We watched There Will Be Blood this evening. Seriously? What was that supposed to be?
This was supposedly one of the great films of 2007 and a modern day classic. It was nominated for eight Oscars and won two. And this is what all the hype was about? Really?
I defy someone to tell me why that movie was so great. Why? Because everyone agreed that it was? Because it was so artsy? It may have been avant-garde but it also needed narration. And coherence. And a different musical score (preferably one with actual music). The ending (and the beginning and the middle) was confusing. It's like a movie that had all the essential plot points edited out to save time and we're left needing the five-hour director's cut version on DVD.
And what was up with the preacher character? Was that supposed to be an authentic Pentecostal-type preacher or maybe a dark parallel character steeped in human ambition? Because it looked like an awkwardly miscast child actor pretending to be older than he really was.
Why did the director keep stopping short of explaining the developments in this "epic" thirty year story arc? I guess we're just supposed to fill in the gaps ourselves; it's so "film school" to force the audience to come up with their own plot and motivations and explanations. How post-modern! Give that film an "A" for obscure nebulosity.
And one more note about the ending: huh? Was that supposed to be compelling? Was it supposed to be a gut-wrenching grab at the truths binding two characters together? It should have been. Instead it was the strangest scene in a bowling alley since Woody Harrelson lost his hand in Kingpin.
Since 91% of the world's critics (according to RottenTomatoes.com) thought this was pure genius, I'm sure someone can set me straight. But I feel like I'm standing in front of that splatter of paint in the art museum over which everyone else is "having a moment" and all I see is a splatter of paint. Maybe I'm not s'phisticated enough.
3 comments:
I rented it, and haven't watched it yet... and now I'm not sure if I want to watch it or just return it unopened...
So I think I'll watch it and try to make my own opinion from it, but now I know I've got to be paying close attention the whole time. Sounds like one of those movies you watch and say to yourself, "I'd better rewind, I think I just missed something."
I loved it and may watch it again before I return it to Netflix.
Daniel Day Lewis' performance is a masterpiece in my opinion. His character is so depraved and wicked yet is very pithy and interesting.
I didn't think he could out-do his Bill the Butcher performance in Gangs of New York, but his portrayal of a greed-obsessed oil man blows that away.
My wife didn't like it. It won't inspire you at all...it's a bit depressing, but it shows the tragic depths that a man can fall to in chasing money and power. It's a theme that's been done thousands of times over, sure - but Lewis' presence on the screen has to rank him up there will some of the all time greats.
Everyone has their own opinion...I thought it would long and boring...it was anything but that.
I thought Lewis was interesting too, but it was odd that he was doing an impersonation of Orson Welles, which only invites an unfavorable comparison to Citizen Kane. Combine that movie with Treasure of the Sierra Madre and you get There Will be Blood, only not as good on either count.
Post a Comment