This movie would never come out of Hollywood. I don't think you an get more arty than this.

I was referring to the production quality as opposed to the story itself. Camera angles, scene cuts, lighting, film speed... All pretty standard.

This movie would never come out of Hollywood. I don't think you an get more arty than this.

I was referring to the production quality as opposed to the story itself. Camera angles, scene cuts, lighting, film speed... All pretty standard.

That's what I was referring to. I disagree with you here. Perhaps its less arty than the story or the writing, but it is definitely not standard Hollywood.

Perhaps its less arty than the story or the writing, but it is definitely not standard Hollywood.

Can you give me an example of a particular shot or scene? Maybe I'm missing something...

Oh my favorite Yankeefan, how you disappoint so. First, you actually like Juno, now you are going to tell me you disliked There Will Be Blood?? Thank goodness your taste in beer is far superior to your taste in movies.

 

 

There Will Be Blood is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time, truly a great movie that will stand up to multiple viewings. The score and direction was amazing, and why did I keep thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey while watching this movie? From the very first scene I noticed similarities. Anyone else get that feel? El Penguino? I wonder if this was this done on purpose by PTA.

 

Warning: Spoiler heavy review to follow.

 

About an hour into the movie I thought, I know absolutely nothing about oil, how can I appreciate this movie? It was about that same time that I realized this movie wasn't about oil, it's about the greed that built America. It is a character study of the type of rough snake that this country needed in order to make us great. Daniel was a mean SOB who's only objective in life was oil. He thrived off the smell of it, discovering it, and making money because of it. It was in his blood. The man seemed to literally sweat oil at certain points in the film.

 

He was the perfect metaphor for the individual-person hating corporations that ran the early 20th century. Eli was the same rough snake, he prayed off the weak and was only concerned with himself. My one beef with the film is that PTA didn't give the viewer enough credit to figure this out. The scene where he shouts I am a false prophet;God is a superstition was overdone, IMO. I didn't need this scene to figure out that Eli was the same person as Daniel, PTA didn't need to spell it out for me.

 

I can't wait to see it again, I think this movie will age very well. The performances by DDL and Paul Dano were of course amazing, and they deserve all the praise being heaped on them. The score was the best I have heard in a long time, and BTW: did they use a similar score from Lost? Anyone else notice that?

 

Paul Thomas Anderson firmly cements himself as one of the best directors in the land with this film, and the fact that he is only 37 boggles my mind.

 

3.5 out of 4 stars.

The score and direction was amazing, and why did I keep thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey while watching this movie?

I felt more like I was listening to the sound track of a turn-based strategy video game like Oil Tycoon.

The score and direction was amazing, and why did I keep thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey while watching this movie?

I felt more like I was listening to the sound track of a turn-based strategy video game like Oil Tycoon.

 

 

and the crowd goes wild with loud boos and hissing noises! BOOOOOOO!

the crowd goes wild with loud boos and hissing noises! BOOOOOOO!

:violin

 

[oddly, they didn't have a cello...]

I can give a more detailed analysis once I rewatch the film, but I don't think 2001: A Space Odyssey is a strong comparison.

 

 

The more I thought about it, I realized I have that comparison in my head because of the long silent opening combined with the rocky terrain. It wouldn't surprise me at all if PTA used 2001 as an inspiration with one being the Dawn of Man, his film being the dawn of American corporations and greed.

I was referring to the production quality as opposed to the story itself. Camera angles, scene cuts, lighting, film speed... All pretty standard.

Then you have a lot to learn about cinema, I'm afraid.

Okay, then teach me. Instead of making a baseless blanket statement, give me a SPECIFIC example of a scene/cut/lighting effect/camera angle/ANYTHING that distinguishes this film.

I already gave one. Hardly a blanket statement. If anything you are calling the kettle black because I see nothing other than generalizations on your end.

How can I prove that there is nothing creative/new/novel/anti-establishment when you can't prove the existance of nothingness?

