Brilliant

Brilliant (Full Version)

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

Message

paul_ie86 -> Brilliant (11/3/2008 6:57:57 PM)
*****SPOILER***** Highlight To Read Did anyone else find it interesting that apart from Eli, everyone who died in this film was covered in oil when they died or in buried in the oil (in Henry's case)

TheGodfather -> RE: Rubbish (11/3/2008 7:40:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queen Sue 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. You have got to be kidding [:D][:D][:D]. You can just go back to watching films like Step Up. [;)]

Explosion in the Sky -> RE: Rubbish (11/3/2008 10:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queen Sue 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. I'm afraid you instantly lost all credibility when you commented "nothing happened". Sure, some may find Daniel Day-Lewis' performance overly theatrical, but to say that nothing happened during the story is bullshit of the highest order.

lipton village -> Classic (11/3/2008 11:57:57 PM)
Daniel was marvelous, his oscar was never in doubt. I loved the analogy about milkshakes, hilarious. Gotta say about paul dano who plays Eli, he someone to watch out for. I thought it was an excellent performance by him. The guy's only 23 and he's got a bright future ahead of him. can't understand how there was so liitle made about his performance. The score of the film reminds me of ' High plains Drifter '. There will be ...., has that same errie brooding menace. this is a dark movie with dark humour. it's a squirky film and i loved. This is a film you have to let unfold, the first 20 mins is told in picture form. A picture of sites and scenery and some excellent dialogue used with complete effectiveness

Queen Sue -> RE: Classic (12/3/2008 9:46:20 AM)
Nothing did happen – nothing happened for a very long time, nothing of interest anyway, it made me want to gouge my eyes out. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that lose credibility you know. The people I saw it with found it boring too. Several people in the cinema got up and walked out, everyone else looked bored, and I know they looked bored because I was so bored I spent time looking at the audience in preference to the film. The best comment i heard anyone say about it was 'it was ok I suppose but it went on a bit'. I'd have given it minus stars if I could, it was the worst film I've seen in a very long time. I suppose it is just as well we don't all like the same things. Oh, and by the way, I've never seen Step Up, but you obviously have – well done.

homersimpson_esq -> RE: Classic (12/3/2008 10:01:27 AM)
*SPOILERS BELOW* A man finds silver, finds oil, a man dies, a baby is adopted, a man asks another man for money for information, a man pretends he's shooting quail, he buys land, he convinces townpeople to sell land, he builds a school, a church is built, a man dies in the well, a demon is 'exorcised' (!), oil gushes, a boy is deafened, more derricks are built, a business offer is rejected, two men scrabble in oil, a lost brother is found, a sibling relationship is forged, a boy is sent away, a sibling relationship is found to be fraudulent, a man is shot and buried, land is offered, a man is baptised, a boy returns, a couple get married, a father and son argue, two men talk, fight, one man kills the other. Nope, nothing happens at all, not a thing. I think what makes this film so fascinating is its polarising capabilities. I for one think that bar Lord of the Rings this is the finest film this side of the millennium. My précis above doesn't do justice to the multitudinous themes that run through the film. Others think it is the worst film in years. How can a film inspire such opposite reactions? I can't believe that it is down to the intelligence of the viewer. People I like and respect really don't like it all. To say that 'nothing happens' however, is simply not true. You might not find what happens particularly interesting, but you cannot deny anything happens. Even in a film like Lions for Lambs that I found horrendously dull and tiresome, something happened. Not a lot - three pairs of people talking for two hours - but still something did happen. I just didn't like it. I'm curious Queen Sue, (and I'm trying to phrase this so it doesn't come across as antagonistic, as I'm trying to return to some semblance of intelligent discussion, rather than devisive argument) do you like other films that are generally considered 'slow-burning'? Recently, for instance, The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, or historically, 2001: A Space Oddysey? (A notable inclusion for TWBB's Kubrickian undertones.)

