"There Will Be Blood" was a bit... odd. (spoilers inside)

[Writer]

I'm not sure how to describe it, other than to say that it's not a full adaptation of Upton Sinclair's novel "Oil!" Mr. Writer and I left with large :wtf: looks on our faces.

Daniel Day Lewis was excellent in the film, however. I'd recommend it, but imbibe a bit before you do. ;)

~Writer~

[Bicoastal]

1. I . . .drink. . .your. . .MILKSHAKE!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCCdZmHk5Fk

[Writer]

3. That last scene was brilliant.

I think I understand why the movie ended as it did, given what Plainview sacrificed during the story.

[Pale Blue Dot]

7. ...

The last line was brilliant, and is a major reason why the film has stuck with me.

[Writer]

10. Without a doubt... I loved the last line. (spoiler!)

It was full of multiple meanings.

What I didn't understand is: Why did he kill the preacher?

[Pale Blue Dot]

14. I think...

by killing him, he had "won" his last battle. He had no fights left to win.

I wish there had been a little more backstory on his character. I wonder if there's more in the novel.

[Writer]

15. Ahhhh yes.

I had a similar thought at that moment.

Yes, he was finished. He could drink himself to death now and be a fulfilled man. A misanthrope par excellence. I sort of admire him. :P

~Writer~

[fishwax]

16. agreed on the last line

it was brilliant. The whole last scene was just amazing, but that last line was perfect.

[Radio_Lady]

2. It was a bit odd. But we liked it better than "No Country for Old Men." Didja see that one?

Edited to correct title... thanks.

[Bicoastal]

4. No COUNTRY...and honestly, the two movies tie each other for brilliance in my view. nt

[Dawggie]

5. I haven't seen the movie yet, but did enjoy "No Company for Old Men."

And would also have to point to Eastern Promises for great film making this past year.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. I was disappointed in Eastern Promises. Have not seen

There Will Be Blood. It is at the top of my list and I want to No Country again.

[Radio_Lady]

13. Because of personal travel, we did not see that many movies last year.

A few that I liked:

Juno
Hairspray
Into the Wild
Arranged (independently released through www.filmmovement.com)

The story arc of "No Company for Old Men" just did nothing for me. What was that movie about? Tommy Lee Jones said he would retire, and he did. Josh Bolton character gets killed WITHOUT US EVEN seeing it! Everybody else gets killed IN FULL VIEW with one of the ugliest methods of killing I've ever seen. Javier Bardem did a good job with that role, but for us, the story did not make much sense. Photography in that movie was amazing, and music, too. I do not understand the overhype.

You may tend to disagree, and I appreciate that.

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon (See my movie reviews at: http://journals.democraticunderground.com)

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. I was slightly disappointed. Maybe SPOILERS?

I'm a huge P.T. Anderson fan - I've loved all of his films: Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love - and when I saw the reviews that this one was getting, I was really excited.

However, I thought parts of the movie were really slow, and while there were some brilliant performances (Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano were excellent), some seemed very weak (Plainview's "brother" comes to mind.)

I will say this, though: I haven't stopped thinking about it since I saw it a week ago, and I might watch it again on DVD.

[Writer]

9. I agree that the pacing was a little slow in some areas.

I also thought that the music built a lot of false tension at some points. I actually enjoyed the tension, but there was a disconnect between some of the action and the music.

[fishwax]

18. it's definitely got a flaw or two, but in a sense even those (SPOILERS)

reflect the main character and his relentlessness. There are parts that are a bit slow, but that's because the movie is, like Plainview, stubborn, insistent, unconcerned with the standards of others. I know that doesn't quite make perfect sense, but I'm still hammering out my thoughts on it. Even though I know it's not a perfect film, I feel in some way that it's imperfections are perfectly appropriate. Sometimes a movie will drag a bit and you might think the movie would be much better if they trimmed 20-30 minutes of lag. But with this movie, even though I know there were slow points, I don't think it would be a better movie if it didn't drag in parts.

Another thing I was a little disappointed in initially was the lack of context for his final discussion with his son--I know in the book, the son dabbles in socialism and organized labor, but the film barely hinted at the outlines of how their relationship developed and deteriorated between the steakhouse scene and their parting. But then I realized it didn't matter, in the sense that, for Daniel, that moment rendered everything else irrelevant.

I didn't mind the brother's performance, though it certainly wasn't as good as DDL. Then again, what is? I don't think I've ever been so blown away by any acting than I was the last 5-10 minutes in the bowling alley. Damn. :wow:

[Kutjara]

8. I haven't seen the movie, but the trailers made it seem...

...like Daniel Day Lewis was doing a reprise of his "Gangs of New York" character. I don't know if it was just a bad choice of clip, but he came across as very mannered and...dare I say...hammy. I hope that's a false impression.

[Writer]

11. His voice work is a bit hammy, as you put it.

I don't recall Gangs of New York, but I think you'll find this character unique in many ways.

[Yavin4]

17. I Took The Film To Be An Allegory on the Iraq War

It was a story of how a greed obsessed oil man took advantage of people by taking their resources. Plainview used the preacher to get what he wanted, and when he got it, he killed him. Think Saddam.