RE: There Will Be Blood (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


MartinBlank76 -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 8:45:57 AM)

Wow, one thing I, in my opinion, would never accuse Boogie Nights of is weak direction. In fact I think the direction in Boogie Nights is its strongest asset and everytime I watch it, Andersons work makes me feel weak at the knees and puts a big smile on my face. A masterclass in my humble opinion.

I thought he went for a different style with There will be blood, a more detached style which is echoed in all aspects of the film. I think this worked for There will be blood but I much preferred his work on Boogie Nights and Magnolia.

I agree with you on the similarities in character between Plainview and Bill the Butcher and despite the strengths of Day-Lewis performance, I thought this hamstrung him slightly by giving it just a smidgen of that seen-it-all-before vibe.




homersimpson_esq -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 12:47:35 PM)

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that this is possibly the best film this decade, bar the only film(s) that defy comparison, The Lord of the Rings, seeing as it is a trilogy of one story. And that's going against stiff competition from the likes of, say, No Country For Old Men, Amelie, Pan's Labyrinth, City of God, Monsters Inc, and so forth. Some of those are my favourite films, and only my decision not to put in films from the last 5 years prevents me from including this one. I just love everything about this film - everything.




DAVID GILLESPIE -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 1:01:14 PM)

Thats a fairly impressive 'best off' list, sir. I think we will be a spoiled bunch in 2008 if we continue to see the release of flicks such as There Will be Blood and No Country for Old Men. I cannot really fault both these films.

In response to an early comment, the only similarity I found with Plainview and Bill the Butcher's character was a rather oversized moustache. 




shadow -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 1:14:00 PM)

A Finnish film director said that what happened to There Will Be Blood in the Oscars was very much like what happened to Raging Bull. That, like Raging Bull, it deserved the two Oscars it got, especially for the male lead, but missed out on the major ones (most notably "best film"). Yet, in 20 years time people will look back and consider it the greatest American film of the decade.

And that here Anderson has escalated to the same heights as Kubrick in terms of film making.

And I find it difficult to disagree with either of those points.




gooner_no1 -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 2:19:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: shadow

A Finnish film director said that what happened to There Will Be Blood in the Oscars was very much like what happened to Raging Bull. That, like Raging Bull, it deserved the two Oscars it got, especially for the male lead, but missed out on the major ones (most notably "best film"). Yet, in 20 years time people will look back and consider it the greatest American film of the decade.

And that here Anderson has escalated to the same heights as Kubrick in terms of film making.

And I find it difficult to disagree with either of those points.



At the risk of engaging the wrath of many on this thread and of appearing unduly contrary, I firmly believe that in ten or twenty years people will not be talking about this film at all. Well, those who've praised it to high heavens, compared it to Citizen Kane, and its director to Stanley Kubrick. They won't want the subject broached, and the reason why is  plain old embarrassment.

I don't take any great pleasure in saying this as I've really enjoyed PTA's earlier films (aside from Punch Drunk Love, where the rot first appeared) but this film is an appalling, boring dud.

There is no plot, no character development, the dialogue at times is cringeworthy and would be rejected by an Eastenders script writer - what keeps the attention in spite of all this is Day-Lewis' performance, which is exceptional.

The direction is all over the place, the artistic and narrative decision-making deliberately precious and obtuse; the best possible word to describe this film is pretentious.

It pretends to depths it most certainly does not achieve.

The subject matter alone has set a lot of people off on the head staggers, willing themselves to like it before they've seen a single frame: America, Oil and Religion.

If that doesn't spell Geroge W Bush and current disdain for the US regime, then I don't know what does.

Audiences are willing to sit bored rigid watching a pantomime for the chattering classes (on both sides of the pond) because they somehow think this is all rather profound.

It isn't. It is a crushing, deflating disappointment.

To compare this favourably to No County To Old Men is to leave yourself open to ridicule. After five minutes of the latter, you just know you are watching a quality film from makers who are operating at a higher skills level than most of their contemporaries. They are masters of their art and craft.

After one hour of TWBB, I was seriously contemplating leaving the cinema (many had already left by that time) as there was nothing in this film beyond Day Lewis's performance to engage the audience.

The script was weak and, as someone else has pointed out, so was the direction.

Finally, on the subject of opening yourself up to ridicule, Paul Thomas Anderson has made some very good films, but to compare him to the intellectual and artistic giant that was Stanley Kubrick, is just plain silly.

