't want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep." Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) is almost the only one among them who seems to know or care about what Plainview is doing to him, and he is a religious charlatan (which in Hollywood these days is a redundancy) who is happy to cooperate with him for his own purposes. At one point he stages a grotesque parody of Plainview’s conversion and repentance with no purpose but to exaggerate the wickedness of both men.

One person who seems to inspire feelings other than anger and contempt in Plainview is H.W. (Dillon Freasier), the orphan boy whom he adopts as his son in order the better to sell his drilling company to the rubes of rural California as a family-run operation. When H.W. gets too close to a gusher and is deafened by the explosion, we see Plainview running from the well with the child in his arms and anguish in his face — until he realizes that his presence is urgently required back at the well. What briefly looks like love turns out to be only sentimentality. Likewise, at one point he appears to prevent Eli’s little sister, Mary (Sydney McCallister), from being beaten for not praying (those darned Christians again!), but this is an isolated gesture and not followed up. By the end, neither Mary nor H.W. appears to mean anything to him.

The movie that Paul Thomas Anderson says he took as his model was not Citizen Kane but John Huston’s Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948), which might get my vote as greatest movie of all time. It makes for a fascinating comparison, for what is missing from Blood is exactly what Treasure could have supplied, which is the powerful sense of ordinary human aspiration. Huston’s Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) was like Daniel Plainview in allowing the lust for wealth utterly to corrupt his soul, but his two companions, played by Tim Holt and Walter Huston, are our representatives on the spot: men who share Dobbs’s ambition but without his terrible, all-consuming monomania. The reversion at the end to a benign natural order from which the Dobbsian evil has been purged strikes me as not only more heartening but more true than the bleak war of each against all which is the world of There Will Be Blood.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 05, 2008, 02:06:20 AM
DVD artwork: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67073


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on March 05, 2008, 11:42:32 AM
That's not completely awful (compared to the projected Atonement DVD artwork, which is vomit-inducing).


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on March 05, 2008, 05:04:21 PM
That's not completely awful (compared to the projected Atonement DVD artwork, which is vomit-inducing).

The TWBB artwork isn't awful at all. I can't really decide what's worse about the Atonement artwork. The picture, or the giant 7 NOMINATIONS including BEST PICTURE label.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on March 05, 2008, 06:17:48 PM
I loved the Atonement poster artwork, myself. It still didn't completely capture what the film is but it was cool to look at.

(http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/dvd/focus/atonement/atonement_poster.jpg)

But this! This is just dreadful...

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41E5%2Bag3-TL._SS500_.jpg)

BULLSHIT! Just look at it.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on March 05, 2008, 08:55:08 PM
I loved the Atonement poster artwork, myself. It still didn't completely capture what the film is but it was cool to look at.

(http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/dvd/focus/atonement/atonement_poster.jpg)

But this! This is just dreadful...

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41E5%2Bag3-TL._SS500_.jpg)

BULLSHIT! Just look at it.

I went and picked this up at work to watch it again tonight. The case looks nothing like the image. I mean, the picture is there, but there is also a picture of the refugee beach in the background (with another James McAvoy). Their names are on the case, the 7 best... isn't quite as large or as dull looking, and the title is in typewriter font. Still not as cool as the poster though, but not as bad as the picture makes it out to be.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on March 07, 2008, 08:53:52 PM
Yeah, but there needs to be a Briony on the cover.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on March 09, 2008, 04:54:09 PM
Getting back on topic... some dude on IMDB did this. It's immature but I still find it funny.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2270/2322538628_ec5b85bdb4_b.jpg)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 10, 2008, 08:49:16 AM

No, it's not really a western, contrary to some really strange popular belief.  Just because it takes place in the same time period and setting doesn't make the plot anything like that of a western.

Somehow i knew you'd love this one.  And I don't get what it's got to do with Kubrick really, but i understand what you mean.. i don't know how, so don't ask me.


Im sorry but... this movie is a western. It has every main theme of Western : individual, Man, society, family, friendship, religion, birth of a nation, nature (and the relationships between these elements). In one word: Justice (in its biggest and philosophical meaning).

BTW, the movie is what is called a masterpiece (in the philosophical meaning too: a movie that stands alone, hat is not dependant on the context. In 50 years, we will still watch it. Like Citizen kane. Like a Kubrick. Like a greec tragedy.)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Sonny on March 13, 2008, 03:53:11 PM
Im sorry but... this movie is a western. It has every main theme of Western : individual, Man, society, family, friendship, religion, birth of a nation, nature (and the relationships between these elements). In one word: Justice (in its biggest and philosophical meaning).

BTW, the movie is what is called a masterpiece (in the philosophical meaning too: a movie that stands alone, hat is not dependant on the context. In 50 years, we will still watch it. Like Citizen kane. Like a Kubrick. Like a greec tragedy.)

For a second i thought this might've been posted after our little agreement.  So, the point still stands, it's a drama/western!  ;)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 14, 2008, 05:12:43 AM
Of course. Je ne suis pas un individu de mauvaise foi.

http://www.acapela-group.com/Greetings/easter-1-b7f1942535ae9


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 14, 2008, 09:20:24 AM
After having had  a steady diet of HappyTreeFriends, I expected that animated character to live up to the name of this thread. I'm very disappointed. :'(


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 14, 2008, 10:13:19 AM
http://www.acapela-group.com/Greetings/1-b7f24622add5b


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 14, 2008, 12:21:32 PM
 ;D ;D ;D But still no blood!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on March 16, 2008, 10:45:26 PM
"Im sorry but... this movie is a western. It has every main theme of Western : individual, Man, society, family, friendship, religion, birth of a nation, nature (and the relationships between these elements). In one word: Justice (in its biggest and philosophical meaning)."

But what about the cowboys?'

DVD RELEASE 4/8/08


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 17, 2008, 06:39:15 AM
But what about the cowboys?'
DVD RELEASE 4/8/08

You mean the guys that you never see in TWB, GBU, FFDM, FOD, OUATITW, and most westerns? :)
Well, i guess Open Range is one of the only westerns of the world.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 18, 2008, 03:30:55 PM
Genius: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ClsOQdlUE


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on March 18, 2008, 06:33:05 PM
 O0 O0 O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on March 18, 2008, 10:34:52 PM
Genius: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ClsOQdlUE

Great find! I laughed extremely hard.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on April 04, 2008, 07:17:46 PM
DVD Savant's take on the film:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2547bloo.html (http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2547bloo.html)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Juan Miranda on April 10, 2008, 05:59:54 PM
HATED Anderson's previous films, so I was in no rush to see this. Imagin my surprise when I discovered that in this one the camera was often locked off and many shots lasted as long as ten or twenty seconds. Beautifull cinematography from Robert Elswit, nice use of one of Avro Part's best known compositions (though using an inferior performance), and fairly engaging; up to a point.

No idea why there are comparisons with CITIZEN KANE, as good old Charlie FK has his fortune handed to him on a plate. If anything it was more like Nic Roeg's EUREKA, however D Day aside all the other characters were bland to the point of not even existing, which lead to the third act, the bit in the 1920's sinking the whole bloodless film for me. And while D Day was great when not speaking, every time he opened his gob it was to deliver such an absurd John Huston impersonation (of which I do a not bad one myself) I was laughing out loud in places. Absolute shite, and I'm amazed that given the terrible script it ever got major studio backing.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on April 13, 2008, 11:06:49 AM
  Rented TWBB this week and thought it was great.  I've really come to appreciate NCFOM and probably enjoyed it more on the whole, but I think Blood should have gotten best picture.  DDL WAS Daniel Plainview and by the end it doesn't even seem like acting anymore.  I think my favorite part was Jonny Greenwood's music which reminded me at times of Lost music and other times tinges of Morricone but whatever the inspiration, I loved the music.

 Can't quite give it a 10/10 because at times I thought it drifted a little too much, but I'll go a very strong 9/10 almost bordering on falling over to tendom. O0


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 13, 2008, 11:56:42 AM
No idea why there are comparisons with CITIZEN KANE, as good old Charlie FK has his fortune handed to him on a plate. If anything it was more like Nic Roeg's EUREKA, however D Day aside all the other characters were bland to the point of not even existing, which lead to the third act, the bit in the 1920's sinking the whole bloodless film for me. And while D Day was great when not speaking, every time he opened his gob it was to deliver such an absurd John Huston impersonation (of which I do a not bad one myself) I was laughing out loud in places. Absolute shite, and I'm amazed that given the terrible script it ever got major studio backing.
"When I say I do John Huston impersonations, you will believe I do John Huston impersonations." To be fair, I doubt the script said anything about DD-L's intended performance.

