There Will Be Blood

I just saw this movie, and it was good. A larger question: has anyone seen a Daniel Day Lewis movie they didn't like? I've only seen In the Name of the Father, besides this one. Recommendations please. A Lager question: which lager?

I just watched it over the weekend, and was very underwhelmed by it. DDL can sure act, and there's some really good cinematography, but the script can suck my meep.

I still can't shake the "what the fuk did I just watch?" feeling. Complete pointlessness.

As far as DDL, watch "The Boxer."

I thought he made Gangs of New York. His role as the Butcher was as slimy and evil as could be, but still turned out to be a character you could could empathize with.

Crackalackin:

I just saw this movie, and it was good. A larger question: has anyone seen a Daniel Day Lewis movie they didn't like? I've only seen In the Name of the Father, besides this one. Recommendations please. A Lager question: which lager?

I just watched it over the weekend, and was very underwhelmed by it. DDL can sure act, and there's some really good cinematography, but the script can suck my meep.

I still can't shake the "what the fuk did I just watch?" feeling. Complete pointlessness.

As far as DDL, watch "The Boxer."

have you seen magnolia? if you haven't, then don't, because you would like it even less than there will be blood. and then there's no country for old men, for that matter. that movie also didn't have a resolution.

there will be blood was excellent all around. writing, acting, cinematography, everything. rumor is that PT Anderson is going to do horror next, and with his talents, i think it could be the exorcist or the shining.

nocal: there will be blood was excellent all around. writing, acting, cinematography, everything. rumor is that PT Anderson is going to do horror next, and with his talents, i think it could be the exorcist or the shining.

PTA disproved this rumor on Ain't It Cool News, so no horror movie -- I'd give you the link but on my way out.

Just don't say it has excellent writing, mmkay? Even if the movie critics agree, the writing has to be exciting and purposeful to be excellent. For example, the whole "we'll make you a millionaire, go take care of your son" dialogue is a textbook example of how not to write.

that movie also didn't have a resolution.

you silly kids, wanting everything packaged nice and neat.

*actually, let me expand on that. i thought no country for old men was excellent, but you're right, kinda. unless a movie covers someone's life from birth to death, it's going to leave things out. i guess what i'm saying is, not every story necessarily has a resolution. well, from the protagonist's pov it did. it just seemed to reinforce to me the 'business as usual' view of the antagonist. also, i am drunk and not really explaining myself well. i just don't think it should be discounted is all.

p.s. how does ddl's character differ from bill the butcher? they seemed awfully similar from the trailers - albeit somewhat superficially.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2008-01-28 at 22:56:59, mundhra asked to smell your meep</span>

Crackalackin:

nocal: there will be blood was excellent all around. writing, acting, cinematography, everything. rumor is that PT Anderson is going to do horror next, and with his talents, i think it could be the exorcist or the shining.

PTA disproved this rumor on Ain't It Cool News, so no horror movie -- I'd give you the link but on my way out.

Just don't say it has excellent writing, mmkay? Even if the movie critics agree, the writing has to be exciting and purposeful to be excellent. For example, the whole "we'll make you a millionaire, go take care of your son" dialogue is a textbook example of how not to write.

that's disappointing, actually. i think he could bring a really refreshing intelligence to horror that's been lacking, what with all those "saw" movies.

Even if the movie critics agree, the writing has to be exciting and purposeful to be excellent.

i think there was a purpose, it just wasn't spelled out for you. my interpretation is not necessarily the correct one, nor is it the only one, but here's how it worked for me. it was the parallel lives of two megalomaniacs, one a capitalist who exploited people, and one who used religion to take advantage of people. in the end, one has to emerge triumphant, and i think the ending showed that while capitalism is the more bloodthirsty and the more savage, it showed a certain hopelessness involved with the pure pursuit of money. that is to say, if that's all that drives you, what happens when you inevitably get it?

i don't think it needed to force feed me. that's why i complain about v for vendetta. you leave the theater without questions, without thoughts of your own. they imprint you with their own thoughts, which just encourages passivity.

no country for old men was much the same way as there will be blood. i'm not giving much of anything away by saying that the ending was unresolved. when it ended, i heard people in the audience say "What?"

i guess what i'm saying is, not every story necessarily has a resolution.

that's what i'm sayin

Two things-

First, because the movie more , in my eyes, represented Daniel Day Lewis less as a personification of capitalist ambition than as a human. This is successful movie making, and whether you want to credit the script or the actor is up to you.

As for the scene with the "let's make you a millionaire bit"- I thought this was fairly tasteful. If you're in the mindset where things are looking fake all around, it's easy to pick at the edges and find the bad parts of the screen play, and really, that's honest criticism in the sense the dialogue did not do a good enough job of pulling you into the movie that you weren't able to pick out the rough bits.

