I saw "There Will Be Blood" over the weekend and IT SUCKED

[Bake]

I can't believe it won a couple of Oscars. I thought it sucked out loud. No story line, to speak of. Daniel Day Lewis plays an asshole. Big deal.

Bake

[DS1]

1. Yep. Total shit. Waste of time.

[ghostsofgiants]

2. I humbly disagree.

[Bake]

5. Name one good thing about that piece of crap ...

The weird preacher reminded me of a grown up version of that idiot in Children of the Corn. And that's NOT a good thing.

Bake

[ghostsofgiants]

10. I thought the acting was great, and the story itself is a study of capitalist greed...

Plainview's obsession with oil and his underhandedness in getting that oil for himself at the expense of others (even his own son) could be seen as an examination of the greed and self-interest that drives any capitalist interest. The cinematography was gorgeous, the direction was superb and the ending was intense and disturbing, and that IS a good thing.

[Bake]

15. OK, the cinematography was good.

I'll grant that. The ending, while intense, was in no way a denouement and therefore sucked. It just happened.

Bake

[ghostsofgiants]

18. I'm of the belief that a traditional narrative isn't necessary for a film to be good.

I've been a fan of film movements like the French New Wave and such for some time, which often eschew convention like that.

[Bake]

23. I'm of the belief that if a movie doesn't tell a good story

I'll turn it off.

Bake

[ghostsofgiants]

25. I thought it was a good story.

It just used a non-traditional narrative structure.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. My dear Bake...

Well, I disagree.

I thought Daniel Day-Lewis was incredibly good, and the story quite compelling.

But of course, not everyone likes the same movies...

:shrug:


:hi:

[Bake]

7. My Dear Peggy!

I'm glad you liked it. Daniel Day Lewis was OK, I concede, but beyond that the story still sucked. Different strokes, as they say.

:hi:

Bake

[charlie and algernon]

4. no country for old men was WAAY better

I kept waiting for something big and dramatic to happen in "Blood" and nothing does. I wish the climatic battle with the priest had happened earlier in the movie, not after they were both washed up.

[stuntcat]

36. No Country For Old Men.. WAAAY better

dittos :headbang: I'm glad I saw There Will Be Blood but it's not a movie I'd watch again. No Country For Old Men was 100%!

[redqueen]

6. Is that the one with the milkshake?

I must be one of the very few people on the planet who doesn't have a frickin clue what all this milkshake drinking is s'posed to be about.

But I like Daniel Day Lewis, so I will watch it anyway.

[Bake]

8. That's the one.

He was explaining about sucking the oil out of an adjacent tract of land with the milkshake/straw analogy. I don't even think they HAD milkshakes with straws back in those days!

HA!

Bake

[ghostsofgiants]

13. That scene took place in 1927.

Milkshakes have been around since the late 1800s.

[Bake]

17. Yes, but what about STRAWS????

HA!

Bake

[ghostsofgiants]

19. Patented in 1888.

:P

[Shell Beau]

21. Look at you being all knowledgeable and stuff!

:P

[ghostsofgiants]

24. Don't tell anyone, but I cheated and used the Google.

:P

[Bake]

22. OK, Mr. Smartypants, you win!!

I still thought the movie sucked though.

:rofl:

Bake

[Starbucks Anarchist]

28. ...

[redqueen]

30. That's confusing.

Cause he looks like the dude from SPARTAAAAAAAAA!

[Starbucks Anarchist]

31. There was also a mash-up with the Kelis song "Milkshake."

:rofl:

[Phoonzang]

9. Pretty much. But the critics say it's good so

we're supposed to like it. I'd frankly rather go watch Howard the duck 3 times than see that movie again. At least Howard the Duck is funny in it's lameness.

[DS1]

11. And Howard the Duck three times would be over quicker

[asthmaticeog]

20. It indicates something very wrong with me that at first I thought that said "quacker."

:cry:

[musette_sf]

12. i read the book before i saw the movie

the book was great. a little hard to get into at first since it was written in a different time, but once i got with the rhythm, it was a wonderful read. i thought "wow, i can't believe Hollywood has a new movie that is a morality tale about labor unrest, showing the exploitation of workers and of the working poor, detailing the sorrow of young men forever scarred by WWI experiences, and exposing the lies of the oil business".

it was so unbelievable that it just didn't happen.

"There Will Be Blood" had absolutely NOTHING to do with the major themes of "Oil". there was no story line in the movie, because all of the actual story lines in the book were expunged.

i made it through about 35 minutes of the movie and had to stop. i was getting sadder and sadder by the moment that a book that has timely morals today was stripped of those morals.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. oh my god, i am glad someone finally agrees with me.

i thought the exact same thing. everyone else LOVED it.

[Shell Beau]

16. I was into it but I was sooooo tired that I fell asleep halfway through.

I bought it so I will be able to go back and pick up where I left off. I found it interesting partly because I am in the oil business and was interested in some of the history of it.

[JCMach1]

26. Loved it!

By far the best movie of last year.

[Bake]

27. That just means that there were a lot of really shitty movies last year.

:rofl:

Although I did really like No Country for Old Men. Tommy Lee Jones was far better in his role than Lewis was in Blood. The ending of No Country was a bit of a non-ending, but overall (IMHO) a much better movie than Blood.

