"Now That The Dust Has Settled & There Will Be Blood's In Its Cable Run"
what's the final verdict on this flick in this forum?
Personally I caught it Sunday morning for the first time since the theater & was a bit taken aback by how unimpressed I was though I did watch it in full.
It was never on the level of No Country for me but the aspect often sighted as its biggest strength (the acting) is almost laughably over-the-top & campy to me now, particularly the trademark scenes of Daniel & Eli in the church and the final one in the bowling alley.
I was actually cracking up watching those while eating my Honey Bunches Of Oats that morning.
Something tells me that's not what anyone involved in the picture was going for, similar to Halle's 'make me feeeel good' breakdown in Monster's Ball.
It's amazing the way critics can shape a movie's perception sometimes.
7. "agreed but do you really think the church scene & the bowling alley" In response to Reply # 3
scene were being played for laughs?
That certainly wasn't how the critics perceived it upon its release but maybe the actors & PTA thought otherwise, despite the comical nature of it to me they certainly are scenes that I would keep on if I was flipping because the sheer ridiculousness is/was entertaining.
17. "I mean....I think the two scenes you're talking about were meant" In response to Reply # 7
to be both serious and funny at the same time, if that makes sense. The combination of serious premise/funny or ridiculous dialogue/delivery helps make it memorable.
19. "RE: agreed but do you really think the church scene & the bowling alley" In response to Reply # 7
>scene were being played for laughs?
My two cents: not entirely, but I think certain moments were. Not all of it worked for me. For example, I don't find the final line of the film funny while some in the crowd did.
>That certainly wasn't how the critics perceived it upon its >release but maybe the actors & PTA thought otherwise, despite >the comical nature of it to me they certainly are scenes that >I would keep on if I was flipping because the sheer >ridiculousness is/was entertaining.
I agree that reviews rarely if it all brought up the question of comic intention or if they found moments in the film funny or not. The crowd was laughing hard during most of the baptismal scene.
26. "RE: agreed but do you really think the church scene & the bowling alley" In response to Reply # 19
>>scene were being played for laughs? > >My two cents: not entirely, but I think certain moments were. >Not all of it worked for me. For example, I don't find the >final line of the film funny while some in the crowd did. > that last line got more of a murmured 'what the fuck?' when the credits rolled up immediately after in my theater, the friend I had with me laughed but it was more in a 'fuck you for making me sit through that for two-and-a-half hours let's get a drink' kinda way.
>>That certainly wasn't how the critics perceived it upon its >>release but maybe the actors & PTA thought otherwise, >despite >>the comical nature of it to me they certainly are scenes >that >>I would keep on if I was flipping because the sheer >>ridiculousness is/was entertaining. > >I agree that reviews rarely if it all brought up the question >of comic intention or if they found moments in the film funny >or not. The crowd was laughing hard during most of the >baptismal scene.
5. "RE: he was great in a scene-eating Bill The Butcher kinda way but those" In response to Reply # 2
>scenes with Dano are straight-up funny & I don't think that >was on purpose.
I think they were. DDL on Charlie Rose said something like he misses playing Plainview because Plainview makes him laugh. PTA also said he was going for humor as well but I think he said he was surprised at what some audiences laughed at.
11. "Ok, but even then you KNEW critics would love it anyway" In response to Reply # 4
based on the 3 elements of "DDL" "PTA" and "epic"
I'm not even trying to say anything with this post, but...don't say you saw it without knowing what the critics would think, because as soon as you heard this film was in production you damn well knew it was Oscar bait.
16. "No, not really" In response to Reply # 11 Tue Feb-16-10 03:47 PM by ZooTown74
The screening I went to was filled to the brim with actors and writers who weren't quite sure what they were watching while they were watching it
The potential for a disconnect between audience and critical reaction certainly was there, despite the presence of Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Thomas Anderson... it's unquestionably a somewhat-bizarre movie; a beautifully-shot and acted movie but still bizarre
At the time I saw and reviewed it I think I compared the reaction to when magnolia came out; while revisionist history would like to say that it was universally acclaimed by the critics, I definitely remember seeing reactions that were more mixed
Bottom line is you just don't know what the critical reaction's going to be. Even if you have elements that are just "Oscar bait," you still don't know. Hell, we get movies every year that are lined up to get loads of Oscar nominations and/or critical acclaim, only to come up empty on both fronts, for the most part. For further information, see Lovely Bones, The and Road, The.