Especially on the basis of this emperor's new clothes of a film.

I will expect abuse from those who think I've traduced their aestethic and intellectual capabilities, but trust me folks, in the words of the film's title, There Will Be a Backlash when people finally shake their heads and see this pretentious pap for what it is.




Lydia_H -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 2:49:48 PM)

High five!




shadow -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 3:58:37 PM)

Fair enough, gooner_no1. I can't say I agree, though. And There Will Be Blood isn't a parable for contemporary America. It's something altogether different.

But a backlash? I admit I haven't been reading Empire or its forums of late but aside from a couple of critics, it hasn't been universally hailed as the best film of the year, rather just a great film. Quite a few people have been bored to death watching it. But then, a lot of people have been bored to death watching some of Kubrick's films (I still don't really enjoy 2001). But, for example, I didn't even pay attention to the fact the first fifteen minutes of TWBB (the opening of the film having a brilliant "dawn of time" or rather, "the beginning of America and modern civilization" sense to it) had no dialogue. I was too engrossed in watching and listening to what was actually happening. I only realised it when someone on a different internet forum pointed it out.

I've opened myself up to ridicule quite often, yes. I don't really care. If you fail to see the films merits, then that's quite alright. I know what I like, if nothing else.

Edit: Furthermore, I forgot to mention, that while I did enjoy the Coens' latest effort, I could by no means rate it higher than Anderson's masterpiece. Actually, the Coens have made better films than No Country For Old Men.




homersimpson_esq -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 4:18:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooner_no1
to compare him to the intellectual and artistic giant that was Stanley Kubrick, is just plain silly.


Most of Kubrick's films were slated quite badly upon their original release, as far as I'm aware. Certainly Eyes Wide Shut still gets a lot of bad press, and I believe Empire originally gave it 3 stars, although the site says 4 now. Only in time have Kubricks films become venerated, and quite rightly so.

For the record, I haven't likened Anderson to Kubrick, although the Kubrickian shades are there if you want to see them. No, I enjoyed this film on its own merits - although Kubrick being my favourite director maybe goes some way to explaining why I love the film so much.

I may be proved absolutely wrong, but personally I find this film a remarkable achievement. Not once did I find it overlong, dull, or pretentious. Nor am I 'just saying that', as is the feeble argument so often levelled at people who do happen to say that. I was gripped from start to finish, on every level. If some see that as being the filmic equivalent of getting pissed on White Lightning as opposed to Glenmorangie, then so be it. [:D]




Rhubarb -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 4:46:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooner_no1


At the risk of engaging the wrath of many on this thread and of appearing unduly contrary, I firmly believe that in ten or twenty years people will not be talking about this film at all. Well, those who've praised it to high heavens, compared it to Citizen Kane, and its director to Stanley Kubrick. They won't want the subject broached, and the reason why is  plain old embarrassment.



But how can you say this? Who is to say in the crazy world we live in what will be remembered in ten years? This is just pure conjecture based on the fact that you weren't keen on it. I'm sure you also weren't keen on alot of other remebered and loved films.

quote:

this film is an appalling, boring dud.

I didn't really think so to be honest. But fair enough, everyone has thier own views

quote:

There is no plot, no character development, the dialogue at times is cringeworthy and would be rejected by an Eastenders script writer - what keeps the attention in spite of all this is Day-Lewis' performance, which is exceptional.


We can agree about DDL performace, it actually was astonishing, but I don't agree with your other points. The plot is the story of Daniel, his rise and fall. He strikes oil, he gets a good tip, he seeks it out, he finds oil, there's the whole subplot with HW, his fall from grace etc etc. As for the dialogue, people aren't quoting the milkshake line for nothing you know.

quote:

The direction is all over the place, the artistic and narrative decision-making deliberately precious and obtuse; the best possible word to describe this film is pretentious.

It pretends to depths it most certainly does not achieve.


Dunno. Pretentiousness is not something I even register really, but I would be interested to hear a few examples of what you thought was obtuse. An example I can think of is the fact that the first part of the film is silent, which sort of mirrors the deafness of HW later on. Which I thought was clever.

quote:

The subject matter alone has set a lot of people off on the head staggers, willing themselves to like it before they've seen a single frame: America, Oil and Religion.

If that doesn't spell Geroge W Bush and current disdain for the US regime, then I don't know what does.

Audiences are willing to sit bored rigid watching a pantomime for the chattering classes (on both sides of the pond) because they somehow think this is all rather profound.


Now who's being pretentious? You're assuming that the whole reason anyone would watch this film is because it relays some sort of parable to our times? Firstly you're overestimating the average Joe, Second I didn't enjoy it because it was about George Bush (in fact I think it was a bit wider than that, its about Capatilism and Religion, and how they both have lost thier way) I enjoyed it because it was a gripping story and a great Day Lewis performance.


quote:


To compare this favourably to No County To Old Men is to leave yourself open to ridicule. After five minutes of the latter, you just know you are watching a quality film from makers who are operating at a higher skills level than most of their contemporaries. They are masters of their art and craft.

After one hour of TWBB, I was seriously contemplating leaving the cinema (many had already left by that time) as there was nothing in this film beyond Day Lewis's performance to engage the audience.

Finally, on the subject of opening yourself up to ridicule, Paul Thomas Anderson has made some very good films, but to compare him to the intellectual and artistic giant that was Stanley Kubrick, is just plain silly.

Especially on the basis of this emperor's new clothes of a film.

I will expect abuse from those who think I've traduced their aestethic and intellectual capabilities, but trust me folks, in the words of the film's title, There Will Be a Backlash when people finally shake their heads and see this pretentious pap for what it is.



First off, I loved No Country For Old Men (not usually a big fan of the Coens, I loved Fargo) thought it was exellent. I genuinely don't think there is alot to choose between There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men. They are both really great examples of modern cinema.

Also in reference to the last bit, i'm not responding because i think you've offended my intellegence or whatever, but because I think your argument is flawed and self-important. So there you go.




shadow -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 4:50:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooner_no1
to compare him to the intellectual and artistic giant that was Stanley Kubrick, is just plain silly.


Most of Kubrick's films were slated quite badly upon their original release, as far as I'm aware. Certainly Eyes Wide Shut still gets a lot of bad press, and I believe Empire originally gave it 3 stars, although the site says 4 now. Only in time have Kubricks films become venerated, and quite rightly so.

For the record, I haven't likened Anderson to Kubrick, although the Kubrickian shades are there if you want to see them. No, I enjoyed this film on its own merits - although Kubrick being my favourite director maybe goes some way to explaining why I love the film so much.

I may be proved absolutely wrong, but personally I find this film a remarkable achievement. Not once did I find it overlong, dull, or pretentious. Nor am I 'just saying that', as is the feeble argument so often levelled at people who do happen to say that. I was gripped from start to finish, on every level. If some see that as being the filmic equivalent of getting pissed on White Lightning as opposed to Glenmorangie, then so be it. [:D]



[:D]

What I meant, and what I believe the director I mentioned thought, was that There Will Be Blood isn't necessarily a Kubrick-esque film -- that would be undermining the whole film -- but rather that the level of expression and precision is on par with one of the greatest visionaries of all time.




The REAL Bozz -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 5:51:01 PM)

Gooner, it's down to u if you don't like the film but your post kind of insults those who did. I know what you meant about being bored to tears because I thought I would be but I really enjoyed it. The direction was good, and to say the characters had no arc or depth leaves me thinking if we saw the same film. Plainveiw and the bastard from the basket have a great arc and the final scenes are pretty sad. I personally am not a big fan of Kubrick, I love the Shineing but thats that. I respect the guy's work but it aint my thing. Personally I never got the deeper meanings (Bush?) just went over my head. I thought it was just a great film about oil, Plainview and the little bastard from the basket.




Wilbert -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 9:44:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gooner_no1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shadow

A Finnish film director said that what happened to There Will Be Blood in the Oscars was very much like what happened to Raging Bull. That, like Raging Bull, it deserved the two Oscars it got, especially for the male lead, but missed out on the major ones (most notably "best film"). Yet, in 20 years time people will look back and consider it the greatest American film of the decade.

And that here Anderson has escalated to the same heights as Kubrick in terms of film making.

And I find it difficult to disagree with either of those points.



At the risk of engaging the wrath of many on this thread and of appearing unduly contrary, I firmly believe that in ten or twenty years people will not be talking about this film at all. Well, those who've praised it to high heavens, compared it to Citizen Kane, and its director to Stanley Kubrick. They won't want the subject broached, and the reason why is  plain old embarrassment.

