My RSS Feeds
Holiday Movie Review Roundup: There Will Be Blood, Assassination of Jesse James, Diving Bell and the Butterfly
It seems like I saw these ages ago, but I'm playing catch-up.
THERE WILL BE BLOOD (B)
Paul Thomas Anderson is one of my favorite working filmmakers. He made a strong debut with Hard Eight. Then came Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch Drunk Love -- three modern classics, some of the best films made in my lifetime. His fifth movie, There Will Be Blood, is a technically dazzling film. It is chock full of great cinematography and eye-catching moments.
But it is also a pretty big misfire for Anderson, and when all the critical hyperbole dies down, I honestly believe people will realize that. Take a closer look at all the gushing reviews the film has received -- each critic says exactly what every other critic has said. "Daniel Day-Lewis sounds like John Huston!" "The guy from Radiohead did the music, and it's weird!" "There's no dialogue in the first fifteen minutes and isn't that fucking incredible?" Well...no, not really. I get the impression critics are just reading each other's reviews and parroting them, because they don't want to seem out of touch and they don't really know what they thought.
Well, I don't mind seeming out of touch, and I didn't like it. So there. It's the kind of movie people -- especially young men -- love discussing, because it lets the viewer come up with crackpot theories as to what it's all about. But it's not really about anything. A money-hungry oil man (Day-Lewis) squaring off against a preacher (Paul Dano) certainly lends itself to a movie about capitalism vs. religion, which many have mistaken this for...but Anderson doesn't seem particularly interested in exploring that. What we're left with, finally, are character studies of two (and only two, pretty much no one else speaks) people who start the film awful, miserable, and greedy and end the film more awful, miserable, and greedy. I'm not saying I wanted a big redemptive scene for the men, but a 158 minute movie focusing on two static characters with no discernible human emotions? Forgive me for not falling under its spell.
And yet I did see the movie twice. I'm not saying it isn't sort of fascinating. It is. There are fleeting moments to latch on to. I hated Dano through both viewings, though I guess I was supposed to. Day-Lewis' performance seemed hammy and obnoxious on a first viewing, and it is, but it definitely grew on me the second time. The film is effective, I suppose, it's just completely uninvolving, unmoving.
Prior to watching There Will Be Blood, I remarked that it looked like an above-average episode of the HBO drama Carnivale. And that's pretty much what I got. Those saying this has some major place in film history will be proven wrong, and within a couple years.
THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (A)
What's particularly annoying about all the There Will Be Blood gushing is that The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford -- similar in many ways, superior in every way -- continues to get pushed aside. Jesse James is longer, it's slower-paced, and yet it had me riveted for every second. It also has a very clear, very timely point of view, and it's one hell of an exploration of hero worship and the price of fame.
With that catchy little title that just rolls off the tongue, how did this exceptional film not snag a larger audience? It's a real shame it didn't -- movies don't come much more beautiful than this. I heard gasps all around the theater, and if you can still find it on the big screen, that's the way to see it. It's like Terence Malick without the crushing boredom. As an intimate, alternative epic, this easily beats There Will Be Blood at its own game, as a western it easily trumps this year's terrific 3:10 to Yuma.
The acting, by Brad Pitt, by Sam Rockwell, and especially by Casey Affleck, having one hell of a year with this and Gone Baby Gone, is exceptional. Writer/director Andrew Dominik (Chopper) is a talent to watch, and this is a movie to seek out. Haunting stuff.
THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY (B+)
The true story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, the editor of French Elle (stay with me!) who suffers a stroke (come back!) and is only able to move his left eye. I know, I didn't want to watch it either. But this is a really terrific movie about...oh hell, about the triumph of the human spirit. You see, Bauby's condition inspired him to create, and he wrote his memoirs with the help of a nurse. How? Get this -- by blinking! The nurse will start to say the alphabet, and when she gets to the LETTER he wants to use, he blinks his left eye. Through this painstaking process, he was able to complete his life story, letter by letter, blink by blink, and get it published.
It's well-acted by all, it features some absolutely gorgeous French broads, and though it is a bit repetitive at times, it's never dull. What makes this more than TV-movie-of-the-week stuff is the fact that you, the viewer, are put in Bauby's position. For a good portion of the running time, you are Bauby, and you see the world as he sees it. It starts as a gimmick, and made me a little claustrophobic to be honest, but by the end I truly felt as though I had been in another person's body for a couple hours. And isn't that about all you can ask from a movie?
I know who this is. I remarked after watching the movie that if someone
doesn't enjoy a movie everyone deems "brilliant," they immediately write
off your opinion by saying "You just didn't get it." This drives me insane.
For the record, I GOT IT!
I'm sorry Pat, but I'm laughing my ass off at your comeback. We all know
you got it, don't let one little mosquito drive you insane, please.
