THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: ImRonBurgundy? on 24 Nov 2007, 23:35
-
I saw this today at a special Cinematographer's Guild screening (thank you, dad) and all I can say about it is that it is amazing. The final scene is cinematic perfection. See this film. I demand it.
-
I saw the trailer with No Country for Old Men. looks fantastic.
-
DANIEL.
DAY.
I don't give a fuck what it is about, it is going to be my favorite movie.
-
I really want to see it, but the name reminds me of the tagline for Saw II ("Oh yes...there will be blood"), which my friends and I became very familiar with last year because, for some reason, a load of buses in London that used to drive past our kitchen window still had Saw II adverts on them.
That said, I'm very much looking forward to it. It looks amazing.
-
Definitely going to see that one. Daniel Day Lewis is amazing and it looks like it has really strong, interesting characters.
-
DANIEL.
DAY.
I don't give a fuck what it is about, it is going to be my favorite movie.
It's about the development of Southern California into oil country and the human cost of that.
-
Based on the novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair.
-
Please don't quote the post directly above yours. It's unnecessary.
I guess I'm looking forward to this. I like Daniel Day Lewis a whole hell of a lot and the story seems pretty interesting. The preview has me feeling lukewarm. I don't know how I feel about the kid from Little Miss Sunshine being it (as some crazy boy preacher apparently) because he wasn't particularly good in a role as easy as a surly teenager. I'm sure I'll see it but at the moment I'm not expecting great things (especially since the last westernish I saw was No Country for Old Men and I'll inevitably be comparing the two).
-
Oh my God, have none of you guys seen this movie yet? This is an instant American classic! GOGOGO!
-
It's not out in my area for another week or so.
My friend from LA was in town and he had a DVD screener of it that he yoinked from some chick he's boning who's in the WGA, but he refused to let us watch it, saying we need to see it in a theater for our first viewing. I wanted to kill him at the time, but I'll probably appreciate what he did after I see it next week on the big screen.
-
It won't be here for a while, No Country for Old Men just started screening.
-
I desperately want to see this, but the closest place it's playing is Chicago. That's about 2 hours away, and I'm not really willing to drive that far for one movie. I'm sure it will come to Madison eventually. I'm just surprised it hasn't already; we got I'm Not There and No Country for Old Men the day they opened.
-
It opens at the Sundance Theater on January 25th. Where in Madison are you?
-
Top 5 rejected titles for "There Will Be Blood":
5: "There Will Be A Little Blood, But Not As Much As You Might Think Given The Title"
4: "There Will Be Pathos"
3: "There Will Be An Oscar For Paul Thomas Anderson That Will Make Scorsese Cry"
2: "There Will be Titular Symbols Reminiscent of Certain Recent U.S. Wars"
1: "Spoiler Deleted"
I found it a little arch and pretentious -- not to mention slow through the middle third -- but I was the only one in my group not to leave wanting to build a Paul Thomas Anderson love shrine, so your mileage may vary.
-
There Will Be Moustache.
-
There Will Be Moustache (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QBgrABOU_0).
-
Just saw this movie tonight and I can only say wow. I thought it was great and I'm agreeing on it having one of the most perfectly constructed endings of all time. I admit it got a tad bit slow in a few parts, but nothing could dampen my love for this film. After seeing this film I am finding all sorts of things about life all of a sudden becoming better. The colors a little brighter, the dinner I had at Wendy's afterwords was tolerable and even the ending to No Country for Old Men I think I got a little better. I even liked Paul Dano's character, which in truth I expected to be the weak link of this movie.
-
There Will Be Moustache (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QBgrABOU_0).
*cries*
It's so glorious, his moustache!
-
I thought it was great and I'm agreeing on it having one of the most perfectly constructed endings of all time.
See, I know all sorts of people who think that the movie would've been better without the ending (haven't seen it myself, but I hear Daniel Day Lewis eats a four course meal of steak and scenery) They don't like time jumps, I guess.
-
The ending is there for a reason.
SPOILERZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz
For one thing, it shows the character breaking apart in the little world he's built for himself away from the people he hates so much. He's become an empty shell for hatred, if it had ended early the movie just wouldn't have made any sense.
ENDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDd
-
I don't see how it could've ended any way BUT the way it ended.
-
Just saw the movie, friggin finally. I missed a few minutes at the beginning because of really bad traffic, so that's an excuse to see it again.
It wasreally, really ood, of course. Very Citizen Kane. Although, I'm not sure he was even an okay person to begin with, so he just kind of went from mischievous playful evil to seriously evil motherfucker. The last scene is really, really hammering. I just felt so much disgust for him. You identify with his character in the middle a little bit of course, but by the end he's just not worthy of empathy.
Also, I saw the movie with my mom. I thought it was funny that she didn't like the music.
-
It was amazing. I really, really loved that movie. The ending was perfect, I thought. His gradual descent into insanity was great.
-
I take back my previous post. This was truly masterful. Wonderful acting, a great and compelling story and a telling and rather biting look at our world today in many ways. Really very excellent and well worth a trip to see in theaters.
-
So I finally got to see it and I must say that I think I like it more than No Country for Old Men. Shocker! I think what really sold it for me was the conflict between Daniel and Eli throughout the film. Paul Dano did such a great job in his role, which I was a little bit worried about when I read about the character.
That's pretty much all I have to say, I'm horrible at movie reviews.
-
I loved this movie. I loved Daniel's character. It was so well thought out and so well acted. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Far more than No Country for Old Men. Though, the entire thing reminded me of the Bush Administration.
-
I already think I've found my best movie for 2008.
-
I finally saw this movie and absolutely adored it. DDL does some of the best acting I've seen in my life. Still, it's more of a character study than a full-on brain-blower of a movie, so my pick for Best Picture still goes to No Country.
-
It's finally out here. I'm seeing it at noon tomorrow.
-
You will not be disappointed. I guarantee it.
-
Very Citizen Kane.
Only apt comparison. Fucking phenomenal movie.
-
***SPOILARDS****
Very Citizen Kane.
That's what I thought as well.
I didn't like the ending, not that I take issue with the content, I just think it was unnecessary. His last scene with H.W. would have made a far better ending. The thing is that Eli was never even close to being an equal to Plainview. It's sort of odd that the movie is being sold as a struggle between Eli and Daniel, when Eli never had any sort of chance to foil Plainview's plans. You know he's a charlatan from the outset, just as Plainview knows it. The ending sort of assumes we didn't. I found it gratuitous.
Overall, though, I think it's the best movie of '07. I think that might be because I was ridiculously hyped for No Country for Old Men and wasn't totally prepared for how restrained and methodical that movie was (I was expecting more thriller than noir, and got more noir than thriller) and wasn't hyped at all for this film going in.
PT Anderson has proven that he's not chained to the ensemble. Of course, he couldn't have chosen a better anchor for the film. Daniel Day Lewis shows once again that he might be the best actor of his generation.
-
*HERE BE SPOILERS - DUNNA READ IF YE NAE SEEN THE FILM*
I thought the ending was perfect for showing how completely he'd lost himself to greed and power. I don't think the movie assumed we didn't think Eli was a charlatan; rather, I think it assumed we still thought there was a man behind Plainview's callousness. Instead, the movie reveals that by the end there is naught but a ruthless beast. He knows Eli is no match for him - that's what makes the murder so shocking.
I dunno. I'll have to watch it one more time, probably, just like I had to watch No Country twice.
-
SPOILERIFIC
I don't think the ending assumed that we didn't know about Eli. I thought the entire ending was for watching the two finally come together in all honesty of who they truly are, rather than showing the audience what we already knew from the get go. I thought it was one of the best scenes in the movie. Strangely enough, it was the only death that didn't much bother me as it seemed so inevitable. The conflict wasn't so much in physical terms of halting the business of Daniel or in Daniel halting Eli's Church, but in that they both knew the other's truth because they were both so very alike. Neither really won, in the end, but I wasn't sure if either really understood what it was they wanted.
Wasn't Eli the kid from Little Miss Sunshine?
-
Paul Dano, yes. I was a little confused by the appearance of Paul at the beginning of the movie. Was he Eli's twin brother? Because if he wasn't, damn, whoever they got to play Eli looked exactly like Paul Dano.
-
It's the same actor. I was confused too. When Eli appeared, I thought maybe he was fucking with them or was schizoid.
-
I liked this more than any movie I've seen in quite a while...what a great story.
-
I think the brother mentioned he had a twin at the beginning of the movie and I just missed it, because everyone I went with knew he had a twin except me. I would've kept on believing Eli was the same as Paul at the beginning had he not attacked his father and mentioned him.
-
P.T. Anderson said somewhere that they were twins so yeah, they're twins. Still, it definitely confused me as I was watching and there are a couple of scenes which potentially suggest, in a rather ambiguous way, that Eli had multiple personalities (at the end, for example, he when getting drinks for Daniel and himself he pours three. Often people with multiple personalities will do things like that for their other selves). However the potency of the ending would be lost in a lot of ways if they were the same person. Also, it just wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, nor would it really add anything at all to the plot.
-
Yeah, that would be rather off-the-wall.
Kind of funny to think about, though.
-
I dunno if it would detract from the potency of the ending. The only reason they look the same, though, is because Dano was cast as Paul before he was Eli. Anderson tried to shoot the film in sequence as much as possible and the actor playing Eli dropped out a couple of weeks in, so the Paul scenes were already shot but the Eli scenes had to be reshot. Rather than recast it, Anderson just took an actor that he felt should have had a larger role and gave him one. Still, it's neat to speculate, isn't it?
Since Eli would be the dominant personality, hearing that he was the "afterbirth" and that Paul was his parents' real son would be utterly crushing. Same with the idea that Paul has multiple oil wells - it would read as a glimpse of the life Eli could have led as Paul.
-
Just got back from one of the few theaters in the city showing it, and I have to say it was pretty spectacular.
Brilliant film.
I wonder what it was Daniel told Eli after the whole spiritual baptism sinner repentance scene dealy. Eli looked rather uncomfortable, and only started to smile after Daniel went to sit down. He hushed up the crowd early, too, which seemed atypical for him by then.
Also, the way I saw the ending was more Daniel taking out his hate for his own life on the figure that stood for God. Despite pretenses of power, he realized his life wasn't where he wanted it to be. Drunk with the power of his physical wealth and empire, and drunk literally, he couldn't resist the temptation to kill God.
-
That's an interesting interpretation. I have a hard time seeing it that way because Daniel knew all along that Eli was false and not for God at all but his own fame and wealth. Maybe that is how Daniel sees God...
I loved that Daniel never really had a goal besides making money and like many old rich guys, he learned that as soon as he halted his mad pursuit of wealth he realized he never really had anything but the pursuit and the wealth really did him nothing. One of my favorite scenes at the end was when he shouted at his son, only to regret it in a rare moment of guilt. I took it as a stubborn refusal to admit that he wanted companionship, love, etc, rather than simply wealth. One of my favorite things about Daniel is that he is so real in that aspect. He's stubborn and selfish to the point of lying to himself rather than a hollywood figure that comes to realize he wants his son's love in the end. The image of him making a mess in one room of a giant house in which he is completely alone is just too perfect.
I can't rave about this movie enough. I just simply loved it.
-
The montage of his son near the end was one of only two glimpses of remorse in that character.
-
I just saw this last night, and I have to say that this movie had an excellent soundtrack. I'm not sure if that was pointed out yet, but I felt I should say something about it.
Anyway, SPOILERS
The ending of the movie couldn't have been better. I loved the ending so much.
Not only were the last words spoken "I'm finished.", but the shot didn't go to the credits for another ten seconds. This movie had excellent cinematography.
-
So I saw it again Friday. Apparently it was abundantly clear to everyone but me that Eli was full of shit, but when I watched There Will Be Blood I thought Eli was pretty sincere in his psychosis. And I mean, thinking of certain scenes, I can reason to the conclusion that he was a manipulative, self-serving bastard, but when I was actually watching the film I kind of believed him. Not that he actually was the "third revelation" but that he believed he was.
-
I thought the soundtrack was pretty jarring, to be honest. A lot of it didn't really fit for me.
Something my friend who went with me pointed out about Daniel Day Lewis is the genuine work they put him to in the film. I didn't realize it but a lot of the scenes where he's exerting a lot of physical energy (chasing his son after he sets the house on fire, the distance he runs while holding his boy after the oil well springs to fire, the shots of him mining at the very beginning) were mostly done in single takes, as in the shot never actually leaves him to cut to another angle. That really added a lot of believability to him because it just added to the genuine grizzled nature of Daniel in the movie.
-
fuck, I already forgot the last scene.
Yes, it was amazing. I haven't seen atonement yet, but so far I think this is going to win best picture. I would rather have Juno though, but I know it wont win.