I don't take any great pleasure in saying this as I've really enjoyed PTA's earlier films (aside from Punch Drunk Love, where the rot first appeared) but this film is an appalling, boring dud.

There is no plot, no character development, the dialogue at times is cringeworthy and would be rejected by an Eastenders script writer - what keeps the attention in spite of all this is Day-Lewis' performance, which is exceptional.

The direction is all over the place, the artistic and narrative decision-making deliberately precious and obtuse; the best possible word to describe this film is pretentious.

It pretends to depths it most certainly does not achieve.

The subject matter alone has set a lot of people off on the head staggers, willing themselves to like it before they've seen a single frame: America, Oil and Religion.

If that doesn't spell Geroge W Bush and current disdain for the US regime, then I don't know what does.

Audiences are willing to sit bored rigid watching a pantomime for the chattering classes (on both sides of the pond) because they somehow think this is all rather profound.

It isn't. It is a crushing, deflating disappointment.

To compare this favourably to No County To Old Men is to leave yourself open to ridicule. After five minutes of the latter, you just know you are watching a quality film from makers who are operating at a higher skills level than most of their contemporaries. They are masters of their art and craft.

After one hour of TWBB, I was seriously contemplating leaving the cinema (many had already left by that time) as there was nothing in this film beyond Day Lewis's performance to engage the audience.

The script was weak and, as someone else has pointed out, so was the direction.

Finally, on the subject of opening yourself up to ridicule, Paul Thomas Anderson has made some very good films, but to compare him to the intellectual and artistic giant that was Stanley Kubrick, is just plain silly.

Especially on the basis of this emperor's new clothes of a film.

I will expect abuse from those who think I've traduced their aestethic and intellectual capabilities, but trust me folks, in the words of the film's title, There Will Be a Backlash when people finally shake their heads and see this pretentious pap for what it is.



God, this attitude is boring. Rather than entering into any discussion you simply come on and tell us all how embarrassed we'll be in ten years when we finally figure out what you spotted straight away. You're so wise, Gooner! Tell us about other films that you think we will be embarrassed about in ten years.

How did you become so wise, o learned one?




Manchurian candidate -> RE: There Will Be Blood (6/3/2008 9:57:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gooner_no1

If that doesn't spell Geroge W Bush and current disdain for the US regime, then I don't know what does.




[sm=happy07.gif]

Obviously.




demoncleaner -> RE: There Will Be Blood (7/3/2008 8:11:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lydia_H

quote:


( i found resorting to the introduction of a "brother" mid-way tedious, extranious, and hammering the point home too unsubtly )


I agree with that, this was maybe the weakest element of the film and script.



I think that's just silly to say so.

*******SPOILERS********
Henry is the gap story between HW going and his return.  Henry is what makes the HW story prodigal.  Another great theme of the film is Plainview's pursuit of mutuality in this life.  And his ambivalence toward mutuality.  He wants to cultivate a partner, someone like him, but he is also filled with fear and suspicion for meeting someone…just like him.  "If it's in me it's in you” is a concept repeated only twice and at punctuating moments. First, with an almost questing interrogation of Henry "Are you and angry man. Are you an envious man?” Later this concept becomes an accusation against the grown up HW "there's nothing of me in you” which of course leads to some ironic relief for the son "I thank God there's nothing of you in me”. I spoke of tragic flaws and Plainview's might well be the inability to recognise even hypothetical family ties as equally valid.  On this thread people have been mentioning a lack of acting presence aside from Day-Lewis and Dano but I think Kevin J O'Connor's performance as Henry is impeccable.  It's his playing of this that tempers the clichéd storyline of the impostor with a very placid and forthcoming demeanour.  His scenes are gifted with lines of an abject honesty "I've been in jail…I've done things not fit to be spoken of”.  To say that any of this is the weakest part of them film is a near admittance of having seen a different film entirely.  I've been to see it twice now and I'm convinced that there's nothing sparing or extraneous about it.  (It seems to be my favourite adjective about films….but it's economy is beautiful). 




Breakneck -> RE: There Will Be Blood (7/3/2008 2:11:23 PM)

SPOILERS !!!!

"To say that any of this is the weakest part of them film is a near admittance of having seen a different film entirely.  I've been to see it twice now and I'm convinced that there's nothing sparing or extraneous about it.  (It seems to be my favourite adjective about films….but it's economy is beautiful)"

Hmm - i think the fact that we're able to discourse and discuss these scenes shows that we saw the film we're talking about, "There will..." as opposed to a different film entirely, such as "Awake."

Just because PTA is deliberate, doesn't mean his approach isn't flawed - as far as I am concerned, the use of the "brother" was a contrivance, an unneccessary plot device - wouldn't it have been better to see how Plainview acted WITHOUT a sidekick ? The whole point of the brother is to give Plainview a reason to kill for the first time, so that we accept the ending a little more smoothly. But I can already accept that he is capable of this, he's a bully, a narrow-focussed and violent man. The scene where he admits to loathing people is strangely written, at odds with the way he has spoken to people in the past. It can be argued that this is because he's opening up to family, but it's too early in their relationship and Plainview is presented as far too intelligant. He doesn't for a second believe that this guy is his long lost brother, and so the whole sequence - for me - feels trite, hammering home points I had already taken for granted from his earlier actions just so we can accept him as a murderer. It feels at odds with the "economy" of the earlier and latter scenes. Why spell it out ? Why not let the drama unfold and respect the intelligance of the audience to understand what is motivating this character ?

And just because you've seen the film twice doesn't mean you're taking it all in. I would argue that the second time you went in you were coming from a point of amour, meaning that your love blinded you because you WANT to love it. Nowt wrong with that, but that doesn't make the FILM any less flawed.




KnightofZyryab -> RE: There Will Be Blood (7/3/2008 2:27:47 PM)

On top of everything else in this film, I was at times mesmerised by the soundtrack and choice of music to the extent that I bought Arvo Part's Fratres for violin and piano. For a Serialist piece of music it's so haunting, and ethereal.




Lydia_H -> RE: There Will Be Blood (7/3/2008 2:33:57 PM)

quote:

I think that's just silly to say so.

*******SPOILERS********
Henry is the gap story between HW going and his return.  Henry is what makes the HW story prodigal.  Another great theme of the film is Plainview's pursuit of mutuality in this life.  And his ambivalence toward mutuality.  He wants to cultivate a partner, someone like him, but he is also filled with fear and suspicion for meeting someone…just like him.  "If it's in me it's in you” is a concept repeated only twice and at punctuating moments. First, with an almost questing interrogation of Henry "Are you and angry man. Are you an envious man?” Later this concept becomes an accusation against the grown up HW "there's nothing of me in you” which of course leads to some ironic relief for the son "I thank God there's nothing of you in me”. I spoke of tragic flaws and Plainview's might well be the inability to recognise even hypothetical family ties as equally valid.  On this thread people have been mentioning a lack of acting presence aside from Day-Lewis and Dano but I think Kevin J O'Connor's performance as Henry is impeccable.  It's his playing of this that tempers the clichéd storyline of the impostor with a very placid and forthcoming demeanour.  His scenes are gifted with lines of an abject honesty "I've been in jail…I've done things not fit to be spoken of”.  To say that any of this is the weakest part of them film is a near admittance of having seen a different film entirely.  I've been to see it twice now and I'm convinced that there's nothing sparing or extraneous about it.  (It seems to be my favourite adjective about films….but it's economy is beautiful). 


I understood the implications Henry had on Plainview, the elements of the character he was supposed to emphasize. However, like most aspects of this film, I thought this was rushed through by Anderson, the entire segment breezed past and at the end seemed a waste of time, Henry simply a device to catapult Plainview into a couple of Oscar scenes, a state of extreme desperation and sadness, and over any requirement for a gradual, drawn out performance. I wasn't convinced by their relationship at all, it seemed like Henry was bodged in at the last minute. Like I was saying, I thought it was unfortunate Anderson only allowed Day-Lewis to take the largest possible strides through his characters development, and the story with his brother is maybe one of the best illustrations of this happening.

Kevin J O'Connor's performance is fine, his character though is a non-starter, just like Day-Lewis's performance, though excellent, is crippled by Anderson (And the script). It's no wonder if O'Connor's performance is largely forgotten because his section of the film is the most forgettable.




TheGodfather -> RE: There Will Be Blood (7/3/2008 9:25:50 PM)

I Drink Your Milkshake (click!)

[sm=happy07.gif][sm=happy07.gif][sm=worship.gif]




KnightofZyryab -> RE: There Will Be Blood (7/3/2008 9:32:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheGodfather

I Drink Your Milkshake (click!)

[sm=happy07.gif][sm=happy07.gif][sm=worship.gif]



[sm=happy07.gif]x 10




paul_ie86 -> RE: There Will Be Blood (8/3/2008 12:59:22 AM)

First off that SNL skit isn't funny at all. The only good thing about it was the spot on impression of Daniel. Second of all, this maybe one of the best films I've ever seen. DDL and Paul Dano were excellent. The best scenes for me were the silent opening, the oil tower fire, HW's return, the final scene. This list could go on and on. Two questions. Was Johnny Greenwood's score disqualified from the Oscar nominations or just not nominated? and Did anyone laugh during the baptism when you seen it?




Rhubarb -> RE: There Will Be Blood (8/3/2008 1:27:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paul_ie86

First off that SNL skit isn't funny at all. The only good thing about it was the spot on impression of Daniel. Second of all, this maybe one of the best films I've ever seen. DDL and Paul Dano were excellent. The best scenes for me were the silent opening, the oil tower fire, HW's return, the final scene. This list could go on and on. Two questions. Was Johnny Greenwood's score disqualified from the Oscar nominations or just not nominated? and Did anyone laugh during the baptism when you seen it?


Greenwood's score was DQ'd because not all of it was especially for the film, or something along those lines.




Wilbert -> RE: There Will Be Blood (8/3/2008 10:41:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lydia_H

I understood the implications Henry had on Plainview, the elements of the character he was supposed to emphasize. However, like most aspects of this film, I thought this was rushed through by Anderson, the entire segment breezed past and at the end seemed a waste of time, Henry simply a device to catapult Plainview into a couple of Oscar scenes, a state of extreme desperation and sadness, and over any requirement for a gradual, drawn out performance. I wasn't convinced by their relationship at all, it seemed like Henry was bodged in at the last minute. Like I was saying, I thought it was unfortunate Anderson only allowed Day-Lewis to take the largest possible strides through his characters development, and the story with his brother is maybe one of the best illustrations of this happening.

Kevin J O'Connor's performance is fine, his character though is a non-starter, just like Day-Lewis's performance, though excellent, is crippled by Anderson (And the script). It's no wonder if O'Connor's performance is largely forgotten because his section of the film is the most forgettable.


[image]http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u6/nickclaw/warfgif.gif[/image]





skeletonjack -> RE: There Will Be Blood (8/3/2008 11:21:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheGodfather

I Drink Your Milkshake (click!)

[sm=happy07.gif][sm=happy07.gif][sm=worship.gif]



I think that's genius personally [:D][:D][:D]




homersimpson_esq -> RE: There Will Be Blood (8/3/2008 11:58:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paul_ie86
Did anyone laugh during the baptism when you seen it?


Towards the end, yes - the bit where Plainview starts to get exasperated after the emotional bit, and just wants out. Then he triumphantly mentions the pipeline, and the look of horrific realisation on Sunday's face is priceless.




Larry of Arabia -> RE: There Will Be Blood (8/3/2008 12:16:54 PM)

I liked the first sermon we see from Eli as well, couldn't help but chuckle. "And as long as I have teeth I will bite you! And if I have no teeth, I will gum you!"




homersimpson_esq -> RE: There Will Be Blood (8/3/2008 12:18:54 PM)

That sermon is priceless! If there had been more sermons like that I'd still be going to church, if only for the entertainment factor.

Like Plainview says, 'That was one helluva goddamn show!"






paul_ie86 -> RE: There Will Be Blood (8/3/2008 2:52:37 PM)

When I was watching it people started laughing when Eli started slapping Daniel, which IMO wasn't funny. It was revenge for the beating he took in the oil fields.




homersimpson_esq -> RE: There Will Be Blood (8/3/2008 3:28:56 PM)

No, it's Plainview's face that is funny - he's just laughing it all off because he knows what is the other side of this, to him, meaningless ritual. It's such a smug look, it's great! Hopefully going to see this again tonight if my brother-in-law can make it.




jared isaacs -> Masterpiece (8/3/2008 8:25:21 PM)

I saw this yoday with my other fifteen year old film buff friends and I was stunned. It was near flawless.




Queen Sue -> Rubbish (11/3/2008 3:44:56 PM)

I really hated this film, it was one of the most boring loads of old tosh I have ever seen. It was far too long and nothing happend and DDL overacted as per usual. I will never get those hours of my life back.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.589844E-02