I'll tell you about Once: It's annoying, it's void of style, charm, and anything remotely connected to emotion; hands down, it's awful. I've been forced to sit through it 3 times for work, so I know that bastard back to front. Also, the music is obnoxious and the songs overly sentimental (never a good thing); especially that tune the Irish guy sings repeatedly in order to torture the audience. Your instincts about this film serve you well (but they could be made to serve Michael), stay away from it.

Dominik's Assassination... is my favourite film of the year, thus far. The best aspects have nothing to do with Brad Pitt, who's hum-drum through the whole film (he's just about as exciting as Russell Crowe ever is), and surprisingly it's Cassey Affleck (who I hear is unfortunately terrible in Gone, Baby, Gone) and the many character actors throughout the film who leave the strongest impression. Andrew, look for Michael Parkes in a hilarious (because no one else spits like he can!) and awesome cameo; that man can do no wrong. Alongside the performances (Pitt excluded), Dominik gives the film a great look; obviously drawing on inspiration from Terrence Malick (Days Of Heaven is particular) not only for the look (thanks to Roger Deakins; Canada has never looked so good) but for the pacing, too. Malick isn't for everyone and the pacing of Assassination... will be excruciating for some. Andrew Dominik delivers a fine film here and it's a great follow-up to Chopper; actually, that's one of the problem with Pitt's performance: There are a handful of scenes where his Jesse James is supposed to be unpredictable and dangerously so, but Pitt isn't a good enough actor to convey that undercurrent of instability and tension--while in Chopper, Eric Bana does an incredible job of making the character so psychotic and unstable to be around that you can't help but feel nervous for anyone who's in the same room with him; Pitt doesn't even come close in the scenes that require him to cast that shadow.

Here's my list of favourite films this year: The Asassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, Eastern Promises, Black Book, Rescue Dawn, Zodiac, Hot Fuzz, and American Gangster.

Also, Andrew, I have it on good authority that The Golden Age is terrible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Angel-A (the Luc Besson flick is what you're referring to, right?) was not that good; watchable, but he's done better.

---

I'm thinking of Francois Ozon's ANGEL, with music by Philippe Rombi. I wouldn't watch another Luc Besson unless it started Maggie herself.

The young director seems to have written himself in a corner with this revelatory film. In a sense, he'll be forever trying to outdo this one; and if he does, I'll be damned. If the story is unfamiliar to you, I'll run over it briefly (although not fully, because there are moments in this film that need not be expected). Daniel Day-Lewis portrays Daniel Plainview, a silver prospector in the film's reflective and somber opening (very Kubrick-ian in it's use of minimal dialogue) who eventually becomes a wealthy "oilman" (his words, not mine). Plainview comes across the word that oil seems to seep from beneath the ground in a small California town called Little Boston. Plainview, along with his young son, H.W., travel to the town and begin a series of events that lead to a catastrophic and apocalyptic events within the town. Plainview's main antagonist is the town's minister and "healer"; played with passion and fervor by Paul Dano, he of Little Miss Sunshine fame. There are many other demons clawing at Plainview's back throughout the film, but those are best saved for the actual film itself; so I won't outdo myself with spoilers.

Paul Thomas Anderson directs the film with one of the most technically skilled and gifted hands I've seen recently (though I've always been a great fan of his, he outdoes his own style here). Never once, does he seem to harp on his influences (for this film, being Terrence Malick, Stanley Kubrick, Robert Altman, and, in a twisted way, John Huston) and keeps his focus not just on the story and Plainview, but nearly each secondary character. Anderson has been attacked in the past by naysayers in regards to his "stolen" style; certainly, his earlier films are directly inspired by Altman and Martin Scorsese. But in TWBB, Anderson develops a style outside of that. It's one of somberness and tonality. Every portion aids the next, and thankfully the editing is precise and the cinematography, by Anderson's usual DP Robert Elswit, has a beautiful natural light to it; even surpassing Emmauel Lubezki's superb work in The New World.