 

The example you gave was the long cut on the pipeline? Are saying that holding a shot distance sans zoom is novel or anti-hollywoodesque? You know where else you see that revolutionary technique? Any parent's amature video of their child's HS play. Here are three scenes from 3 large Hollywood movies that use that same shot:

National Treasure: Book of Secrets - Ben Gates walks away from the camera in a fit of inspiration to pour water on the rocks to reveal a clue

The Kingdom - Grant Sykes walks into "the hole"

Oceans 13 - 4 or 5 scenes [pick one]

 

That's just off the top of my head. My "generalization" was merely the observation that - contrary to a previous statement - I didn't notice anything in the production quality that set it apart from traditional Hollywood films. And that, my friend, is a fair statement.

In the meantime, watch this clip and tell me what you observe. Tell me what you like and dislike about the style.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNg5eGjZsws

Right. The infamous single "establishing shot" scene. Zoom, pan, dolly without a cut to introduce a scene, setting, and characters. This is the same style used by Coppola to set up The Godfather and also by Whedon to introduce the characters [as well as the ship] to the audience in Serentiy.

 

This shot works for these films for any number of reasons but most notably because it creates an engaging sense of action that pulls the audience in.

 

This shot fails in There Will Be Blood because it has almost the opposite effect. The extreme long shot at the end of the take [when the two are finally reunited] fails to induce any sort of emotion whatsoever. A close-up would have been better for capturing facial expressions if he were going for that, a medium shot would have been better for capturing body language if he were going for that, even a long shot would have said more about the "emotional distance" between father and son. But an extreme long shot in that "pivotal" moment? Since this is a sports board I will put it into terms we can all understand - that's about as engaging as showing "The Catch" from the blimp cam. Fail.

I finally found the indy movie theater in Tallahassee (I always knew of it, but didn't realize they showed the smaller flicks).

 

I went to see this movie at 5pm today, got there at around 4:45 and there was a line of at least 75 (older) people at the ticket booth. Needless to say, I didn't even bother.

I finally found the indy movie theater in Tallahassee (I always knew of it, but didn't realize they showed the smaller flicks).

 

I went to see this movie at 5pm today, got there at around 4:45 and there was a line of at least 75 (older) people at the ticket booth. Needless to say, I didn't even bother.

The old people are out in droves this time of year.

Going to try and see it tomorrow.

I'm sorry you do not feel the same way because you are missing out.

Guess so. Like I said, I went into this film WANTING to like it. I was looking for reasons to think this could be this year's best picture.

 

To address your concerns:

1. The Godfather long take is almost twice as long as this one and is regarded as one of the best in cinematic history - I just thought it was cool and added to the story

2. I don't think a film requires avant-garde techniques to be considered good. I do, however, expect a film to at least use existing techniques in a manner that aids in the story telling. If someone is going to rave about the production quality of a film, there should be substance to that argument and I did not see it in my view.

3. Go watch Serenity now. Are you kidding me? At the very least, watch it for the first scene. Granted, it is mindless entertainment but it is a ton of fun and a visual treat on many levels.

Honestly? I don't care enough.

This guy is my favorite reviewer of films on the net, and 95% of the time I agree with what he has to say about movies. Loved his review on There Will Be Blood, he is spot on about the time leap.

 

http://www.juicycerebellum.com/review006.html

Really?

 

I'm not even sure what his point is.

He almost nailed it for me too. The problem isn't that the story is too short, though. The problem is that the story is missing SOMETHING. I don't know what it's missing but there is this hole in the film that keeps me from loving it and I guess that's been my point all along.

 

Wish I could ascribe words to my thoughts in a coherent logical manner. :|

Well to be honest I feel like you had more to say than that guy did.

I also had someone to bounce my opinions off of. Like I said in the Cloverfield thread, we have pretty much the opposite tastes in movies. You're pretty much the Yin to my Yang and keep me honest and force me to delve into particulars when you disagree...