Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 9, 2008 14:06:29 GMT
Here's me doing my Daniel Plainview impression.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 30, 2008 22:07:25 GMT
The film's only worth is in some of its technical qualities. The cinematography is excellent, Lewis is good but there is no depth for him to work with. The first 40 minutes are well done if you take the time to examine them, just about before Anderson begins the "horrific descent into madness and squander" which is where the film begins to fall apart with every layer. It's so naive and empty. In truth, the overall "transformation" of Plainview, his motivations, his characteristics, his trajectory, is all hollow and extremely primitive. It's all emulation, and as in life, that is enough for the majority of people.
I loved how all of a sudden Plainview reveals to his "brother" later in the film his contempt for the human race. Such a shallow attempt by PTA to provide any type of character depth. What's the point of any of it? The film never delves into anything at all really, even though it contains interesting elements, it just continues to insult the viewer's intelligence hollow scene after hollow scene.
It's also muddled. Throughout the entire thing I get the feeling that PTA has no idea what he wants to do, and although that's most likely false the film still comes off that way. I got the same feeling with Boogie Nights.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 30, 2008 22:22:27 GMT
Here's me doing my Daniel Plainview impression. That's good.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 8, 2008 13:34:29 GMT
There Will Be Blood Paul Thomas Anderson 2007 | USA In early 1900s California, an ambitious businessman in the oil industry wishes to buy more land, but his biggest obstacle is a young, idealist churchman. When the dust of hyperbole settles, Anderson's film remains a masterpiece of acting and directorial set-pieces. There's hardly a word of dialogue spoken in the opening twenty minutes, as the yearning stretches of Johnny Greenwood's score throb along, but thereafter, as it jumps ahead some years, we watch unfold a simple enough story of power going up against itself, in the form of characters as concepts: Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis, inspired) is Capitalism personified, the brutal, misanthropic oil magnate who wishes to buy up all the land and riches of the Sunday ranch, led by eldest son Eli (Dano, terrific), the Church in all its transparent prophecies. Neither one's necessarily likeable on paper, though Day-Lewis invests ruthless charm in his most gigantic, barbaric figure yet (really, it's the best physical performance in quite a time), while Dano is suitably pathetic as the puny kid whose power lies in stirring sermons. As a portrait of the self-destructive forces of America, it's Anderson's most accomplished film, and the literal and allegorical references to blood and its connecting force ring far truer than any of his previous surrogate families.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 1, 2009 22:20:53 GMT
There Will Be Blood ***** Paul Thomas Anderson 2007 USA 4th time; DVDIs this a reflection of tweaking your rating system or has your opinion of the film lowered? I'm curious to see my response the next time I see the film because I haven't seen it since January or February. I saw NCFOM last month and it didn't pack the same punch for me. Zodiac and TAOJJ hold up, though. Well, two stars means "worth watching" (three means "very good" and one means "disappointing"), so I still like it. I just found it incredibly bloated. It's a masterpiece of acting - if two actors can constitute a masterpiece ( Zodiac and the other 2007 greats are better) - and there are some brilliant moments. It's never boring, either. But... I don't know. In my review above I pick up on the grand allegorical characters as concepts, and praise the film for them. I'm not so sure now, though; they don't hold up well for me, they seem a bit insubstantial beyond the riveting performances. Each scene seems to be written and shot as a set-piece in itself, and the accumulative effect is draining (not boring, just portentous); Anderson lacks the maturity and skill of, say, Sergio Leone. I wouldn't write Anderson off, though; he's got a lot of potential, and obvious talent, and I hope he's still learning. I think he'd have benefited from being under Altman's wing longer.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jan 1, 2009 23:55:29 GMT
Cool, thanks.
|
|