Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 16, 2008 18:41:24 GMT
By the way, anyone reminded of 2001: A Space Odyssey by this film's opening?
Long, opening establishing shots of a vast, mountainous landscape, with the theme of being on the edge to some sort of groundbreaking discovery (man with his tools; finding gold/silver). The initial point of comparison came about by Greenwood's score, a dramatic, discordant drone very similar to the Gyorgy Ligeti (I think) piece that plays whenever the monolith is seen early on.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 16, 2008 18:42:50 GMT
True; you know how I feel about overhyping stuff. I just think we're all mature enough on this board to note that it's impossible to go into a film without any sort of expectation, while at the same time note the possibility of being open, and since this is getting rave reviews from everyone on here, I don't want those who've yet to see it to be majorly underwhelmed. The only expectation I have is that considering talent and/or premise involved.....................it has a shot of being good. Not it will be good or it will suck....but that it has a chance. Its like Irishman, that idiotic dickhead over at GangsterBB.Net. He bitched and moaned about AMERICAN GANGSTER not being much at first because of his "expectations." I liked it, though I could see why you and others didn't. The way I saw it, Ridley Scott has made both good (ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, GLADIATOR) and bad (WHITE SQUALL) flicks. He could shoot either. Then take NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, a movie that quite a few people (like a AICN reviewer) who hated it because it jerked their expectations with the 3rd act and its finale. Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 16, 2008 18:45:39 GMT
By the way, anyone reminded of 2001: A Space Odyssey by this film's opening? Long, opening establishing shots of a vast, mountainous landscape, with the theme of being on the edge to some sort of groundbreaking discovery (man with his tools; finding gold/silver). The initial point of comparison came about by Greenwood's score, a dramatic, discordant drone very similar to the Gyorgy Ligeti (I think) piece that plays whenever the monolith is seen early on. That and the music did.......hell, my numb reaction to TWBB was one that a viewer gets when they see a Kubrick picture for the very first time. You know, you don't know whatever you liked it or hated it or even know WHAT THE FUCK YOU JUST SAW. Then you digest it for a few days, consider and ponder upon it. People either say "fuck it" to a Kubrick picture, or just fucking dig it more and more.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 16, 2008 21:52:00 GMT
The initial point of comparison came about by Greenwood's score, a dramatic, discordant drone very similar to the Gyorgy Ligeti (I think) piece that plays whenever the monolith is seen early on. I love Greenwood's score, but some people are acting like it's sui generis in film scores. In addition to Ligeti, there's Kubrick's use of Penderecki who Greenwood said he listened to as a child. PTA said in an interview that he wrote the TWBB script to either Penderecki or Ligeti. I can't remember which one. SpoilersAnother connection I've seen people bring up b/w TWBB and 2001 is the bone/bowling pin. I think that's going too far b/c the oil tycoon, who Plainview is based on, Edward Doheny had a bowling alley in his mansion. Plus, didn't they shoot the 1927 sequences in the real Doheny mansion?
Oh yeah, the milkshake thingy was taken from an actual transcript PTA found of a congressional hearing of an oil scandal, Teapot Dome scandal.End Spoilers
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 18, 2008 3:08:21 GMT
Oh, for fuck's sake. It just got pushed back two weeks here. Argh!
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 21, 2008 18:14:24 GMT
I've had it on repeat on my Zen walking to and from campus all week; very good. Of all the pieces used in the film, though, I'm most in love with Arvo Pärt's "Fratres for cello and piano" - gives me shivers as it's used in the film.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 21, 2008 20:22:50 GMT
Capo, in the Coen Bros. thread you mentioned the people you watched NCFOM with were ambivalent. Did you see TWBB w/ others, if so, what did they think? Any of them in your uni's film society?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 22, 2008 1:10:06 GMT
I've seen it three times now at the cinema. The first was alone, for free, as a members' preview at my arthouse. The second was with a good ten people or more, all part of my film society; everyone basically came out loving it. The third was with two others, who hadn't seen it because they didn't think it would be good, but saw it anyway because I was raving about it. They thought it was brilliant.
I can't stop thinking about it - I want to see it again.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 22, 2008 2:00:08 GMT
I've seen it three times now at the cinema. The first was alone, for free, as a members' preview at my arthouse. The second was with a good ten people or more, all part of my film society; everyone basically came out loving it. The third was with two others, who hadn't seen it because they didn't think it would be good, but saw it anyway because I was raving about it. They thought it was brilliant. I can't stop thinking about it - I want to see it again. Are any of those people the ones you saw NCFOM with? I hear ya. I haven't thought about a movie as much as TWBB, maybe, like, ever.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 22, 2008 11:03:22 GMT
Yeah, everyone who saw No Country for Old Men saw There Will Be Blood - plus some newbies.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 22, 2008 19:14:24 GMT
Huh. I figured NCFOM would be the one that they'd have warmed to rather than TWBB because the former is more the genre piece and plot-driven of the 2. Maybe the lack of closure and the definitive in NCFOM is harder to take than the range of tones in TWBB.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 24, 2008 16:44:45 GMT
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Feb 24, 2008 17:56:40 GMT
A quote from a YouTube comment:
"but like always SNL just takes a five-second punchline and beats it like a dead horse for five minutes."
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 24, 2008 20:01:36 GMT
A quote from a YouTube comment: "but like always SNL just takes a five-second punchline and beats it like a dead horse for five minutes." Pretty much.
|
|
Blib
Ghost writer
Posts: 623
|
Post by Blib on Feb 24, 2008 23:40:23 GMT
You guys have covered just about everything I can imagine. I have a couple of small questions. I read all three pages so forgive me if you've covered this and I just missed it somehow. SPOILERSWhen Daniel sent H.W. away, do you guys think he sent him to a school for the deaf or boarding school w/ the intent of leaving him there at first? What does everyone else think? I assumed H.W. was just sent away to a boarding school with the purpose of leaving him there. As Daniel said near the end of the movie he needed a cute face to help him sell oil. H.W. was just a tool and once he lost his hearing he had become useless in his business world. The cold blank look on Daniel's face, and how he doesn't look back, as he walked away from the train with his son fighting to get to him (brought tears to my eyes) made me think he was truly abandoning him. But I guess if H.W. was just a tool then why did Daniel bring him back? I'm trying to remember now, did he bring H.W. back after the scene where Eli humiliates him in front of the church? And when did the investors suggest something about him raising his son? Was that before or after the church scene and the scene when H.W. comes back? It matters to me because I wonder how significant that scene is with Eli humiliating Daniel in front of the church. I got the feeling that Daniel was really getting into his confession of abandoning his son. I think by the time he was red-faced and bellowing it out that he had abandoned his boy I felt he was genuine, until Eli started hitting him across the face. I think at that point he was brought back to his senses and just went along with Eli's act. END SPOILERS
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 25, 2008 0:34:25 GMT
SPOILERS
Earlier in the thread, Kino asked if we thought Daniel loved H.W. I agree with his answer: "Hell yes." When he leaves him on the train his face is clearly in anguish.
As for the order of scenes: Daniel meets with the Standard investors after he sends his boy away but before he kills false brother Henry; the baptist scene takes place after he's killed Henry; he agrees to get baptised because that's the only way he can acquire the land he needs to build the pipeline through (at the end of the ceremony, he says to himself, "That's the pipeline). I agree with you: his torment in the baptist scene is clearly genuine. When he brings H.W. back, he says, "Oh, that does me good" a few times. Keep in mind at this point he's been betrayed by a brother he thought he had, who turned out to be an imposter. H.W. was a reminder of the loyalty he sought in people - even though H.W. wasn't his blood.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 25, 2008 0:41:03 GMT
SPOILERS
It was one of the reasons, but I think the major reason is that Daniel didn't know how to take care of him. I don't doubt that Daniel didn't want his time to be taken from his business, either.
I'm certain, in my opinion, that Daniel loved H.W. With Henry gone, Daniel needed his original partner back.
It's definitely possible that Daniel meant to abandon H.W., but I don't think so. Before H.W. was sent away, Daniel told Fletcher to get someone down to Little Boston to help and take care of H.W. I'm guessing an arrangement for that couldn't be made so he decided to send H.W. away.
After. Daniel killed Henry. Bandy found Daniel the next morning and made the proposition. Daniel joined the church. I'm not sure exactly what happens next, but then when H.W. comes back Daniel's men were laying down the pipeline on Bandy's land.
During the meeting where Standard Oil offered Daniel a million bucks for the Little Boston title. Daniel replied something like, "What would I do with myself?" (if he sold off his business). The guy said "Take care of your son."
They talked more. Then the guy said something like, "We'll make you rich. Let us take over and you can spend time with your son."
That's when Daniel said something like, "Did you just tell me how to run my family?"
Before. Henry was in on that meeting.
I think Daniel meant to bring H.W. back since he sent him away. It's just that with Henry gone and his guilt in the church left no doubt that he would. END SPOILERS
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 25, 2008 0:50:16 GMT
Spoilers
Another reason why Daniel sent H.W. away was he felt H.W. needed time to adjust and would in the mean time possibly do more stuff like setting fire to the cabin. Remember Daniel spiked H.W.'s milk so he could do business.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 3, 2008 22:29:18 GMT
1. There Will Be Blood (2007) 9/10
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Mar 4, 2008 21:37:19 GMT
Wetdog, I really liked your reviews you wrote of some of the films you saw at the festival.
I'd love to read a TWBB review by you.
|
|