Is There Will be Blood THAT good?

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think it's very good, but also perhaps overrated. It is far from a perfect film. DDL is undeniably very good in it, in any case.

 

[thirtythree]

I didn't like it...

 

[torpid]

The title is from a verse in the bible. Something about instructing moses to reach his hand out and turn water into blood.

It refers to actual blood, oil, and the bond of family (i.e. blood relatives).

In that respect, there WAS a lot of blood. Just not the human spurty kind.

I thought it was excellent. I preferred No Country For Old Men but this was also excellent. It may not have been a fable with a "slow and steady wins the race" type of message, but it did have some things to say about our past and current societies, IMO.

 

[SoulAssassin]

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I like it better than No Country but I didn't think either was really that good. I think I kept looking for a point or a message or something like that in There Will Be Blood. After the movie was over I realized it was just about the dude being a fucking asshole which is pretty cool, I was just expecting there to be some big lesson or point at the end because it was Oscar nominated.

There was a message. Greed and the lust for power/wealth destroys all. A fairly straightforward message actually.

I disagree. Daniels character wasn't destroyed. He was rich as hell, he didn't actually lose his son because he never had one...how would you say he was destroyed? I think he was quite content with who he was and how he was living. Now, it would be safe to say that Eli was destroyed but I wouldn't go as far as to say that was the message of the movie.

You may have interpreted that power/wealth destroys all but I don't think that was the point of the movie.

Originally posted by: MasterOfKtulu109
its a pt anderson movie. his are character studies, not moral stories to make you think about its application in current society.

This statement I would agree with. I think I (mistakingly) was expecting a message which led to a bit of disappointment.

I think if I watched There Will Be Blood again with the right expectations I would like it more.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
This statement I would agree with. I think I (mistakingly) was expecting a message which led to a bit of disappointment.

I think if I watched There Will Be Blood again with the right expectations I would like it more.

Look for metaphors relevant to modern society, not direct messages. I think you will find it is a meaningful film in that regard.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: dr150
DDL finds roles to overact.....like Pacino (it takes him years to find such roles, which is why he isn't a prolific actor)

It was a good movie but too slowly paced.

It was a slow year for really good Oscar worthy movies.

In a good year, this movie wouldn't be nominated for "Best Picture".

That said, DDL is a good actor who finds roles that fit his temper.

define "good year"

Braveheart won in what I consider to be the weakest year in recent memory. Braveheart was a fine flick...but not Oscar caliber by any stretch of the imagination.

TWBB and NCFOM were easy choices. Both deserved it. Hell, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly also deserved it...but it wasn't nominated....and not even in foreign language (travesty).
These were probably the best contenders since Unforgiven won in 91....or was it 90?

Oh yeah...Schindler's List was good too...I guess

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin

Originally posted by: MasterOfKtulu109
its a pt anderson movie. his are character studies, not moral stories to make you think about its application in current society.

This statement I would agree with. I think I (mistakingly) was expecting a message which led to a bit of disappointment.

I think if I watched There Will Be Blood again with the right expectations I would like it more.

Hehe...I think I went in with too many expectations...I was expecting heaven on celluloid, so came out slightly disappointed. Even so, I think it's the best film produced in several years.

Anderson seems to be one of those brooding filmmakers...now that we have at least 5 projects to gauge him on....you get the feeling now that if his name is attached to something, you have to see it. There's quite a bit of time between his projects that it's clear he spends massive amounts of time researching, planning, writing, perfecting...etc.

...He's the next Kubrick
:thumbsup:

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I like it better than No Country but I didn't think either was really that good. I think I kept looking for a point or a message or something like that in There Will Be Blood. After the movie was over I realized it was just about the dude being a fucking asshole which is pretty cool, I was just expecting there to be some big lesson or point at the end because it was Oscar nominated.

There was a message. Greed and the lust for power/wealth destroys all. A fairly straightforward message actually.

I disagree. Daniels character wasn't destroyed. He was rich as hell, he didn't actually lose his son because he never had one...how would you say he was destroyed? I think he was quite content with who he was and how he was living. Now, it would be safe to say that Eli was destroyed but I wouldn't go as far as to say that was the message of the movie.

You may have interpreted that power/wealth destroys all but I don't think that was the point of the movie.

If you think Plainview is actually happy in the last scenes of the movie then we saw two entirely different movies. Sure he's wealthy and has attained everything he ever dreamed he could but in his very achievement lies his downfall. Plainview stands for, among other things, the American drive for wealth and prosperity and showcases how empty this singular passion of our times really is at heart. What do we really seek when we seek wealth and power and what do we do once we have it? In Plainviews case we have a man who is nothing other than the singular drive for wealth and success. All else is secondary even family, friends and any hint of a normal life as we would consider it. But what does such a man do when he finally attains what he has spent his entire life striving for? With all his goals met he has nothing left to pour his "madness" into and so quite appropriately he goes mad himself. Plainview is quite clearly mentally unstable in the last scenes of the movie. Wondering through his mansion drunk, sleeping in filthy clothing, doing target practice with a rifle in his living room etc...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I like it better than No Country but I didn't think either was really that good. I think I kept looking for a point or a message or something like that in There Will Be Blood. After the movie was over I realized it was just about the dude being a fucking asshole which is pretty cool, I was just expecting there to be some big lesson or point at the end because it was Oscar nominated.

There was a message. Greed and the lust for power/wealth destroys all. A fairly straightforward message actually.

I disagree. Daniels character wasn't destroyed. He was rich as hell, he didn't actually lose his son because he never had one...how would you say he was destroyed? I think he was quite content with who he was and how he was living. Now, it would be safe to say that Eli was destroyed but I wouldn't go as far as to say that was the message of the movie.

You may have interpreted that power/wealth destroys all but I don't think that was the point of the movie.

If you think Plainview is actually happy in the last scenes of the movie then we saw two entirely different movies. Sure he's wealthy and has attained everything he ever dreamed he could but in his very achievement lies his downfall. Plainview stands for, among other things, the American drive for wealth and prosperity and showcases how empty this singular passion of our times really is at heart. What do we really seek when we seek wealth and power and what do we do once we have it? In Plainviews case we have a man who is nothing other than the singular drive for wealth and success. All else is secondary even family, friends and any hint of a normal life as we would consider it. But what does such a man do when he finally attains what he has spent his entire life striving for? With all his goals met he has nothing left to pour his "madness" into and so quite appropriately he goes mad himself. Plainview is quite clearly mentally unstable in the last scenes of the movie. Wondering through his mansion drunk, sleeping in filthy clothing, doing target practice with a rifle in his living room etc...

Apt analysis, ...but who wouldn't be happy taking target practice in their living room?

I think the condition you describe is explicit, but is that how Plainview sees himself? I don't think so. He seems to be rather content with his bat-shit insanity. Perhaps, soon after the demise-by-bludgeoning of last remaining nemesis sinks in, he will begin to feel empty, but we never get a chance to see that.

Plainview seems like the type that can make an enemy of anyone, and will continue to do so as that is the fuel which keeps him going.