Search for:
There Will Be Disappointment
3:00 am Jan 24 - by Hallie Borden – Buzz writer
Related Media
(Catherine Lamy, Buzz illustrator)
There Will Be Blood
Buzz says:
MPAA Rating: RCurrent Showtimes: No showtimes available
When the two pickiest men in Hollywood teamed up for the nearly three-hour oil event There Will Be Blood, you just knew it was going to be good. Both director PT Anderson and actor Daniel Day-Lewis only make a movie about every five years, so the pairing made for high hopes and big wins. But overall, There Will Be Blood read more as a vessel meant to pick up Oscars than a truly amazing film, and Anderson’s direction was a bit half-assed.
Now don’t get me wrong, this was a good movie, but if you go in with the ridiculous expectations that the media has been laying on ever so thick, then Blood will be too thin.
There Will Be Blood is the epic story of Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his ventures as an oil tycoon in New Boston. The screenplay is based on Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil!, but too loosely to steal away its title (even though Oil! is way cooler sounding than There Will Be Blood.) Daniel receives a tip that there is oil seeping through the ground at a small family ranch in Northern California. He negotiates a price for the farm that includes a promised donation to the town church run by the family’s son Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). Daniel and his young son H.W. (Dillon Freasier) adjust to their new town as the town tries to adjust to them.
PT Anderson took on dual roles as writer and director in There Will Be Blood, and was nominated for numerous awards for both. While his efforts were noble and well praised, the faults of the film lie solely in script and direction, so if someone must be blamed it is the beloved Anderson. The weaknesses of Blood did not ruin the movie; in fact, it was pretty great overall. They did, however, induce a sort of listlessness in the audience, and an inevitable feeling of “Ah, what could have been.” The film lacked the sort of cohesion that could have pushed it from great to classic, and had it expanded on its edgier side, it could have broken boundaries and created a new style of film. Instead, Anderson wandered through tired genres, threw away crucial moments, and included too many unmotivated camera angles. Overall, it just didn’t take a big enough leap into modernity.
The music was composed by Radiohead guitarist Johnny Greenwood, and (forgive me) just didn’t serve its function. The gorgeous discord that would have enhanced a more modern film was ill-fitting, and Blood’s direction didn’t live up to its own soundtrack.
Daniel Day-Lewis was, as usual, completely absorbed in his character, making for a beautifully constructed chronicle of insanity. It is rare for an audience to relate so completely with such a disturbed individual, but his execution made it happen. In fact, Daniel Day-Lewis was so connected to his character it is rumored that the actor originally set to play Eli Sunday quit due to being scared away by Day-Lewis’ off-the-set behavior. Let’s just say he retained his on-screen persona, and, well, screamed a lot. The cast and crew are denying this rumor, but let’s face it — we all know it’s true.
While all of the acting was fantastic, it was Paul Dano that truly captured what could have been. Last seen in Little Miss Sunshine as the silent, angsty, Nietzsche-loving teen Dwayne, Dano’s character leap to the Church-obsessed faith-healer in Blood is enormous and impressive. His character was cliché, but his interpretation of it was fresh and outstanding. Dano pioneers a new style of acting where there is no shame in full release, and no forewarning of the next move. His performance was haunting.
There Will Be Blood is picking up nominations in every ceremony under the sun, but it seems like awards committees are mostly thinking, “Jeez, that was long. Let’s give it an award.” Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor are the bulk of these, and Paul Dano’s supporting role is sadly being overlooked.
Had the media not been talking about how amazing this film was for the past month, or had it not been nominated for countless awards, maybe it would have seemed better or made a more lasting impression. Unfortunately, its reputation has preceded it and falsely labeled the film as pretty much the best movie ever, and from that, there’s really nowhere to go but down.
Sound Off
Last post: Mar. 13, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Catherine (Catherine Lamy) said on Jan. 24, 2008 at 10:05 pm:
It's too bad you couldn't put the hype aside. I really enjoyed this film, inside and out. It is unfortunate that Paul Dano's performance is being overlooked, as I really feel it deserves a lot more than it's getting!
daneelectro (Dane Gaydos) said on Jan. 28, 2008 at 4:25 am:
After seeing this film yesterday I find it hard to think of examples of many of your criticisms. You do make some valid points concerning the Dano performance but it seems that many of the issues you have with directing, camera angle and genre hopping are without any support from the film. Unmotivated camera angles? Really? Lack of modernity? Although the set was from the early 1900's the cinematography was out of this world and aside from the soundtrack, one of the freshest aspects of the film. Example: consider some of the amazing tracking shots where characters are lost from the screen and then return as if stepping back onto the stage. And to dismiss the soundtrack as not fitting appears very close minded. The juxtaposition of Greenwood's music with the underlying tension on screen was key in bringing both Dano and Day-Lewis' performance to that "haunting" level that you so enjoyed. Please just take another look. Hype can suck, but its no reason to dislike a film.
My main problem with the film was the almost complete lack of soul that Plainview exhibits. There are subtle references to some residual humanity beneath his oily exterior but they seem too few. The academy actually got something right this time when it put this film up for best picture along side No Country for Old Men. It should be an interesting duel.
And I'm walking out on this world if Juno wins.
JPatterson (Jason Patterson) said on Jan. 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm:
I left this film with the same feeling i get when i leave the Art Institute museum in Chicago. I felt like i just saw something done that only a select few will ever be able to do.
Daniel Day Lewis was amazing. Very few actors can
become characters like that. Even if the character might be some what exaggerated.
And the music? I think the music was amazing.
especially during the oil fire scene. The music
was almost its own character.
Two things I dont understand.
1. its not just in this review, but it bothers me when reviewers call films "Oscar bids". So what if someone might wanna win an Oscar. How does that make it lesser of a movie. You wouldn't say to an athlete "oh yeah you played amazingly but you were only doing it to win the championship." I know film making is suppose to be art and not a competition but it seem a little to pretentious or even "Hater-ish" to get on someone for trying to achieve a little more or some sort of recognition.
2. I don't understand reviews that seem to say "this movie wasn't perfect so its only an ok film"
Also, Daniel Day Lewis' SAG acceptance speech was very classy.
Jeff Brandt (Jeff Brandt) said on Jan. 29, 2008 at 7:13 pm:
Just saw the film. No way this deserves to be rated as worse than Juno, Enchanted, and especially Lars and the Real Girl. Nothing unmodern about this picture. Music fit perfectly. Direction and cinematography was not stale. I give it 4.5 out of 4 stars.
Jeff Brandt (Jeff Brandt) said on Jan. 24, 2008 at 4:24 pm:
"Disappointment" is spelled incorrectly, and "duel" should be "dual."
Other than that, I think you have an interesting and detailed review here. It's the first negative criticism I've heard, and kind of deflated my excitement for Friday when the movie comes out at Boardman's. I will definitely watch closely for signs of uninspired and old-fashioned direction.
So do you give the Best Motion Picture Oscar to No Country?