criterionforum.org

For me, at the tardiest, I'd back Paul as the likely director somewhere around the time Daniel leaves H.W. in the train

As it was mentioned earlier, I too see a strong resemblance concerning some aspects to Once Upon A Time In The West as well. If you look deep enough, you can see a deeper Leone influence which surprised me. Also, I really saw none of Paul's earlier films in this which surprised me just as much but maybe that eluded me the first viewing.

"It's not a tumor" is still funny.

Shockingly accurate and hilarious.

It really is; the bowling alley on the plasma TV in the background is the crowning touch.

I only wish they'd used the original music as well, the added music really distracted me from how well it was done otherwise.

I can't stand drug humor or YouTube movie parodies, but you know what: that was surprisingly well-done.

Pretty great actually. "I smoke it up!"

A good interview with Jack Fisk and Robert Elswit

The other Anderson in the "Axis of Hackdom," Paul 3-Names wowed the Beigeocracy by--get this--holding extra-long shots on his actors as they have internal moments. Yup, in a country gone totally stupid, all you gotta do is walk out of the edit room for 10 minutes, and suddenly Rolling Stone stands and cheers your "rule-busting experimentation" while Roger Ebert creams that PTA's film is a, "A force beyond categories."

King Prendergast wrote:The other Anderson in the "Axis of Hackdom," Paul 3-Names wowed the Beigeocracy by--get this--holding extra-long shots on his actors as they have internal moments. Yup, in a country gone totally stupid, all you gotta do is walk out of the edit room for 10 minutes, and suddenly Rolling Stone stands and cheers your "rule-busting experimentation" while Roger Ebert creams that PTA's film is a, "A force beyond categories."

What?

Is this like a really mean-spirited parody of third-year undergrad film studies majors?

"Everything you like is bad! Ha-ha!"

Although I agree with him on Darjeeling Limited.

King Prendergast wrote:The other Anderson in the "Axis of Hackdom," Paul 3-Names wowed the Beigeocracy by--get this--holding extra-long shots on his actors as they have internal moments. Yup, in a country gone totally stupid, all you gotta do is walk out of the edit room for 10 minutes, and suddenly Rolling Stone stands and cheers your "rule-busting experimentation" while Roger Ebert creams that PTA's film is a, "A force beyond categories."

Here's the rule list. Here's the part that's relevant:

Unread Rule List wrote:Don't troll. Don't post provocative statements just to get a response. If you need attention that badly, walk down the middle of a busy street. You'll get lots of attention. Also, if you don't like a film (or whatever the topic under discussion is), no one really needs you to comment on that fact and disappear. If you must post your disapproval in a thread, at least back it up with some reasoning.

Here's me wondering why the hell you need to irritate people so badly that you come to internet forums just to shit on well liked movies.

There Will Be Vader

I am so, so sorry.

Mr_sausage wrote: Here's me wondering why the hell you need to irritate people so badly that you come to internet forums just to shit on well liked movies.

"Axis of Hackdom" is quite funny, if something of an exaggeration.

"I have a competition in me; I want no one else to succeed." -- Daniel Day Lewis as Daniel Plainview

Paul Thomas Anderson's latest story, that some of us have been waiting five years for, There Will Be Blood is a dazzling film that reassures trust in the future of this complete storyteller. First, what's never failed to impress me, four--now five--films deep, is Anderson's ability to grow and dive deeper into humanity with each time up at bat. As Punch-Drunk Love confirmed our hopes that the young writer/director hadn't just been on a lucky streak with multi-character Los Angeles stories, Blood proves to be Anderson's boldest project.

Determined to rise out of a hole in the ground with his much sought after fortune, we follow Mr. Plainview from underground, spouting black gold out onto the dirt, then finally to the marble floors that shine under his feet. Set in the late eighteen hundreds. A grim journey of self destruction. The rise and fall of an opportunist. While his robust aggression toward his craft, oil digging, made him a sought after middle-weight institution the ruthless intimidation tactics exposed the underbelly, sweat, lies, and blood that inevitably follows a man with power and success.

Plainview is a conqueror. When met by a young faithful boy, a challenge to posses something he had yet to own was of high importance. Sinking his teeth into a slice of American pie, he conquered his little goal. Until the next challenge was placed in his path, he met it face on, eager to conquer that, the next thing, and whatever was lying just beneath the surface on the other side of the grassy knoll. A self proclaimed family man. An oil man. A wealthy man. A man looking for his place in the world. A world which is a wide open range with millions of acres still untamed with endless possibility.

Watching the dry and crackling light in every scene brings back memories of The Searchers, El Topo, or even a rich smoothness from Westworld. Anderson's camera and scenic design makes the dirt, dust, and oil seem appetizing The wide open space shot through anamorphic lenses gives you a sense of longing for a time when prospecting was still a job and land, real life land, was able to be tamed if you had the hands to reach out and claim it. The 158min. running time blinks past you in a rush of anticipation. Anderson's tale is lined with a delicate mix of musical tone and heart beating rhythmic score lending itself to the very soul of the film. A good tap on the shoulder to the Coen Bros. "No Country For Old Men" which featured no music score or accompaniment--also proving to be an affective tool. Both films share a fresh breath of silence melting us even deeper into the mise-en-scène.

The story, though absolutely and respectfully Anderson's creation, does shadow such great films as Barry Lyndon, Citizen Kane, and to a further stretch Sweet Smell of Success. Where, as in all good stories, the line is clear, straight, and able to grab hold of you and take us along with it, There Will Be Blood doesn't pass judgment, doesn't tell us right from wrong, it simply presents us with options. If it's Barry Lyndon, Charles Foster Kane, or J.J. Hunsecker the objective is crystal clear. This is what I want and I will do anything to get it.

-- Jon Dambacher

Now having seen There Will Be Blood twice, once at a theater last year but managed to avoid discussing it here till I picked up the DVD yesterday.

I think the film is the greatest masterpiece to come out of Hollywood in ten years - at least. It has everything I look for in a movie.

Even after two viewings, the character of Eli/Paul Sunday went over my head. Are they one guy? Or twin brothers?

Michael wrote:Even after two viewings, the character of Eli/Paul Sunday went over my head. Are they one guy? Or twin brothers?

They're twin brothers.

That was my initial thought but why is that we never see the twin brothers together?

Michael wrote:That was my initial thought but why is that we never see the twin brothers together?

Paul goes off to speculate for himself. By the end, he has something like 3 wells producing at 5,000 barrels a day (paraphrasing).

kaujot wrote:Paul goes off to speculate for himself. By the end, he has something like 3 wells producing at 5,000 barrels a day (paraphrasing).

I remember that now. But I like how PT Anderson keeps all that kind of ambiguous though. Who's telling the truth?

I'd like to share a personal note. Last night I watched the film with my deaf lover and he was floored by PT Anderson's portrayal of the deaf son. He told me that regarding with the son, the director didn't hit any false notes. He was thrilled by the fact that the son was never displayed as a victim because of his deafness. Him discussing this brought my mind to Lily Tomlin's deaf children in Nashville. In fact, my lover went to college with one of the children.

Michael wrote:I'd like to share a personal note. Last night I watched the film with my deaf lover and he was floored by PT Anderson's portrayal of the deaf son. He told me that regarding with the son, the director didn't hit any false notes. He was thrilled by the fact that the son was never displayed as a victim because of his deafness. Him discussing this brought my mind to Lily Tomlin's deaf children in Nashville. In fact, my lover went to college with one of the children.

Thanks for sharing that observation on the film, and its certainly an aspect of the film that hasn't been discussed all that much. While Plainview certainly is using his son in many ways, he definitely does care for him and their relationship is fascinating.

As for Nashville, I thought the scenes with Lily Tomlin and her children were absolutely beautiful. Altman manages to convey so much in those brief scenes, and captures the bond between parent and children with never a word spoken.

My lover also pointed out something interesting. When Plainview tells his son that he's just "the basket in the desert", the interpreter in the background translated those very words into American Sign Language: simply and bluntly "father does not want you". To the point.