Queen Sue -> RE: Classic (12/3/2008 1:32:40 PM)
I haven't got around to seeing Jesse James, although it's a film I really wanted to see – good films don't stay on long in cinemas near me, blink and you miss them, so I'll probably have to wait for the DVD. I loved 2001: Space Oddysey, but on a Kubrick theme, for me watching There Will be Blood was a bit like that bit in a Clockwork Orange where they pin his eyes open and make him watch awful stuff. I guess at least I can say the film provoked a strong reaction from me. It's no fun discussing films that everyone has the same opinion about.

homersimpson_esq -> RE: Classic (12/3/2008 2:22:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queen Sue It's no fun discussing films that everyone has the same opinion about. Exactly - I heartily agree with that sentiment! And, so long as everyone keeps a nice open mind to other people's opinions, there's no reason why we can't have a heated, but civilised, debate! Oh, and welcome to the forums!

rick_7 -> RE: Classic (12/3/2008 2:45:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queen Sue Nothing did happen – nothing happened for a very long time, nothing of interest anyway, it made me want to gouge my eyes out. No it didn't. People always say that, and I never believe them. If I had walked into the cinema and gouged your eyes out, you would have complained very strongly, and I doubt it would have been much nicer had you done it to yourself. Just as invoking Hitler is an automatic concession of defeat in an argument, so the "gouge my eyes out" card renders your opinion void. Because it's a lie. Sorry. As for the film, I thought it was very good, though the execution (pun intended) of the final sequence was farcical, in all senses of the word.

homersimpson_esq -> RE: Classic (12/3/2008 2:48:46 PM)
That reminds me of that episode of Frasier where the phone in caller says that his mother-in-law (or something) "literally" drives him up the wall. Frasier interrupts him saying, "sorry, one of my little bugbears - your mother-in-law isn't 'literally' driving you up the wall; what you meant to say was 'figuratively' driving you up the wall." Love it!

Explosion in the Sky -> RE: Classic (12/3/2008 5:30:55 PM)
Homer, you have now become my favourite poster on the forum. You have made very succinct arguments and defended There Will Be Blood superbly. My hat is off to you sir. [sm=worship.gif]

homersimpson_esq -> RE: Classic (12/3/2008 5:31:50 PM)
Aww, shucks. [sm=08.gif]

Queen Sue -> RE: Classic (12/3/2008 5:36:02 PM)
Ah, you might be right, I only said it made me feel as if i wanted to the gouge my eyes out, not that I was going to do it, although I did find the film an ordeal. The inclination was an extreme way of keeping me awake through the film, i went for digging my finger nails into my palms instead and fidgiting a lot. I could have walked out or gone to sleep but I believe in giving films a chance until the bitter end, you don't have the right to critisise a film you couldn't be bothered to watch. I get irritated by people who say such and such a film is crap, I wouldn't watch it.

scary_ice -> RE: There Will Be Blood (13/3/2008 4:10:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MartinBlank76 The main problem for me is that the story and the characters though always interesting and involving never really meant that much to me. I didnt overly care what happened to any of them and so therefore I felt detached, like I was viewing this from afar with a grudging respect and admiration but not love. I just felt an overall feeling of satisfaction but nothing more, a feeling that I had watched something that been constructed by the head and not the heart. I have to say I agree with these sentiments completely. I had high hopes for this as I generally like PTA's movies - I haven't seen Punch Drunk Love but I loved Boogie Nights and Magnolia and Hard Eight wasn't bad either. I knew this was going to be a big change of style for him and had skimmed through HOH's review in Empire and had taken on board her remark that it might take a couple of days to reconcile the ending with the rest of the film. For the most part I was really enjoying the film. It looks beautiful and has some teriffic sequences. There were parts that seemed a little aimless maybe but Day-Lewis kept me hooked on his every move and utterance so I was intrigued as to where it was all leading. Unfortunately I found the ending kind of undid most of what went before. I know people are saluting the finale's bravery for ending on such a bleak and unpleasant manner but I just found it a bit too much. I definitely don't want to sound like I'm complaining because the film doesn't have a happy ending. It just seemed to almost come out of the blue. We suddenly jump 20 years forward after spending so long on one particular period of the life of this man? I felt like I was being rushed into this confrontation tacked on to the end. I'm not sure if we're meant to take it that Plainview has descended into madness or just no longer has the need to wear a mask of civility towards people anymore. I was generally leaning towards the latter and if that's the case then he is a character we truly have difficulty relating to. This may make the film even more distant and chilly on a second viewing. I got the impression that he did have some feelings for H.W. regardless and his sudden animosity towards him seemed a bit hard to swallow for me. I left the cinema with a strangely empty feeling not quite sure what to make of it all. I waited a couple of days and read a few reviews and I have seen people argue the case for it being a masterpiece and people thinking it doesn't quite work and I think I'm in the latter camp. Maybe my opinion will change over time as I did enjoy most of it and still would rate it quite highly but if a film doesn't connect emotionally with me I don't think I could ever give it a 5-star masterpiece type rating. At least it's promoting debate and discussion among the people who have seen it which is generally a good sign I think! I know it's unfair to keep comparing it to No Country just because they were released close together and have some superficial similarities but seeing as everyone else is generally throwing in their two cents I would have to say I think for once the Academy made the right decision. Someone (I'm not sure if it was on this thread) referred to it as a "crowd-pleasing chase thriller". I can't see that at all. From the moment it began it seemed to exude a sense of doomed inevitability that just hung over everything making the atmosphere very different from your average thriller. I left it having enjoyed it but with a lingering sadness and a sense of despair about the state of the world we live in today. It had me feeling more than I did with TWBB where it came across as a more intellectual or heavy-handed allegory or as MartinBlank said a film constructed more in the head than in the heart.

demoncleaner -> RE: There Will Be Blood (13/3/2008 8:26:17 AM)
A quality post Scary. And while There Will Be Blood was my preferred film of the year I do agree with you on two integral points. Namely that you don’t believe Plainview was mad and that his affection for HW was genuine. That’s the way I instinctively read the film but neither cause a problem for me where most particularly the ending is concerned. It seems perverse to say so but in my interpretation of it I do think there is a slightly endearing quality to the character that I believe is willing to ignore the fact that these people (HW and then Henry) are not exactly family and accept them blindly as long they adhere to a basic idea of family. The mortal sin he perceives in these characters is for them to ruin that image he has of them and he pointedly tells HW this when he learns of his plans to become his “competit-tor!” There is a warped ruthless logic to that and I think his quick misanthropic reactions should be appreciated as a testament to his (a)moral fibre. I think it’s wrong to interpret a volte face like this as capricious of him. For me he’s always got his finger on that eject button. “Make my day”, he seems to say. For all of this to spiral into the ending was a joy for me and I celebrate the off-kilter tone. The ending is a giddy exorcism of its own repression. Up until then I was impressed how the film ran the gamut of what can loftily be called the human experience but until the final scenes it was bereft of one thing – humour. Understand I don’t regard the final scene as a protracted lark and I didn’t so much as smirk at the “milkshake” salvo. I thought the wit was kept to the very last line – the cut to black – then the Brahms. Pure Clockwork Orange and no bad thing either. PTA’s films in the past had always faltered with me through their own ambition and ultimately show themselves as being a teensy bit pretentious. Here Anderson declined to make that mistake again and for me this film is a complete and laudable package because of it.

homersimpson_esq -> RE: There Will Be Blood (13/3/2008 11:59:16 AM)
Great posts there ice and demon - this is what I like: insightful, intelligent debate! Excellent points raised for both sides of the argument. I definitely agree about the wit of the final line. And the reprisal of the Brahms was the perfect choice of music.

Larry of Arabia -> RE: There Will Be Blood (13/3/2008 12:46:37 PM)
I saw it for the second time yesterday, and I noticed there was a few laughs in the cinema. It was probably just the crowd that went to see it that particular evening, but the more humourous elements, especially of Eli Sunday, raised a few giggles. After Daniel humilates him by dragging him into the mud and oil, there's a shot of a family scene back at the Sunday ranch, with Eli at the head of the table, staring into space, covered in mud still. It was just so well played, it makes me think that the more ridiculous aspects of the Eli character are meant to be taken that way.