I can't help but throw out my thoughts on resolution. Most stories have resolutions, right? And often the resolutions are unsatisfying, ie 'happily ever after.' Resolution is often artificial. So if you want to be real, honest, gritty, etc, maybe you shouldn't have a resolution. They can be unnecessary.

But- but when you present a story with a perfect, satisfying resolution, the kind that's so rare in life and so compelling in fiction, that's something special and worthy and not to be sneered at. It's the literary equivalent of a song that's not only beautiful and moving, but also rocks the meep out.

I'm not done yet. I want to share a dream I had (I had it this summer.) I was reading Harry Potter 7 at the time of the dream, so spoiler alert, spoiler alert, and I'm also reading it in the dream, and you know how in the book Harry is collecting all this magic gear, the hallows and the horcruxes? In my dream, I've gotten to the point where he's just about to go into a large hall to face Lord Voldemort, except he's stripped of his invisibility cape, his wand, his hallows, his horcruxes, his friends- he's magically naked, in a sense. And there's an ominous tone to the writing in my dream, I know something bad is going to happen, I'm turning to the last page, Harry walks into the room with Voldemort, and then---- that's the end of the book, and there's just a thick black line across the bottom of the page.

So in my dream I'm creeped out but also tingled and excited, and I'm thinking things like, "meep yeah, post-modernism in a children's novel" and stuff, and then I notice the black line is really a black ribbon on the page, and it goes out onto the cover, where it melds ingeniously into the cover art so I didn't notice it before, and I follow the ribbon all the way to the spine, where it goes up and turns into the stem of a giant black silk umbrella, attached to the book, where when you extend the umbrella it's so big and black and embracing it's like you're in a perfectly black closed off space, it's silent even. And then, in my dream, I'm thinking "meep YEAH, except meep meep meep this is creepy."

i agree that a resolution is often good. frankly, watching a movie like no country for old men, you want there to be a resolution. you want things to work out and go well for the people you like and you want the people you hate to suffer. and some movies can't work without a resolution. for example, i think that harold and kumar go to white castle is a relatively funny escapist flick. if that meeping movie ended on a downer, with anything less than them making it to white castle, it wouldn't even make sense. it is a better movie in that it has a neat little impossible resolution (disregarding the impossible events throughout the movie)

it's been said that hollywood movies reinforce, while "art" movies challenge. this is not always true 100% of the time, but if you think about it, it is often true.

you don't always go to movies looking for a challenge. god knows, for whatever pretensions i have, i don't. sometimes i just want to believe that everything is great, good people are rewarded, things were meant to be, all that. hollywood knows that, romance authors know that, larry the cable guy knows that.

but sometimes you want to have to think when you see a movie, and i think that there will be blood was vaguely similar to magnolia in that sense. it didn't have a "point", it didn't always make a lot of sense, it was just watching lives interconnect. you take from it what you take from it, and i don't think PT Anderson is that concerned with telling you what it is you see on the screen. i left both of those movies after seeing them in the theater with a similar feeling: i wasn't sure what i saw, but i knew it was good. i couldn't stop thinking about them, and later on, i think i had a few interesting thoughts about them.

i like where the dream was going, that is a fascinating idea, that you would get to the end of a book and instead of a resolution there is a physical object there. almost like instead of an emotional payoff, there is something tangible. but i think the umbrella symbolizes that you need to seek help.

Dildoza: I just saw this movie, and it was good. A larger question: has anyone seen a Daniel Day Lewis movie they didn't like? I've only seen In the Name of the Father, besides this one. Recommendations please.

The Boxer was good. The Last of the Mohicans is awesome. My left foot is good.

I look forward to seeing this.

Just saw this.

It's hard to explain how monumentally perfect it is. It's bleak, slow, tragic and intense. People are going to hate it, but they will all be wrong.

Yes, the movie never explains itself. The characters never resolve their arcs, and in the end you wonder what was the message - the point. It's all tension, all build up, and no real release. It feels a lot like a Kubric film. A LOT. Right down to the freaky violins.

Still, I wanted it to be an hour longer at least (it's already 2.5 hours long), just so I could keep watching the world and its characters unfold.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2008-02-03 at 02:35:51, Lownotes asked to smell your meep</span>

Saw it. I echo most of lownotes comments.

Daniel Day Lewis deserves an Oscar. The director does to.

When a movie can go without dialog for 10-15 minutes and keep your(my) interest, you know that what you are seeing is the result of fantastic acting and film making.

The movie does resolve itself. The last words of dialog in the film clearly state that(ha).

I loved this movie as it was easily the most impressive and thought provoking film I've seen since....well...maybe ever. The performances stay with you man......it's kind of creepy.

It was a quick 2.5 hrs.

Peep it.