-
I definitely feel like this is going to win best picture. I would rather No Country For Old Men won, but this probably will.
-
I was sort of disappointed with No Country for Old Men. I enjoyed this movie far more.
-
I feel I'm one of the only people who really didn't like this movie :|. I've loved PTA's films in the past, but I think this one left too much outside the box to make me leave the theater caring about the characters or the film itself.
**May Contain Spoilers**
Don't get me wrong, as he always is, Daniel Day Lewis brings out the "best" of any character he portrays. He was the only thing I enjoyed about Gangs of New York. But, unlike his other movies, I believe we're left caring too little about the characters or the story. Plainview is just a wholly awful human being. He states his desire to be alone early on and doesn't love or care about anything else if it doesn't serve his own benefit. For me, the revelations at the end about Eli and Plainview were all too obvious throughout the whole movie, and I thought the ending was nothing surprising by a bitter, hateful man and the boy who, in a sense, was just like him. Basically using everyone around them to their advantage, and with absolutely no remorse.
I feel like the middle of the movie was entirely too slow, and the juxtaposition of Jonny Greenwood's music for the film was too awkward in the film. PTA's films have done this in the past, but I thought they were done very well--especially Magnolia. I thought there were so many moments in this film that gave a heightened sense of fear or just overall tension, but neither the characters nor the scene were reflective of this.
And, unfortunately, I think Paul Dano was incredibly mis-cast. As his "twin" he was more convincing, but to attempt and convince an audience that this self-centered, arrogant boy had the ability to convince others that he was a leader? I just didn't buy it. If you consider those who've done that in the past, from Charles Manson to Hitler to David Miscavage and that guy on infomercials late at night giving away healing Manna...there's something charismatic about them, something that gives other people the desire to believe them, to want to believe them. There was nothing from Paul Dano as that character to make me believe that he was this person. His own family saw right through him, and were afraid of his insanity. Afraid of this boy, who had no real power to convince anyone of anything---yet he had this church full of believers.
I'm just trying to get a sense of what people actually saw in the movie versus what you can dig and find as meaning after the fact. I understand that a lot of PTA's movies inspire a search for meaning, an understanding not fully ascertained by watching the film outright. But I thought that this one asked too much of us, for meaning that just wasn't there for me.
I thought the idea of the movie was excellent, I thought the characters would've been amazing had we had a sense of caring about them (and not caring in the sense of love, you can care about characters that inspire hatred--or inspire something). But for me, the story just wasn't there.
There's more, but I wont continue ranting...just maybe seeing if someone out there shared my opinion : )
Don't kill me please, just my honest opinion.
-
One night, I'm gonna come inside your house, wherever you're sleeping, and I'm gonna cut your throat.
-
Wait, so he loved Magnolia but really didn't like There will be Blood? This guy must be crazy! Oh, I understand. :roll:
-
I really disagree with Paul Dano being miscast. You compare his leadership to that of Adolf Hitler and other huge political figures. This is a small isolated village, not an entire country. The man does not need the charisma of a superhero to gain spiritual popularity in new pioneer town out in the middle of nowhere. He has the ability to convince everyone, if not even himself, of his spirituality and intense connection with God, all while being a kind, soft spoken farm boy. His father didn't necessarily "see through him," but knew the guy was a bit off and prone to passionate outbursts, something he did in church on a regular basis. Which church figure isn't prone to passionate outbursts?
I thought it was perfect. Loud and charismatic wouldn't have worked for his character. The silent, creepiness of the character was far more convincing for the setting.
-
Terrible movie, the story moved about as slow as a corpse stuck in molasses during winter. Again people think its clever to make religion look insane in their movies, that got old before "talkies" came about.
-
what
EDIT: I have to stop just posting "what" as a response. Apt as it may be, it's not really a full enough thought.
Still, you missed the point by a wide margin, dude.
-
I think what Johnny is trying to say is that the movie isn't there just to be 'witty' or 'clever'.
I would have to tell you that you might have been watching it for all the wrong reasons. One of these namely being that you weren't watching the movie for the characters, but for the possibility that this movie is trying to tell the world how religion is such a silly thing. This was never a possibility, but a delusion. I am sorry to break your delusion.