Bake

[JCMach1]

29. Liked No Country too....

but really liked the auteuristic elements of the film...

But I'm a literary geek...

[EnviroBat]

32. Oh my God. What a complete yawn-fest.

What the hell was the point?

[applegrove]

33. I thought it looked bad in the movie preview I saw. Never seen it.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

34. The book it is based on is so much better.

I think you can find it in the library and it's a good (easy/interesting) read. Ask for Oil! by Sinclair Lewis. :)

[Merrick]

41. I think you mean Upton Sinclair

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

53. Yes I do!

:) Thanks for that!

[Born_A_Truman]

35. I agree...

My brother bought the DVD and we watched it one night when he was here visiting. When it ended we both just looked at each other and shook our heads. I called it "There will be Boredom". That's just MHO and obviously many liked it. That's why they make lots of different movies.

[sasquatch]

37. I disagree

I though it was great

[JackDragna]

38. Go back to blinking lights and loud noises.

That movie was a masterwork in acting, character and pacing. If you don't like that movie, you don't like movies.

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. Ah, the Snobby Film Critic (tm) chimes in

Everyone who doesn't like THIS movie is a mouth breathing philistine who only likes to watch shit blow up. :eyes:

There Will Be Blood was easily the most underwhelming movie of last year. It's about 45 minutes too long - and before you make the inevitable arrogant crack about my attention span, I routinely enjoy movies that are well over 2 hours long. The vignette with the "brother" was excruciatingly drawn out - yes, it served to highlight Plainview's misanthropy and abject loneliness, and gave the viewer a glimpse of that tiny, fragile flicker of soul within him which yearned for a human connection, a flicker which he brutally extinguished when he killed the "brother," but frankly, by the time that mini-plot resolved itself, I was struggling to maintain the barest amount of interest. Yes, Daniel Day-Lewis turned in a powerhouse performance, and yes, the film is a well-done character study.

However, if you can't summon an ounce of concern for the character being studied, then all of that is moot, isn't it? There Will be Blood is a two hour and forty minute exegesis on a selfish greedy bastard. The end. I really didn't need to spend nearly three hours of my life watching a meandering and interminably plotted movie to come to some epiphany about the nature of greed. Quite frankly, there's not a lot to *like* in this movie. The intelligentsia of course fell all over themselves to gush about the anti-capitalist overtones and the nonlinear style, but that does not make this an enjoyable movie. Color me silly, but when I watch a film, I intend to be entertained, moved, or even provoked, but not tortured with an endlessly rambling plotless piece of pretension that was clearly created solely to win Oscars and impress people who like to pretend that watching art house cinema makes them more sophisticated.

[Bake]

45. I LOVE to watch shit blow up ....

You say that as if it's a BAD thing?

:rofl:

Bake

[Merrick]

40. Suspenseful, poignant film

between the fantastic dialogue, compelling insight into human motivations, cinematography, and taut suspense from scene to scene as you anticipated the slow boiling Plainview's eventual explosion with an awesome soundtrack choreographed brilliantly to enhance this sense of impending calamity, I'd give it 5 stars.

[Bake]

46. What you call suspense, I call a snoozer.

It didn't exactly have me on the edge of my seat ...

Bake

[harmonicon]

42. that's why I didn't see it

I always assume that critically acclaimed movies will be complete stinking piles of shit, and especially if they win an oscar. The oscar is like a stamp that should warn us off of smelling the rancid crap contained within the film canister.

[GRLMGC]

43. I quite liked it

However, I can see where others would find the experience tedious. I guess I'm pretty patient when it comes to films. I've seen others that were 100 times more painful to watch than There Will Be Blood.

[RevolutionaryActs]

44. I like it quite a lot.

Hated No Country For Old Men.

Eastern Promises was my favorite though. :shrug:

[Nickster]

47. I loved it and I'm usually a pretty big movie snob. The ending was great.

[40ozDonkey]

48. It was terrible. The music was the worst.

I'm all suspenseful while the "swarm of bees" music is going on, thinking that it's a precursor to something incredible happening, and then nothing happens. I hate movies that rile you up for nothing.

I didn't think Daniel Day Lewis over-acted until I saw this movie.

Some characters felt tacked on, terrible because they were played by really solid actors (Ciaran Hinds as Fletcher, Kevin J. O'Connor as the fake brother).

The greedy struggle for the town between the oilman and the preacher would've been far more interesting than Plainview's fights with other oil conglomerates. It felt like they abandoned the main conflict for awhile to explore side issues that were of no importance to the story and boring as hell to boot.

It pissed me off that I wanted to like it, it looks like there's a good movie in there but somebody heaped a pile of shit on top and now all I can see or smell is the detritus.

All it's good for is to make a few movie critics defend it for their own obscure reasons, and a flash in the pan internet meme...

[panhead1961]

49. No country for old men sucked too.

All the hype and both movies sucked.

[Lautremont]

50. You gave it three hours of your time, so I'd say it drank your milkshake!

IT DRANK IT UP.

[sasquatch]

51. LOL

:rofl:

[Merrick]

52. What'd you think of the new Indy Jones?