I saw DIVING BELL at SLIFF, and I feel like a B+ is about the absolute best
I could have justified giving it. It was entertaining, enlightening, maybe
even inspiring, and somewhat powerful, but when it came right down to it,
seemed like a pretty run-of-the-mill biopic to me. The opening 20 minutes
or whatever were indeed claustrophobic, very effective to an almost
annoying degree, but effective all the same. Worth a view for sure.
You know what else was dark, disturbing and involved a lot of staring?
Citizen Kane.
All I know is, if you want to see a real movie, you see Norbit. That fat
bitch is hilarious.
I see we have common ground in our mutual love of morbid obesity humor.
I have been wondering why "The Assassination of Jesse James..." didn't
receive more public acknowledgment. Normally you can throw a big name star
like Pitt, Cruise, or W. Smith into any crapfest and pull in at least $20
mill for the opening weekend. Yet, this movie actually was also well
written, acted, and directed, but didn't pull in squat. Oh well. I
guess we are stuck with more movies like Baby Genius 3 (or 3d if we are
really lucky).
Jesse James was 10x better than "There Will Be Blood", still don't
understands why everyone thinks otherwise.
See, they're babies, but they act like adults!
The critical defense "You didn't get it" without any further support is
indicative of an individual who did not understand what they just saw,
assume it was "deep" and "important", and write crap like "you didn't get
it" to feel superior. Having not seen the film because it's not playing in
the sticks yet, I can't side one way or the other. But at least PW backs
up his statements (and his take on the critical reaction to this film is
shared by others who also see through the PTA BJ).
Erik, while normally I would agree with your treatise that saying "you just
didn't get it" is indicative of individuals (indubitably insolent
individuals!) who are trying to raise public esteem of their own
comprehensive facilities.
Again, comments like "so groundbreaking" and "so unique" don't help your
argument. I can almost guarantee without having seen the film that it is
neither of those things. If you'd care to at least make an effort at
changing my mind, please provide some more insight. Or, you know, tell me
PTA is "operating on a level only the Gods can attain!"
Pat and I have already gone a few rounds debating "Blood." While discussing
it he must have drunkenly yelled, "I get it! I'm not some country bumpkin!"
about fifty times. For the record, Mr. Walsh, I never claimed you were a
bumpkin of any kind. But I still think it's a great film and, most
importantly, nothing like fucking Carnivale! SPOILER ALERT! My immediate
reaction to the movie was to place it within the context of Anderson's
other films. From Hard Eight to Punch Drunk Love, they've all been about
deeply flawed and vulnerable people searching for human connection and
attempting to create familial bonds when the traditional family structure
has been torn asunder. And yet, "There Will be Blood" is a departure,
because it's about Plainview's journey of DISCONNECTION. He exploits the
notion of "family values" in order to manipulate people into giving up
their land, using his son as a prop. And yet, as crass and reptilian as he
seems, it's clear in the beginning at least, that he has some paternal
feelings. (I think the shot on the train with his infant son demonstrates
this, and the way Plainview defends the little girl after his son says that
her father hits her). But once that derrick explodes, and Plainview
glimpses the "ocean of oil" beneath his feet, any semblance of his humanity
quickly fades away. Under the guise of an epic, this movie is really a
character study of a man who's a great business success, but an absolute
failure as a human being. (And, let's face it, those are many of the men
who built this country, the great Robber Barons of the Guilded Age, or Noah
Cross, John Houston’s character in Chinatown, which is part of what makes
Daniel Day’s appropriation of his voice so resonant for me). Bob Dylan sums
of Plainview in Idiot Wind when he sings: "You find out when you've reached
the top/You're on the bottom." There's also the wonderful irony in the
scene between Plainview and his "brother." Plainview's murderous rage
against this man for pretending to be a relative is heightened by the fact
that this is the exact same thing Plainview has been doing to his son:
pretending to be his father when in fact the boy was an orphan. He projects
his own self-loathing onto his false brother because we tend to hate most
passionately those in whom we recognize ourselves ... I could go on and on,
but I’m gonna stop before this fucking blog comment turns into a goddamn
term paper. (And I haven’t even touched on Dano’s character!) But look Pat:
I have no doubt that you “get” all the points I’ve been making and I’m not
trying to change your mind about the movie. If you didn’t have an emotional
or visceral reaction to it, that’s fine. But make no mistake, “There Will
Be Blood” will stand the test of time. Audiences will be watching and
debating about it for years to come.
Just saw this last night. Appreciated above poster's (Bryan) insights but
overall I would agree that it's not an A film. Definitely 3 stars (won't
regret spending movie theater $$ but doesn't hurt to wait for the DVD) but
this is most definitely DDL's show.
finally got to see the infamous There Will Be Blood... Daniel-Day Lewis
seems to take well to the overbearing, violent father-figure role -- he
also did this in Gangs of New York.