homersimpson_esq -> RE: There Will Be Blood (13/3/2008 12:52:32 PM)
Oh definitely! There are some great subdued comedy moments. Dano's face in the scene you mention is priceless. He's still so proud despite what just happened. The mud-dragging scene you mention is also a precursor, thematically and tonally, to the finale.

richardpettet -> Daniel Day Lewis Does Al Pacino (13/3/2008 1:33:47 PM)
Acts one and two are great, the third, however, descends into Daniel Day Lewis doing his best Al PAcino impersonation. That's to say scenery chewing showboating. I couldn't disagree more strongly with Empire's assessment that "it finishes with a scene that seems tonally so at odds with everything that has gone before, jars so horribly, that you’re afraid it’s scuppered the entire thing - until you go home, think about it for a day or two, and realise that it’s perfect." It's not perfect, it's hilariously mis-judged. People were actually laughing as though it were a Farrelly film. Day Lewis is the best thing about the first half of the movie and easily the worst thing about the second half.

Queen Sue -> re: (13/3/2008 1:56:59 PM)
I found some of the bits that some of the audience lauged at disturbing – one man decending into madness and beating another is surely tragic, not funny? I guess this is just another aspect of me completely failing to get the film. I didn't find the ending at odds at all, it seemed to fit in just fine to me, but by that point my expectations were pretty low and I was just so pleased to see the credits, although the mediaeval typeface puzzled me. I aggree with the character comment though, I couldn't find it in myself to care about any of the characters at all, except maybe the kid, prehaps that is why I found it boring.

shadow -> RE: Daniel Day Lewis Does Al Pacino (13/3/2008 10:33:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: richardpettet Acts one and two are great, the third, however, descends into Daniel Day Lewis doing his best Al PAcino impersonation. That's to say scenery chewing showboating. I couldn't disagree more strongly with Empire's assessment that "it finishes with a scene that seems tonally so at odds with everything that has gone before, jars so horribly, that you’re afraid it’s scuppered the entire thing - until you go home, think about it for a day or two, and realise that it’s perfect." It's not perfect, it's hilariously mis-judged. People were actually laughing as though it were a Farrelly film. Day Lewis is the best thing about the first half of the movie and easily the worst thing about the second half. Spoilers herein, possibly: I loved the ending. When I saw it I thought "what were they talking about? This is brilliant!" I didn't feel it was "tonally so at odds with everything that has gone before" but rather a cathartic explosion of all the muted anger that had been boiling inside Daniel Plainview, and therefor inside me, throughout the film. I felt it fit perfectly. It was, in a way, what I had been increasingly waiting to happen for the film's duration. And I could and did identify with Plainview. Maybe that's because I too hate most people and want to get away from everyone. So, I don't know, maybe I'm alone here, but I felt his pain and madness take over a bit in the same vain as they are taking over me in real life. So the ending was good -- both purgative, and a grim view into the future, into the end, of someone who has become drunk with power and anger. It's a grand finale, yes, and the fact that it may cause some people to laugh -- it made me smile for sure -- is not a bad thing at all.

paul_ie86 -> RE: Daniel Day Lewis Does Al Pacino (15/3/2008 4:05:17 PM)
I think his "sudden animosity" towards HW is revealed in his conversation with Henry. Its something along the lines of "I don't like to see other people succeed." Also I don't believe it is sudden. I think with Daniel's personality I think it's safe to assume they grew further apart over the years. You can see this in Daniel's inaction with HW's deafness. First putting him out of sight and then when he does come back he does not even bother to learn sign language.

Beno -> RE: Daniel Day Lewis Does Al Pacino (15/3/2008 11:37:31 PM)
Only got to see this today and have to say for the most part i was blown away . Maybe slightly overlong , maybe could have done with at least a smidgen of a Female lead and was it me or was Day Lewis in almost every scene . Oh well only minor gripes ...it is a classic ...Day Lewis is amazing and the camerawork is to die for .

cdjwfan -> RE: Ending - thoughts? (16/3/2008 9:08:12 PM)
I haven't read most of the full forum, but I've been mulling the ending over and came up with a couple of theories. WARNING SPOILERS Does Plainview blame Eli for the void between himself and HW? Claiming to be a healer, banisher of ghosts, Eli fails to cure HW's deafness. This is hinted at earlier on in the film. It is possible that Plainview is simply exacting revenge, and would explain the 'false prophet' remarks. Did Eli already know about said 'drainage' and did Plainview, realizing that Eli was attempting to con him, kill him for his nerve? Or is it just a metaphor for capitalism destroying religion in modern society? Any thoughts?