Of course, this being a film starring the ever-elusive Daniel Day-Lewis, no review can't remark on his career-topping work here. Certainly, you can read my views and assess that Day-Lewis certainly is a tremendous and gifted actor; but to see him in this film is one of my all-time favorite moments of my life. In channeling famed and reclusive director John Huston (an influence over the whole of this film) Day-Lewis stamps a portrait of Americana that can't be elaborated on by just a few words. His body movement, mannerisms, and eloquent use of words certainly seem to be the work of one of the most talented actors that will ever be. To say that Day-Lewis inhabited the character of Plainview would be light-words for such a daft performance. The bastardness of Plainview might stand in your way as a viewer (when rooting for the most evil man might not seem like the moral thing to do), but you certainly can't take your eyes off of him; even when he stands as a small blob at the corner of the vista-like use of widescreen. The Huston-ian aspects of his performance show their most intriguing during the films final moments, where we find Plainview and old and miserable wreck. Certainly, Plainview does some dreadful things in the name of his business, and there are times where you wish he would cave into his narcisstic and loathsome self. But it's all so facinating. Under Anderson's script and direction, the story (and maybe even a hint of politcal allegory) isn't the part that engages us as a viewer: no, Plainview's actions ARE the story.

The supporting cast here is exceptionally classy and strong. Alongside Dano, who is marvelous, young actor Dillon Freasier plays H.W. - Daniel Plainview's bright-eyed buisness parter (also his son). Freasier is a non-professional actor, and he completely carries himself like all of the great child actors have (Jean-Pierre Léaud's Antoine Doinel seems like an apt comparison). Later in the film, when an unfortunate accident occurs between Daniel and H.W., Freasier still remains perfect. Irish character actor Cirian Hinds plays Fletcher Hamilton, a close confidante and buisness associate of Plainview's. I've always respected Hinds as an actor, and here he serves us well. His character is an enigmatic force, even though his role is relegated elsewhere at times during the film. The secondaries and extras all portray accurate life in turn-of-the-century California and should all be congratulated for their tremendous accolades.

I've commented on Jonny Greenwood's score outside of the film; but to be heard at maximum appreciation, it must be accompanied by the film. It adds to the apocalyptic tension and madness of Plainview and provides an aural expectation of the film as it unfolds. Lisa Schwarzbaum, of Entertainment Weekly, informs me that the score also contains Brahms' "Violin Concerto in D Major" (instantly recognizable) as well as Arvo Part's particualry profound use of poly-rythyms during one of the film's many moments of tension (I'm wishing that both of these pieces were included in the soundtrack, by Greenwood's hynotizing score is enough for this enthusiast). And, Michael, the answer your question, while the album has a short runtime, none of it is reused in the film. The music is very sparse, and, like I mentioned, uses other source cues.

Hope that helps.

I'll return with more comments on the film & score later when I have more time. Just wanted to clear that little bit up first.

Kirk

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkinson:
Anderson features mostly the first couple minutes of Fratres when the solo string player is racing rather frantically, so "slow" and "processional" might throw Andrew off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Andrew, DON'T CRY!
http://filmexperience.blogspot.com/
There Will Be Blood all right!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:

And Andrew and I's favourite score of 2007 won't win, either, because unless Hans Zimmer changes his mind, none of his scores will ever be nominated again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Why is that? Has he decided never to be nominated for an Oscar again?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Andrew, DON'T CRY!
http://filmexperience.blogspot.com/
There Will Be Blood all right!

---

Seriously, Gustavo wins again. I'm predicting it.

Interesting film. Despite what some have said, the film-making is not remotely crazy in any aesthetic sense, but the characters managed to surprise me quite a bit in the film's less-epic second half. Joins some other fine films to make this a very memorable last six months in cinema. Zodiac, Jesse James, I'm Not There, No Country for Old Men (just having this one would have been enough! that it just be one of such a pack is great).

The highlight of the film for me is the (incredible) explosion sequence that deafens young HW and the 10 minutes or so that follows. The last 'epic' shot of the film is probably the tracking shot that follows Plainview as his son is taken away on the train.

A film I'd compare it to: Not CITIZEN KANE, which is something quite different (deconstructing identity externally, whereas this is very much Plainview's story, not seen from the outside). I'd compare it more to RICHARD III - the antihero you root for.