-
I liked There Will Be Blood although I would still give the nod to No Country For Old Men. It might just be me, but the music in TWBB really got on my nerves. Every time the music seemed to be getting really intense I felt a bit let down because not as much happened as I thought would. However, the characters were very well played I thought. I liked the preacher boy, and I agree that the creepiness of him was well cast. As much as I thought this movie was really well done, and as much as I think it has a shot at best picture, I really just personally prefer a different type of movie. Not enough happened for me, even though I know that a lot happened. If that makes any sense at all.
-
Not at all. You're making a lot of sense. I also like No Country For Old Men more. I've probably grown tiresome to be around so far as picking what movies to go see has been this year. I always say that we should go see NCFOM even though I've already seen it.
As far as the soundtrack for There Will Be Blood goes, I really liked it, but I can see how it must have grated for some people, it heightened the experience for me. I liked how the music seemed to go nowhere at all, which seemed to reflect the maddening circles that some of the characters were running in. [I hope that isn't too pretentious and bland a connection to make. Don't take it seriously.]
-
Actually Scribbles I went into the movie with high hopes and simply wanting to be entertained... I have no idea why anyone would see a movie for another reason. Classic case of good actors in a bad movie.
-
This is what I was gonna say:
"Alien thought the notion may seem, occasionally movies are meant to do more than simply pacify the consumer."
And then I was gonna be all "Jesusfuck I'm being pretentious. Beg pardon."
But now I think I kinda stand by it.
-
As far as the soundtrack for There Will Be Blood goes, I really liked it, but I can see how it must have grated for some people, it heightened the experience for me. I liked how the music seemed to go nowhere at all, which seemed to reflect the maddening circles that some of the characters were running in.
No I guess I could see how the music could add to the experience in that regard. Maybe I was just frustrated enough with the characters that the music just got on my nerves instead of serving another purpose. Also I watched the movie on my laptop because of torrents it is a movie theater, so I was listening through headphones. So the really hi pitched 2 violin notes over and over were aggravating.
-
Actually Scribbles I went into the movie with high hopes and simply wanting to be entertained... I have no idea why anyone would see a movie for another reason. Classic case of good actors in a bad movie.
You are like my mother. She justs wants entertainment. If she ever has to put an ounce of thought into a movie it is pretty much guaranteed that she will not like it. And she asks questions. Usually I am watching with her and I have to answer them.
When I go to a movie, I am expecting some level of entertainment, but if a movie can really make me think I just love it that much more.
-
I'm really overly sensitive to loud noises and so the music right off made me cringe way past my comfort levels. Looking back, it set the mood just about right for the movie. But anymore of it and I would have had a massive headache.
-
I really disagree with Paul Dano being miscast. You compare his leadership to that of Adolf Hitler and other huge political figures. This is a small isolated village, not an entire country. The man does not need the charisma of a superhero to gain spiritual popularity in new pioneer town out in the middle of nowhere. He has the ability to convince everyone, if not even himself, of his spirituality and intense connection with God, all while being a kind, soft spoken farm boy. His father didn't necessarily "see through him," but knew the guy was a bit off and prone to passionate outbursts, something he did in church on a regular basis. Which church figure isn't prone to passionate outbursts?
I thought it was perfect. Loud and charismatic wouldn't have worked for his character. The silent, creepiness of the character was far more convincing for the setting.
I didn't compare him to all huge political figures, but I think you're missing the point. All huge political figures and talking heads come from humble beginnings. No person just outright becomes a huge leader. If you look at small cases of the same behavior, the leader of these small offset religious groups are charismatic--people are drawn to them they want to follow them. You don't need to be a superhero or a huge political figure to gain followers, you just have to have the personality to do so. I don't think in that situation, I was convinced by his character that he was that person. I don't think anyone around him would buy it either.
For me, the fact that people believed his spiritual connection with god and intensity in the movie seemed very very false to me. I understand that you do, but I feel that in that situation, outside of a movie context, I really feel like nobody would buy it.
You Said: "Which church figure isn't prone to passionate outbursts?"
The successful ones are prone to meaningful outbursts, they understand how their actions gain trust and following from others, they are great manipulators. Paul Dano's character's manipulations are just so un-threatening. They're undermined by anyone in the movie with a sense of reality. I really don't think someone like that would've gained the amount of followers that he did by the end of the film. You can tell that his influence has supposedly grown far past his "spiritual popularity in new pioneer town out in the middle of nowhere"
-
The part of his character that really drove it home for me was the way he sort of carried a quiet air of command about him. He wasn't particularly assertive, but he always acted like he didn't need to be. He acted at all times as though his God would justify all of his actions and smite those who spoke against him. Also, when he was in church, he took command of the church like it was his divine right.
