There Will Be Blood--Spoilers

Discuss films.
User avatar
dik pose
Posts: 1948
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

There Will Be Blood--Spoilers

Post by dik pose » Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:33 am

Ummm... if someone can boil down the story for me, that would be great cause PT Anderson obviously didn't do that while he was writing it.

So with no "obvious" plot (I gleaned lots of plots, or theories about potential plots, but none really followed through with any promise as the movie unfolded) I concentrated on characters, and man, Daniel Day Lewis is my hero... that dude can ACT!!!!! He is pretty darn awesome, the dialogue is interesting and well written, the delivery perfect. I want to be Daniel Day Lewis.

I give this movie a "C". I don't think I really liked it, though I wasn't bored. The acting was great, the look was great... but it didn't have enough plot to make me satisfied.

Maybe I will think about it tomorrow and like it more, sorta like I did with "No Country for Old Men" but I dont think so.

User avatar
dik pose
Posts: 1948
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Post by dik pose » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:41 pm

A few days later, I have decided I want to see this movie again...

User avatar
mr cow
Posts: 1293
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:32 am
Location: tampa, fl
Contact:

Post by mr cow » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:20 pm

yeah- i'm pretty much with you on this one. daniel day lewis (or as his friends call him, ddl!) was AWESOME. other than that, i have no idea what this movie was trying to say.

i just didn't like this movie. and i don't say that very often.
Image

maxdeth
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:13 am
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

I liked it alot!

Post by maxdeth » Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:31 pm

To me this movie was about the battle of wills between DDL and the preacher which is definitely not what I was expecting going in. We watch DDL deal with his character flaws (mainly that he is super self centered) through his conflicts with his fake brother, probably fake son, difficulty of making money drilling for oil, conflict with the town, and conflict with the preacher.

User avatar
jen
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:05 pm

Post by jen » Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:32 am

I just wanted to chime in with a good word because I thought this movie, like all PTA movies, was awesome!

It's a battle of the wills? Between capitalism and faith? Between American values? I don't think the movie was aiming to say anything in particular and I don't think it has to. To me it's a character drama spanning one person's life set in a younger America and the filmmaker just thought it was interesting.

User avatar
Muffin
Posts: 1208
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:02 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Post by Muffin » Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:03 pm

I give this movie a HUGE A, I LOVED it!
Image

User avatar
elara
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:23 pm
Location: Boston, Massssssssachusetts
Contact:

Post by elara » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:35 am

It was frustrating to me. I was waiting for something definitive, some final moment to pull it all together, but it never happened.

And it's so frustrating because, like a perfect storm, you have all these fantastic elements :awesome cinematography, wonderful script...when it's not being ridiculous ((think MILKSHAKE!!!)) and then of course DDL WHO IS SPELLBINDING...

but it never really gets its self together, just oozes....and rolls around in its own muck

All the wonderful moments however, and there are many, are staying with me. And I know I will be thinking about this movie for a while, so it did make an impression..

But still...so frustrating!!!
~~ Elara
Image

User avatar
Tony
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Contact:

Post by Tony » Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:36 pm

Okay, for those of you who didn't like this movie, it's probably because you didn't see MY version, which was awesome. [SPOILARZ]

Now, I'm notoriously bad at remembering names in movies. I also am bad at remembering specific dialogue. This may have something to do with getting into animation. BRIGHT COLOURS! LOUD NOISES! CARICATURED PEOPLE!

This is why I didn't notice that there were two Sunday brothers. I obviously missed the part where Paul Sunday introduces himself as such... or I just forgot his name between then and when we saw Eli. So when I saw Eli for the first time (when he gives milk to the camping Plainviews), I thought it was the same Sunday that we had seen earlier extorting Daniel Plainview for the location of the oily land. The reason he wasn't being buddy-buddy with Daniel is because he was pretending to not know them, so as to not give away the fact that they're there to score some cheap oil land.

ERGO, for the first nine tenths of the film, I thought that Eli had gone to Daniel to tell him about the oil so that the oil would bring more people to Little Boston or whatever the town's called. This would increase the amount of dudes going to Eli's church, thus Eli rakes in the dollarz and builds his influence.

This made for a really interesting personal drama, I thought, and was engaged for the duration of the film.

I questioned this premise only twice, 1) when Eli is beating up Abel after himself being pummeled by Daniel, and 2) at the very end, when Daniel is talking about how Paul was the smart one. I turned to my girlfriend and asked, "who's Paul?" and she explained and then everything clicked.

Now, here's what I want to know: why did they cast the same dude as the two brothers? Are there REALLY two brothers? If not, does that mean that Eli/Paul is crazy? And if so, what does THAT add to the story?

I enjoyed this film a LOT more than I thought I would, and I'm really looking forward to watching it again... properly? this time.

