July 2
July 3
July 4
Diminished Capacity
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson
We are Together
July 9
July 11
August
Eight Miles High
Journey to the Center of the Earth
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
July 18
A Very British Gangster
Before I Forget
Felon
Lou Reed's Berlin
Transsiberian
July 22
July 23
Manhattan hotshot journo Lewis Beale is the latest smart guy to allow his personal feelings to get in the way of acknowledging the malignant greatness of There Will Be Blood. In his not-yet-posted Film Journal review he admits it's "a major work from an extremely talented director that's been "meticulously made and contains some astonishing set pieces," and another one of Daniel Day-Lewis's "astonishing, burrowing-into-the-role performances." But it "centers on a pretty reprehensible human being whose actions become less sympathetic, and more bizarre, as the story unfolds." Beale calls it "a flawed, at times distasteful piece that will turn off as many viewers as it turns on. Is it art? Undoubtedly. Commercial? Probably not."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 29, 2007 at 08:25 AM
Posted by Caustic712
at November 29, 2007 08:43 AM
comment #2
says ...It's a "major work" from an "extremely talented" director with "astonishing set-pieces" and an "astonishing" performance from Daniel Day-Lewis.
So what's the problem, apart from all this astonishment? That it isn't commercial? That the main character isn't sympathetic?
I don't understand the hedging we're seeing from some early reviews. Sure, Day-Lewis' oilman isn't someone you want to have a pint with. But, hell, neither was King Lear. And that play seemed to work OK.
I think too many people are having their tastes diluted by formulaic writing, where every hero has to "go through an arc" and have a "redemptive" moment.
Happens a lot in by-the-numbers screeplays. Not so much in real life, or great art.
Posted by swhitty
at November 29, 2007 09:11 AM
comment #3
says ...It's a "major work" from an "extremely talented" director with "astonishing set-pieces" and an "astonishing" performance from Daniel Day-Lewis.
So what's the problem, apart from all this astonishment? That it isn't commercial? That the main character isn't sympathetic?
I don't understand the hedging we're seeing from some early reviews. Sure, Day-Lewis' oilman isn't someone you want to have a pint with. But, hell, neither was King Lear. And that play seemed to work OK.
I think too many people are having their tastes diluted by formulaic writing, where every hero has to "go through an arc" and have a "redemptive" moment.
Happens a lot in by-the-numbers screenplays. Not so much in real life, or great art.
Posted by swhitty
at November 29, 2007 09:11 AM
Posted by Ian Sinclair
at November 29, 2007 09:15 AM
Posted by dopiestghost
at November 29, 2007 09:28 AM
Posted by Jesse Perry
at November 29, 2007 09:32 AM
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 09:48 AM
Posted by Noah
at November 29, 2007 09:59 AM
Posted by AJW
at November 29, 2007 10:05 AM
Posted by Ian Sinclair
at November 29, 2007 10:12 AM
comment #11
says ...It doesn't matter Noah. Ian is still right. There weren't even any songs or CGI chipmunks. Truly awful stuff. Oh, and everyone in the trailer looks all dirty and oily. Ick.
AJW. It doesn't matter, but the thing is, DDL isn't as loathesome as people are saying. Unlike Alexander de Large, there is humanity in Daniel Plainview. He's not just a construct to prove a point.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 10:16 AM
comment #12
says ...Margot at the Wedding was the other movie destroyed this year because of these complaints that unlikable characters make a movie somehow unworthy of year-end praise.
I don't quite understand this myself, especially when the alternative is embracing ingratiating crud like Juno.
Posted by Unison
at November 29, 2007 10:16 AM
comment #13
says ...I'm guessing that the only reason I felt different about this movie and the reason I was practically cheering DDL's character on by the end of it was because I saw Before The Devil Knows You're Dead a couple days before seeing this. That movie's characters are much more loathsome than Plainview.
Posted by ZayTonday
at November 29, 2007 10:24 AM
comment #14
says ...Margo at the Wedding was destroyed because everyone sounded like they were the same thirty-something whiner; Juno is insufferable because everyone sounds like they were written by a teenage girl. To give TWBB credit at least all of the characters sound like real human beings, even if you wouldn't want to spend any more time than you had to with them.