I liked him, but I'm just one person.
-
The part of his character that really drove it home for me was the way he sort of carried a quiet air of command about him. He wasn't particularly assertive, but he always acted like he didn't need to be. He acted at all times as though his God would justify all of his actions and smite those who spoke against him. Also, when he was in church, he took command of the church like it was his divine right.
I liked him, but I'm just one person.
I spoke to a bunch of people about the movie that said the same thing--I suppose I am on a constant quest to find out what other people thought and why people just love the movie so much.
I think if I had seen it that way while watching it, I might have a different opinion of it. When I was watching it, my interpretation of his "quiet air of command" was more of an uncertainty of self, he just never looked comfortable to me, I never really saw him as a strong person. When I saw him in the church, I saw a boy way in over his head--acting as though he thought he should act, going through the motions that so many others had gone through before him.
-
****Spoilers****
Acting or not, I have to say it would take a substantial sum of money to make me stand in a room whilst Daniel Day Lewis flung bowling pins at me!
-
I didn't think Paul Dano was that great...I was kind of disappointed by his performance.
But I loved almost everything else. Definitely one of my favorite movies ever. Daniel Day Lewis is my new hero.
Plus I loved the music! It added such a strange atmosphere to the movie that really made sense, I think.
-
Yay for liking the soundtrack. You are now a person I can identify with!
-
They should have given little HW the oscar for best supporting actor.
-
I don't understand how one can dislike the score. It works so well with the film.
-
Brilliant score. I had the opportunity to see Popcorn Superhet Receiver, the Johnny Greenwood piece from which much of the score is culled, performed in New York. It's a fantastic piece of music in its own right and a terrific compliment, I think, to the film.
-
So I just saw the movie last night.
DDL, of course, was brilliant. I was reminded of Butcher Bill a little, but this is not to say that DDL's performance was similar to his previous one at all. Merely to say that
a) both characters had gigantic mustaches ('There Will Be Mustaches' indeed!)
b) both were psychotic fucking people (though it happened slowly over time for Plainview).
I think i saw someone say that Daniel Plainview never really cared for anyone - I don't believe it. Even though he said it himself, I don't believe it. He loved his son his whole life. He didn't have to take him in, he could have just left him in that bucket. Remember that scene where he slapped Eli around when he asked for his money? That outburst was driven by a father's grief over a wounded son. If he just wanted to abandon the boy, he could have left him on a train to nowhere, instead of to a school where he could learn to communicate and lead a successful life. His pride, along his crippling loneliness, did drive him to lash out at HW in the end, but even that wouldn't have happened if he didn't love his son.
I still have an issue with the Paul/Eli thing - where did Paul go? Plainview says that he gave Paul $10,000 up front for the speculation - when did that happen? Any why do we never see Paul again? We only see Daniel give him $500 and he runs off, presumably back to the ranch. Can someone explain the Paul thing, 'cause I an really confused :-(
Seeing Eli get his comeuppance (having to make the confession, as Daniel did) was incredible and satisfying. I don't think the movie was attacking religion at all - I think it was attacking false prophers, charlatans, attacking the people who use religion for selfish motives, sullying both themselves and the church they claim to serve.
I've seen people's explanation of the murder at the end, and I suppose I do understand it more now, but when I saw the movie, it seemed wholly unnecessary. I'm still trying to make total sense of it, but I dunno...
In general though, I enjoyed the movie very much. Definitely not in my favorites of all time or anything, but I did really really enjoy it. That Daniel Day-Lewis is incredible.
the Paul thing? Help! :?
-
Daniel was lying to him.
"I'VE ABANDONED MY BOY!"
-
Daniel was lying to him.
"I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD!"
Fixed.
That scene in the church was really great though. During the 2 and a half hours the film lasted, I wasn't even bored one minute. It is a really good movie.
-
I think he shouted both, actually.
-
FIGHT YOU!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQA5WkorAsc)
-
Yeah, at the end of that, he definitely shouts "I've abandoned my boy."
The 10,000 dollars vs 500 dollars Paul thing also confused me. I was convinced that Paul took the money and ran away, but I don't know where the 10,000 dollars came from
-
Daniel was lying to him.