PS. Also, I know that because of all his award-praise, it's become a bit popular to poo-poo Daniel Day-Lewis as maybe chewing the scenery or hamming it up, and I can see that a bit, but man - he sure was fun to watch!

User avatar
Muffin
Posts: 1208
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:02 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Post by Muffin » Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:18 am

SPOILER

I had that argument with my friends after we watched the movie. I strongly believe that Eli and Paul is one person. Eli being the real one and Paul being his schizo I/made up etc (I'm not sure if its intentionally or not). Daniel gets this because he understands that this brother too is some player, which to me is clearly after Eli so humble introduces himself to Daniel and his son when they come visit, making it clear that they know nothing of eachother. I also think that's why Daniel never is able to take Eli as a priest seriously. The scene where Eli attackes his father for mentioning Paul also made me think that it has to be like that.

And then in the last fight between Daniel and Eli - Daniel is trying to crush Eli even more telling him what a good life he would have had if he, as Paul, would've agreed to the money he was offered.
At least this is what I think. I've been watching Fight Club too many times. ;P
Image

Prankster
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:14 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Prankster » Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:59 pm

Basically, P. T. Anderson realized that Paul Dano, who had been cast as Paul, was a lot better than the guy who he'd cast as Eli, so he decided to have him play Eli too, thus making the brothers twins. The schizophrenic thing (which I've heard elsewhere) seems like a pretty big stretch to me, especially given the last-minute change.

As for the movie itself, I thought it was a pretty straightforward allegory about capitalism vs. religion. Eli loses sight of what's important and gets fixated on worldly power and "beating" Daniel--the baptism is supposed to be his big moment of triumph. But instead of genuinely trying to save Daniel's soul, which he almost does, he humiliates him instead, thus causing Daniel to plot revenge. By the end of the movie, Daniel's completely beaten Eli, because Eli can never win that game.

Also, interesting note: all of Anderson's films so far seem to imitate a different classic director. Boogie Nights is very much a Scorsese film, Magnolia is Altman, Punch-Drunk Love is Hal Ashby, and now There Will Be Blood has a lot in common with Kubrick.
Check out my comics and stuff at Phantasmic Tales.

User avatar
squirpy
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:40 pm
Contact:

Post by squirpy » Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:38 pm

Man, I thought I was the only one who thought that Eli was the original guy who came to tell Daniel about the oil. I just accepted that for a lot of the movie. I finally figured it out at some point, but I think it was more interesting when I thought he was the kid who told Daniel about the oil and then had problems with it.
I keep a sketchblog here

User avatar
patrace
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:13 pm
Location: Juneau, AK
Contact:

Post by patrace » Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:37 pm

I think there are two brothers and I like that there's so much doubt. The audiences doubt mirrors Daniel's doubt. It's immersing. I think even at the end when he's telling Eli that Paul was the chosen brother there's a hint of doubt in Daniel.

I grew up around mining camps and other types of resource development and exploitation, this movie really captured that frontier feeling for me. It made me proud, frightened, and left me feeling the sting of competitive sparks.

The music was striking and perfect.

I want to fast forward ten years and see what I think of the film in the future. It's always hard to tell if the things I like are just flavors I'm missing or something truly delicious.
Image

User avatar
dark77778
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:03 am
Location: Toronto

Post by dark77778 » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:54 pm

To be honest I hated the movie the first time I saw it but loved the cinematography, then it grew on me over the days so I voted for it in my Oscar pools then bought the DVD. I appreciate it so much more now that I've seen it twice. As for the thing with the brothers, I'm almost positive it's the same actor, and that it was supposed to confuse you like that.
I'm my own breed of eccentric.

User avatar
Kazu
Site Admin
Posts: 9337
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:59 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by Kazu » Thu May 08, 2008 11:37 am

What a wacky film. Lots of masterful craftsmanship on display for apparently no reason other than to just be there. I loved watching it, though. I can see Anderson trying to channel Kubrick on this one, but he only gets the aesthetic down and not the introspective spirit (in the same way Boogie Nights compares to GoodFellas). Anderson is one crazy talented dude, and some day he will find something to say on his own. Unlike Tarantino, it seems he is unable to rise above his influences and bring something new to the table aside from his high level of skill (though Tarantino pays tribute to material most people would never consider to be "high art" in the first place). In fact, I'd say Punch-Drunk Love, his tribute to Adam Sandler films, is probably his most interesting film to date, since he is in some ways able to rise above the source material. Again, criticisms aside, I really enjoyed the film for its visuals and spectacular acting, but next time I hope it's in service of a story with more dramatic impact.
Image
Image

William Ward
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 10:08 am

Post by William Ward » Sat May 10, 2008 4:53 am

Going in I expected the movie was going to be able to be an all-time favorite, but because of some of the stuff already mentioned it did not quite get there. As a few have already said, it lacked something to hold together the great craftsmanship. That said, still far above average.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests