Who, in their right mind, decided that "There Will Be Blood" be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar? I found it to be a two hour and forty minute waste of time.The characters were so disjointed from scene to scene that the film lacked any real continuity. Each scene seemed best to take as is, not expecting scenes to build upon each other. The story and plotline was abysmal.
It's a real shame because I wanted to like this movie so much. I felt that I could have done a better job by adding a few scenes, deleting many others altogether and editing it so differently. Some crucial scenes lack any power whatsover due to what precedes and follows them.
What a pile of crap!
4 comments:
On the other hand, I just saw Iron Man. Loved it.
I haven't seen "No Country For Old Men". That aside, "There Will Be Blood" was the best movie I saw last year.
Tripe? It's a fascinating study of two American archetypes. The Daniel Day Lewis character represents man not limited by class or status, one who has boundless ambition and no concern for anything else in life.
The preacher represents the pious snob, the person who makes a living by making others feel inferior by convincing them that he has staked some moral high ground that they have failed to achieve, and, because of this supposed transcendence, he deserves adulation and financial support. Of course, the pious snob is also ambitious; there is always a bigger church that needs to be built, or a radio show he could be hosting, if he received more support from his congregation.
I hope you can see how those archetypes continue into modern times.
And I did find it fascinating to watch the two characters interact. A movie doesn't have to be all tits and explosions to hold someone's attention. It was obvious to me that the director had a clear vision of everything that he put on screen, unlike so many movies today that shift abruptly and clumsily in tone, or tack on some arbitrary happy ending.
I do think you have to see "There Will Be Blood" on the big screen, as the composition of the outdoor scenes probably loses something on DVD. But that also is a testament to the director's skill and vision. A piece of crap like "27 Dresses" at all times looks like it should be shown on a 13 inch television.
Finally, another reason I loved "There Will Be Blood" so much is that it had an RPOL (Redemptive Power Of Love) factor of zero, which is the perfect number on the Beukey scale.
Iron man rocked!!
One thing I didn't like about "Blood" is the ending. His son takes off, and we never learn his fate. We also see Day-Lewis's character murder somebody, but this scene is also unresolved.
I guess I don't like unresolved endings. Too many loose ends. I did think that Day-Lewis did a good acting job though.
Irish
I think there's no arguing that Day-Lewis was awesome. He's one of the best actors out there.
My issues stemmed from the unbelievability of the story. I had a hard time believing it was possible for an independent oil man with virtually no "hired muscle" or political ties to have capital outlay or protection to make his fortune at the turn of the century.
There was no law portrayed in the movie and his run in with the Union Oil men was ridiculous. I'd be more apt to believe him dead days later than those guys silently taking his abuse.
None of the movie really struck me as authentic to the period except the visuals, which were really nice.
Like I said, I really wanted to like this movie. I loved DDL but had a hard time swallowing much of the movie. Why not just kill the last remaining landowner holdout instead of going through the religious nonsense? That was totally out of character.
That was my other issue. Characters tended to change their personality at every turn of the movie.
I just didn't like it. Too disjointed and unbelievable. Maybe it was the Sinclair source material "Oil" that was the issue? I don't know, I never read it.
Post a Comment