And perhaps it's worth comparing its capitalism allegory to: THE PRESTIGE. Particularly in the Tesla/Edison rivalry at the edge of that story. Angier and Borden are however equally charismatic - perhaps one of the only things that comes a little easily in BLOOD is that from quite early, just about every audience member is looking forward to seeing Eli Sunday cop a beating.

I could have done with more: oil industry details from the time. Sadly we move away from the problems of oil once the pipeline is built, but in a sense, perhaps there was a way to go down a slightly more informative road to madness.

References to Malick's DAYS OF HEAVEN: (i) prob. not deliberate - but the single oil drill towers over the otherwise unbuilt environment recalls the tall farmhouse amid the wheat fields; (ii) more deliberate - the shots and cutting of the wedding of Mary and HW recalls the wedding of Abbie and the Farmer in Malick's film.

Favourite unexpected moment: Young Mary hugs Plainview as he sits down after his 'baptism'. Totally unexpected, and reminds you that some people in that room believe in their snake oil salesman.

And on the music: Brahms plays at the opening of the drill, and also over the film's closing image. Arvo Part's Fratres appears in the scenes where Plainview grows more and more frustrated with his son's deafness, eventually shipping him off.

The definitive modern film about what 'America' means: Is not this film, because it can't be just one film. It has to also be THE NEW WORLD, and UNITED 93, and DOGVILLE, and JESSE JAMES, and many more. America's too big, too overwhelmingly ugly and beautiful in different areas for Daniel Plainview to be the sum of it.

The line I'll go round saying the rest of the month: 'I -- drink -- your -- milkshake!'

To be followed by: 'Why -- don't -- I -- own -- this?!'

I would recommend this film to: probably only those really into films with a subversive streak. Most people don't want to know about this sort of film. How on Earth it got an Oscar nomination - almost a stain on its uniqueness! - is beyond me.

Study these:
- Although it is assumed that H.W. was "a bastard from a basket" and Daniel's adopted son, pay attention to the first moment we see H.W. as a baby. He's been cradled by another man working with Plainview, perhaps the same man that is later killed in the oil well. The next scene we see, is Plainview trying to give H.W. a bottle (he pours whiskey over the nipple) and then we see them on the train. Two questions arise of this: perhaps H.W. was actually the dead man's (?) son, as Plainview will later reveal that he allows his workers to bring thier families along. Or perhaps H.W. really is Plainview's son. Perhaps the man was just giving baby H.W. attention while Daniel presided over the well and worked. Plainview instills enough passion over his "son" in later scenes where it could be perceived that he is, in fact, not an abandoned orphan. But, one of the dire rules of filmmaking, is that a baby should cry when bad news is being delivered. The baby H.W. cries after the man is killed in the oil well.

- Although P.T. Anderson doesn't claim to be religious, I wouldn't put it past him that he's interested in the idea. TWBB is filled with many religious overtones. I've never read the Bible, nor would I claim to, so I can't say for sure what exactly they are; but I higher power tells me they are there.

- Many people who criticize the film do so because they feel that Daniel Plainview is an inhuman character, and a terrible man. This is not true by any accounts. Plainview is a buisness man. If I might say, his business is his life. He doesn't want anything interfering with his business, or even his father-son relationship. He sees these other obstacles as reasons to hate; his passionate loathing of others seems to stem from his own family situation, and he doesn't want to extend that to H.W. In the end, he finds himself at a disadvantage, as he's become the type of man he shouldn't want to be. He seems conflicted through the entire movie about his feelings towards others, and I think that the discovery that Henry wasn't in fact, his real step-brother seems to bring this to the forefront. He realizes he may be the only person left with this intense fervor, and it destroys him from that moment on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
And I think that Dogville and Manderlay should be experienced together; and it should always be known that they are a foreigner's view of post-Civil War America and industrialism. I don't quite agree with Von Trier on these topics, but I think he raises many important questions and topics.

---

DOGVILLE was enough for me. It left a bit of a stain on my soul - I wasn't sure I wanted to see it go deeper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
I demand a second viewing Michael!