-
Indeed, I was wrong, I thought he only said "I've abandonned my child".
-
"Alien thought the notion may seem, occasionally movies are meant to do more than simply pacify the consumer."
BLASPHEMY! If that was true why would they sell delicious popcorn at the theatre? If i'm paying 10 bucks for a movie and another 10 for popcorn I demand satisfaction and entertainment. I haven't seen this movie myself but when I saw the trailer where they're in the church and that kid is slapping DDL and telling him to repent my jaw absolutely dropped. I think that most people, when they see this, are expecting an exciting thrilling movie that they don't have to think a lot about. I saw Pan's Labyrinth 3 times when it came out and the second time when I was walking out of the theatre this woman was talking to her husband and she said....I quote because it has been branded in my brain and it's everything that I hate in people. "It was terrible, There were like no special effects at all and yet people are saying it's beautiful. And did you know that it's subtitled? If I had known that I wouldn't have even gone." I almost had a JTHM moment....almost. Some of the people who I've talked to have made similar complaints about this movie. "it's too intense" "I didn't like it, I wanted to see something fun."
-
http://www.snorgtees.com/idrinkyourmilkshake-p-486.html
I want it. So much.
-
Whenever someone says "Oh hey what's that say on your t-shirt?" you should scream "I DRINK IT UP!!" at them after they have read it.
-
I would totally do that.
Now I want to get my sister to order it for me (this kid doesn't have a credit card).
-
I still have an issue with the Paul/Eli thing - where did Paul go? Plainview says that he gave Paul $10,000 up front for the speculation - when did that happen? Any why do we never see Paul again? We only see Daniel give him $500 and he runs off, presumably back to the ranch. Can someone explain the Paul thing, 'cause I an really confused :-(
Paul Dano, who played both Eli and Paul, was originally supposed to only play Paul, and some other actor was set to play Eli. Shortly into shooting they replaced him with Paul Dano and edited the script to make Eli and Paul twin brothers. Reportedly, the switch was made because the original actor playing Eli was so intimidated by the intensity of DDL's acting, and the fact that he stays in character both on and off the set.
-
I appreciate explaining the actor thing... but what about the story as well? We see Paul in one scene where Daniel gives him $500, but then at the end of the movie Daniel tells Eli that he gave Paul $10,000? When did that happen? And where did it come from that Pail is a successful oil man now? How did Daniel know that - small industry, news travels fast, i guess? Or was it just something he made up to scare Eli even more?
-
I'm pretty sure it was bullshit. It was just part of toying with Eli.
-
The influx of these jokes aside, I saw a simple black t-shirt on it yesterday that read "There Will Be Milkshake" in the logo font. I had a moment.
Buying this DVD tomorrow.
-
Yeah, at the end of that, he definitely shouts "I've abandoned my boy."
The 10,000 dollars vs 500 dollars Paul thing also confused me. I was convinced that Paul took the money and ran away, but I don't know where the 10,000 dollars came from
yeah he was lying to hurt eli more. especially because 10k was the amount eli wanted for the church
-
I just watched it recently.. man, Paul Dano blew me away! DDL is my favorite actor ever, but he was almost overshadowed.
-
I think that may be the least true thing I've seen all day. I thought Dano was pretty OK but nowhere near great. For such a young actor he did an impressive job and stood up well to the strength of DDL but I really think there's very little contest when it comes to their acting chops, especially in this movie.
-
Oh man, I fucking loved this film. First off, the score was just wild. Jonny Greenwood is the man. Also, I think Paul did a great job as Eli, but saying he overshadowed DDL is just wrong. Daniel's character was just so complex and the slow decline into insanity was just done so perfectly. Paul, on the other hand hand, didn't have such a complex character. The end was fantastic. The end made the movie.
I want that 'There Will Be Milkshake' shirt
-
I just watched it recently.. man, Paul Dano blew me away! DDL is my favorite actor ever, but he was almost overshadowed.
-
I did indeed notice that word the first time. I still think it's a major overstatement.
-
Just watched it again last night...the first time I saw it, I didn't fully realize how amazing the final scene is, because it was late and I was starting to nod off. But I haven't seen a dramatic scene of that quality in a long time.
-
It goes from farcial to frightening in the space of about three seconds.
-
Exactly. The whole "I drink your milkshake" bit could have ruined that scene--maybe even the entire movie. Instead, it made it classic. It just clicked.