6. "I thought it was okay, but DDL was amazing." In response to Reply # 0
There were some great scenes, but overall I was pretty blah with it all. The comparisons it got to NCFOM were pretty unfair.
All that said, I look at it like an improved Gangs of New York - it was a better movie for sure, but the story was fairly weak and the only thing that truly carried it was it's central performance (and, like GONY, a fantastic LOOK to the movie).
10. "RE: I thought it was okay, but DDL was amazing." In response to Reply # 6
>There were some great scenes, but overall I was pretty blah >with it all. The comparisons it got to NCFOM were pretty >unfair. > >All that said, I look at it like an improved Gangs of New York >- it was a better movie for sure, but the story was fairly >weak and the only thing that truly carried it was it's central >performance (and, like GONY, a fantastic LOOK to the movie).
yeah, I'd say the GONY comparison is fair, it does have more standout moments than that movie.....maybe because TWBB was actually centered around DDL while in GONY he was technically a 'supporting actor' who just stole every scene he was in.
13. "If it's not a Dano/DDL scene, I'm changing the channel" In response to Reply # 0
I thought the movie was fine then but I really don't want to watch it again. I'll check it out if it's one of a handful of scenes that I thought were great but that's about it.
14. "I doubt Id sit through the entire film ever again, I kinda forced myself" In response to Reply # 13 Tue Feb-16-10 03:23 PM by Bombastic
to do so this time around since I hadn't seen it since the theater....at this point, those two scenes I mentioned that I laughed at are probably the only two I'd watch if I passed by it on cable.
21. "I thought it was beautiful " In response to Reply # 0
There aren't a lot of people making movies that don't get immediately tossed into the "Christian" bin that deal with the idea of sin (its beginnings, its course, its noetic effects, etc.) as seriously as PTA does. "There Will Be Blood" was such a cool movie because it was so huge in the scope of time and space, but it was such a small, tight anthropology of human sin at the same time. In this sense, I think there's value to the narrative in the increasingly over-the-top performances.
______________________________
"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"
22. "I still think its better than No Country" In response to Reply # 0
And Cormac McCarthy is my favorite writer.
I don't see how anyone can watch the entire movie and not understand that DDL is giving Eli's sermon back to him.If's funny because it is so damn ridiculous.He already beat the guy,but now he's going for pure humiliation ____________________
27. "uh, I understood what it meant, I just found the scenes to be comedic" In response to Reply # 22
>And Cormac McCarthy is my favorite writer. > > >I don't see how anyone can watch the entire movie and not >understand that DDL is giving Eli's sermon back to him.If's >funny because it is so damn ridiculous.He already beat the >guy,but now he's going for pure humiliation > which I don't remember being the perception of them amongst academy types when it was out but in the end, those were the two funniest and maybe only truly legitimately always rewatchable segments of the flick for me.
43. "I am not exactly sure what you mean by this...but I agree with you." In response to Reply # 31
I am not one of those folks who needs a story or for everything to fit together, but it always seemed to me that the movie is like someone filmed to non-consecutive chapters in a really good book.
35. "the ending is flawed" In response to Reply # 0
After the 20 year jump everything takes some effort to believe. As impressive as the craft and acting is, it's still not nearly as immersive as the rest of the film.
44. "technically it's great film but ultimately no heart and not something yo..." In response to Reply # 0 Fri Feb-19-10 10:07 AM by rdhull
not something youd watch all the time..but to be fair most of PTA's latest output has been somewhat mini epics that aren't just something you rewatch. Seems more like you watch to "appreciate my greatness..see what I did here in this part.." etc etc
56. "Ok. I caught this movie for the first time since I saw it in the theater..." In response to Reply # 0
It's still good as a vivid visual description of the life of an oil prospector. At the end of the movie, DDL is still that dirty lonely prospector covered in filth at the bottom of a hole that he was at the beginning of the film.
That alone and the DDL and Dano performances make it a very good film (though of course not as good as Old Country).
But watching it more closely this time I think it's EGREGIOUS storytelling to have twin characters who never appeared on screen at the same time. AND then never say the words "twin brother" in the whole movie? That's really confusing storytelling.
It was 15 years since I last saw this movie but I am pretty sure I never caught that Dano was playing two different characters. Even this time watching on Prime I had to rewind to catch that Paul wasn't just some unseen character but actually Dano playing two parts.
No one brings it up in this post but did everyone get that Dano was playing two characters?
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