PamG0518 -> There will be blood (16/3/2008 9:11:44 PM)
Daniel Day-Lewis so deserved his Oscar for this movie. He was brilliant but the movie itself was a huge disappointment. There were long periods of time during the movie when nothing happened, I was bored and just wanted it to end. I thought the musical score was terrible and totally ruined the movie for me. Sometimes it sounded like the musicians were tuning their instruments and it simply didn't go with what was on the screen. This seemed to occur throughout the movie and was very annoying!! I had such high hopes for this movie and came away feeling sorely disappointed.

thedrin -> RE: Brilliant (16/3/2008 9:40:00 PM)
quote: cdjwfan: I haven't read most of the full forum, but I've been mulling the ending over and came up with a couple of theories. WARNING SPOILERS Does Plainview blame Eli for the void between himself and HW? Claiming to be a healer, banisher of ghosts, Eli fails to cure HW's deafness. This is hinted at earlier on in the film. It is possible that Plainview is simply exacting revenge, and would explain the 'false prophet' remarks. Did Eli already know about said 'drainage' and did Plainview, realizing that Eli was attempting to con him, kill him for his nerve? Or is it just a metaphor for capitalism destroying religion in modern society? Any thoughts? I don't think that Eli is a metaphor for religion but that he uses religion in the same way that Plainview uses money to set himself apart from, and above, other men. When Plainview made his intentions for New Boston clear, Eli would have realised that he could no longer become the most powerful local but that he was initially trying to ingratiate himself to Plainview - so that they could both rise to a more lofty position. Plainview would have figured this out immeadiately and set about putting him in his place - Plainview wanted to isolate only himself from every day people.

Tyler_Durden -> Almost that good (18/3/2008 5:59:54 PM)
The film has a superb tone and atmosphere, and it's very watchable. Yes, the characters and drama is good, and Helen is right, THAT last scene is unbelievable (if only the whole thing was so stunning). But not enough happens. It's a good world to be immersed in, but it's not structured well, and at points either jumps too far or lingers pointlessly. Go see it, but don't expect a classic.

MOTH -> RE: Almost that good (19/3/2008 9:35:45 AM)
An epic, uneasy viewing experience which gets under your skin from the very first moments. Daniel Day-Lewis commands the screen throughout, bristling with barely suppressed rage and hatred, making you fearful for anyone that come into contact with him. Equally unnerving in a quieter way is his nemesis Paul Dano and every time these two face up to each other it makes for a truly gripping confrontation. Add in the unsettling, discordant score from Jonny Greenwood and you have something which borders on becoming a horror movie at times. Only in the final scene does it lose its way slightly, stretching credibility and becoming a little overblown. However, that is the only misstep in a compelling and bleak vision about greed, hatred and obsession (9/10)

jokerevo -> RE: There Will Be Blood (19/3/2008 8:35:40 PM)
TWBB is a pretty damning statement about humanity and the lengths man will go to serve his true god....the dollar. Even religion (Eli), is seduced by the black stuff, despite his attempt to corrupt Plainview's into worshipping the white stuff (holy water). The ending does fit as by then Plainview has laid waste to all living things around him that he is indeed "finished", people have dismissed the ending as absurd which is ENTIRELY the point. What I am surprised about is PTA not showing us Plainview in more detail before his descent and the odd introduction of the fake brother, it would have been far more dramatically effective if Plainview had murdered his own kin. Nevertheless, very few filmmakers would have dared to make a film like this and I reckon with repeated viewings this film will only resonate louder.

richCie -> RE: There Will Be Blood (20/3/2008 9:33:55 AM)
see more recent post, decided to put my completed analysis at the front, rather than making everyone look back a page or so.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.03125