The parallels with CK aren't exact, but the comparison has some usefulness since both films are about rich men who come to dominate an industry that has bearing on the larger culture around them. For my part, the comparison points up a problem the films have regarding their lead characters. CFK is in the end revealed to be a hollowed out shell (and therefore, ultimately uninteresting), and DP, while entertaining at times, dwindles into a total bore. In the case of Kane this is less of a problem, since we are introduced to a host of other well-rounded characters: Mr. Bernstein, Leland, Susan Alexander Kane. In Blood, Plainview is, as you point out, the whole show. Once you've tired of him, or tired of waiting for some kind of change in him, there's no longer any reason to stick around.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on April 13, 2008, 05:22:56 PM
The movie has elements of Treasure of the Sierra Madre as well, no doubt emphasized by the Huston impersonation.

Juan, your review is spot-on. That's exactly my problem with the movie: the whole film focuses squarely on Plainview, and when it comes right down to it, he's not that interesting or compelling of a character. That, and the ending was skull-crushingly idiotic.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Juan Miranda on April 14, 2008, 10:30:41 AM
I see there is some polarisation on the board regarding TWBB. I can only point out what I though were the glaring faults that spoiled it for me, while freely admitting its qualities. Yet another piece of nonsense was the bowling alley itself. Why on Earth would a creature like Plainview, who is  as we have seen content to sleep on a Spartan floor even as a wealthy man have, of all things, a bowling alley built in his basment? I guess you could counter it was for his "son", but as we have never seen him give that poor shade a thing in any other part of the picture its a bit convinient that he's giving away bowling alleys now, just at the point he's about to self destruct. Painfully contrived.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on April 14, 2008, 10:54:10 AM
  Call it contrived, but I didn't see it that way.  Picture this, Plainview's buying this huge mansion and the agent is trying to explain all the things he could/should put in his house.  If other rich home owners have done a bowling alley in their homes, maybe he mentions it and Daniel goes along with it because otherwise his house is empty.  It's not what the character might do, but it's something everyone else would do.

 Really, the bowling alley is secondary to me.  It was more of a visual thing IMO that we have this empty, vacant white bowling alley.  It could have been anything sharp or blunt that Daniel used to go after Eli so what's the problem with a bowling pin?  Who's to even say that Daniel uses the bowling alley, it could just be there for show?  There's so much the viewer is not sure of about the character, this is just one more thing to question.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on April 14, 2008, 03:57:00 PM
Daniel was rich. He could have anything he wanted. When you have money, the general idea of Americans is to spend it on ridiculous stuff that would be of no use to them i.e. like a golden toilet or sink. So you ask "Why did Plainview have a Bowling Alley?". The answer is simple and American: because he can. Plus, he wants Obama to come over and learn how to bowl better than a 37. Ouch!


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 18, 2008, 04:07:24 PM
Why couldn't the bowling alley have come wth the house?


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: T.H. on April 19, 2008, 12:47:46 AM
Edit: I'm giving this post its own thread.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Senza on March 16, 2013, 09:42:23 PM
The Eli character was a one of the rare examples of a character that really annoyed me or pissed me off.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: emmo26 on September 21, 2013, 05:46:19 AM
moviesceleton....why not move this one to GD aswell.


As far as Im aware, this aint ´Leone releated´ and to my mind it aint a ´traditional´ western.
.
.
.
.
..


Gee´s moderators any their powertrips.


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 21, 2013, 07:32:49 AM
Since this thread was bumped, might as well post this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CF2PbJsaW8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CF2PbJsaW8)


Title: Re: There Will Be Blood (2007)
Post by: emmo26 on September 22, 2013, 07:32:57 AM
moviesceleton....why not move this one to GD aswell.


As far as Im aware, this aint ´Leone releated´ and to my mind it aint a ´traditional´ western.
.
.
.
.
..


Gee´s moderators any their powertrips.

I don´t know why this finnish ´plank´ made it to be a moderator, he doesn´t even comeback with a reasonable explanation on his actions.......maybe he should have his moderator status removed.