THERE WILL BE BLOOD
Theatrical Release: January 2008
Genre: Drama
Sub-genre: Over-acted historical drama
Starring: Absolutely no one, save for Daniel Day-Lewis, who won the Best Actor Oscar for this role; As a sidenote, Paul F. Tompkins, who's hilarious in almost anything he does, has a role in this movie, according to IMDb, but you never see his face and he has no funny lines! You could've cast the sound guy for Paul's part, for all I care...
OK. I had high expectations for this movie. I'd wanted to watch There Will Be Blood since I saw the first preview. The movie is directed by Phillip Thomas Anderson who also directed one of my favorite movies, Boogie Nights (back when he was known as the less elitist "P.T. Anderson"). I assumed it would be long, complicated, and pretty well-acted with authentic sets. I was mostly right. Long? You bet. 2 hours and 38 minutes and it really felt like it. Complicated? There seemed to be quite a rejection of organized religion and blindly allegiant, which I can totally get behind, but the movie wasn't as layered with symbolism as a movie that's 158 minutes should be. Now the sets and locations and authenticity of them? Unquestionable. I really felt like I was watching scenes from 1898, 1911, 1927, and so on, whenever the story would advance. And well-acted?...
Every movie I've seen Daniel Day-Lewis in, I can't decide if he's either really good or just a bit of an over-actor. I've heard that he spends years getting into his characters and is one of those "acTORS" on the set who never gets out of character. Fine. Sacrifice some of yourself for your art. But when DDL delivers his dialogue, it's done so with the enthusiasm, pitch, and rhythm of a Kirby vacuum salesman.
"I clean your carpet! I CLEAN IT UP!!"
Am I supposed to respect his performance for his dedication to it? Is that why he won the Oscar for his performance in this movie? Cuz if he didn't maybe it'd seem kind of sad, like your neighbor who spends years and the last of his savings to patent an invention that no one's really interested in. You'd throw him a bone, right? Buy one of his inventions (even if it's a lame nail polish bottle holder)? That's why I think DDL got the award. Otherwise he'd just be sad. I think Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a phenomenal actor and he doesn't need to spend 2 years living in character to hit the nail on the head. Need proof? PSH is the same guy who played a villain who almost made you shit your pants in Mission: Impossible 3 and played an effeminate Truman Capote. Both with surgical precision. But I'm getting off topic now... Back to DDL and TWBB.
So, in summary, I'm firm in my belief that, at least in THIS movie, Daniel Day-Lewis is just a bit over-the-top. And really, he's in EVERY SINGLE SCENE. I've seen enough of his turn of the century/ porn star/ NASCAR/ Don Mattingly mustache. Enough.
There Will Be Blood is based on Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel, "Oil!" Two observations here: 1) Sinclair was a Socialist, which is nothing other than an observation, and 2) Sinclair has more novels that end with an exclamation than headlines on the Weekly World News (Batboy Found In Ohio!)... Seeing as how I'm truly not into novels written from the perspective of an investigatory journalist (thanks, D. Zoolander), maybe this movie IS over my head. Maybe I AM missing the point or something happened to the characters that I missed when I got up to use the bathroom. But I doubt it. In fact, i think I look at movies just slightly more in depth than my peers. Probably because I like to opine on anything and everything. So here's a down-to-earth, easy to understand reason why I DISlike this movie: In a movie worth spending time watching, you have a main character who you either bond with instantly and feel for, or you have a negative main character (or a reluctant hero type), someone who will learn a valuable lesson over the course of the movie and change for the better. Neither of these need to be so blatant that you insult your audience. HOWEVER... Even in the interest of producing something that hasn't been done before, you should never put out a movie that surrounds a character whose moral compass gets progressively more astray. In short, you like DDL's character less and less from the very beginning where you think he's a loving father to the very end when I said to myself OUT LOUD "He's just a murdering old asshole." For being so well-received by the critics, I really think this story sucked and I want my 2.5 hours back.
The redeeming qualities would be the wide, sweeping locations of the American west. It's truly a period piece (which I think means you're trying to convince the audience that you're IN that time PERIOD) and the landscapes, clothing, mannerisms all seem genuine. There's also a great stab at organized religion and what letting IT or anything consume your life. The infamous scene where DDL is yelling that he's "abandoned my boy!" and he's in a church, apparently repenting, I enjoy that this melodrama was revisited back upon the preacher (who was so poorly cast as Paul Dano, who NEVER AGES IN THE MOVIE OVER THE COURSE OF 15 YEARS). The evangelism is subtly and simultaneously exceedingly played by Dano. I give him credit for a good performance but he looked identical as a 20-year-old as he did as 36- to 40-year-old. And the fact that Dano was also cast to play his brother who turned over the family farm to the oil man, why did they do that?! You spend the first 45 minutes of the movie wondering why the kid who sold out his family is acting like he's never met this guy before! That's just bad casting.
Anyway...
I invite you to make your own decision but my wife warned me before I watched this that I probably wouldn't like it. Dammit, she was right. But not about The Mist! So take my advice or leave it. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone but my snobbiest friends.
Overall: 5 out of 10. I could think of worse ways to waste three hours. But not many.
Best Scene: Probably when the oil rig caught fire. Stuff blowing up is always cool.
What my wife said: "I didn't watch it because of that stupid milkshake line."
Who would enjoy this movie: Anyone who reads early 20th century novels for fun. Mustache enthusiasts. Daniel Day-Lewis. Dick Cheney (because it has what Republicans value most: oil and religion.)
Watch it if you like: What "The Academy" tells you is good; Crash; No Country For Old Men
Next In My Netflix Q: The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, followed by I Am Legend
**Thanks to Google, Wikipedia, and IMDb for various reference sources**
No comments:
Post a Comment