---

It may well get it. It left me feeling very moody though - I'm not sure I need it!

quote:

---

Seriously, I've seen the film three times now, and I've noticed a different evolution of the story and Plainview himself all of these times. My first viewing was very similar to you, in terms of being caught off guard about the smaller character moments. But, on a second viewing, when the film can be absorbed without the sense of discovery - instead, it's a sense of observation - I found myself believing in Daniel Plainview much more. He's much more conflicted than an initial viewing might suggest. Day-Lewis injects a serious human element into a very over-the-top character. His mannerisms during the more gruelly aspects, I'd like to thing he's calling his existance into question, change ever so slightly to reflect a very saddened man. He's not a bad man, per se, but he seems to expect more from people, and especially his son. And it seems he has his feelings - and maybe even dreams - crushed more than not. It seems as though Plainview himself has constructed an elaborate hoax to those around him - similar to the Alfred Borden/Fallon characters in The Prestige, which is a good comparison - and every so often, we, as the audience, can catch him off guard. I've noticed the same things in Christian Bale's aforementioned performance. It's just something to think about during repeat viewings.

---

I actually didn't find Plainview the insane man that I'd been told he was. One fellow told me the day before I saw it: 'It's a rare film where both the main characters are utterly certifiable.' And I don't agree. I think most of what Plainview does makes sense in terms of his strengths and weaknesses up to a point. What point is that? Well, the first time someone looks at him strangely seems to me to be when he speaks the line: 'What you upset about? There's a whole ocean of oil down there, and nobody can get at it except for me!'

Even Eli - beyond his dinner table raging at his father - seemed pretty crafty up to a point. It's when he breaks down in the bowling alley, talking about how the Lord failed to inform him of the 1929 Crash, that you really think - 'my god, they're both looney!'

That scene is interesting because it doesn't try to explain their insanity. Is Plainview projecting onto Eli his feelings of anger towards his imposter brother by identifying himself with Paul and claiming to be the true recipient of the Third Revelation? Is the brother who died of tuberculosis something he knew about and chose to do nothing to prevent? You don't have a reference point. Because most of the film is told through Plainview's experience, you have to wonder at the end - as you say - whether you have seen truth, or seen it as he saw it.

(I even wonder - given the way Mary occasionally strays into the tale, whether there might have been some abuse of her - or desire to abuse her - on Plainview's part... He's quite protective of her in front of her father, in a way that he would never tolerate of his own family. That final recollection of HW - Plainview pushing him over and walking off with Mary, is an odd thing to bring up at the end.)

quote:

---

- Although it is assumed that H.W. was "a bastard from a basket" and Daniel's adopted son, pay attention to the first moment we see H.W. as a baby. He's been cradled by another man working with Plainview, perhaps the same man that is later killed in the oil well. The next scene we see, is Plainview trying to give H.W. a bottle (he pours whiskey over the nipple) and then we see them on the train. Two questions arise of this: perhaps H.W. was actually the dead man's (?) son, as Plainview will later reveal that he allows his workers to bring thier families along. Or perhaps H.W. really is Plainview's son. Perhaps the man was just giving baby H.W. attention while Daniel presided over the well and worked. Plainview instills enough passion over his "son" in later scenes where it could be perceived that he is, in fact, not an abandoned orphan. But, one of the dire rules of filmmaking, is that a baby should cry when bad news is being delivered. The baby H.W. cries after the man is killed in the oil well.

---

That thought - that HW might have actually been his son - actually occurred to me towards the end of the film. What made me think it was that I felt that Paul and Eli Sunday were not really two people. With Paul Sunday earning $10,000 and starting up three drills, he seems a lot like Daniel Plainview... or maybe Plainview is comparing him to H.W.?

quote:

---

Although P.T. Anderson doesn't claim to be religious, I wouldn't put it past him that he's interested in the idea. TWBB is filled with many religious overtones. I've never read the Bible, nor would I claim to, so I can't say for sure what exactly they are; but I higher power tells me they are there.

---

I'll see if I can give a more thoughtful reply to this, since I have read it. Beyond the Old Testament = Old West, I didn't notice too much.