Posted by Ian Sinclair
at November 29, 2007 10:26 AM
comment #15
says ...Wait Ian, you didn't like the scene in TWBB where Daniel Day-Lewis has sex with his own daughter...? Oh wait, that never happend. So, how is he ten times worse than Noah Cross again? Nasty powerful bad man: check. Hustonian delivery: check.
So, what else?
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 10:57 AM
comment #16
says ...Jesus, I'm being a massive jerk lately. I think it's time for a little break from the ol' H-E.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 11:01 AM
comment #17
says ...As CJ said, Huston's most despicable aspect was fucking and impregnating his (underage?) daughter, then stealing the girl away at the end.
His less despicable parts involved the water scheme, which are what seem more in line with Day-Lewis's character.
Is he Gordon Gecko with oil? Gecko qualifies as an asshole, right?
Posted by AJW
at November 29, 2007 11:05 AM
comment #18
says ...Ian, I'm convinced that you have never seen a single movie in your entire life and that you base your opinions on what you can find on the web. Tell me which screening room you saw There Will Be Blood at or stop pretending like you've seen it and spouting off the same five things that you've been saying for months.
Posted by Noah
at November 29, 2007 11:22 AM
comment #19
says ...This is why -- in spite of Jeff's claim that magazines are obsolete -- I can never get enough of Film Comment, Cinemascope, Sight & Sound, etc. Since they aren't preoccupied with how many hits they get, they can actually write about films, without framing every article in relation to box office and moronic commercial sensibilities. Still, it sounds to me like Beale is just covering his ass: "I liked it, but dumb people won't like it... but I'm not dumb... seriously, I kinda liked it."
Posted by JD
at November 29, 2007 11:23 AM
comment #20
says ...He's absolutely trying to have it both ways. The sad thing is, now more than ever we need good critics to champion worthy films that are getting buried by the gossip and box office reporting of the 24 hour news cycle.
Pandering to the masses will get you eyeballs, but it does nothing for movies. And I'm not trying to be elitist. Everyone likes some feel good crap now and then, but I genuinely believe that deep down most people like to be challenged. Sometimes they just need a little prodding. These critics are just caving in.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 11:41 AM
comment #21
says ...CJ, I'm going to make you watch SKIDOO again in a heightened state just to cleanse your mental palette from all that nasty oil and blood...
Posted by christian
at November 29, 2007 11:46 AM
comment #22
says ...What's the scoop on a DVD copy of that thing? I've actually been itching to see it again. Hell, I'd even take VHS.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 11:53 AM
Posted by Ian Sinclair
at November 29, 2007 12:05 PM
Posted by Noah
at November 29, 2007 12:14 PM
Posted by christian
at November 29, 2007 12:26 PM
comment #26
says ...Well I saw it on Tuesday in DGA Theater #2 (The small one) with Bruce, the Below The Line guy introducing the film even though it wasn't a BTL screening and with the prod. designer Jack Fisk in attendance along with other crew.. the reception afterwards was pretty cool too.
Posted by ZayTonday
at November 29, 2007 12:29 PM
Posted by ZayTonday
at November 29, 2007 12:32 PM
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 29, 2007 12:41 PM
comment #29
says ...I am a nerd, there is no argument about that, but anyone besides Ian who thinks I'm patronizing, please raise your hand.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 12:58 PM
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 29, 2007 01:05 PM
Posted by christian
at November 29, 2007 01:09 PM
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 29, 2007 01:12 PM
comment #33
says ...I've been digging at him for days so I had it coming, but I'm still not patronizing. Dirty Harry might be right though, I may well be a moron.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 01:12 PM
Posted by Ian Sinclair
at November 29, 2007 01:14 PM
Posted by Noah
at November 29, 2007 01:31 PM
comment #36
says ...On the subject of popular reviewers disliking new movies for being different: some years ago I was leafing through a stack of old Newsweeks and came upon an issue in which the movie reviewer expressed disappointment with two new followups to recent hits. The former, a drama, they found dark, confusing and overlong compared to its predecessor, lacking the magnetic characterizations of its original. The latter, a comedy, they found too sedate and tasteful, not as funny as the anarchic previous film from that same writer-director. In both cases, a comedown from the heights previously achieved.
The drama was The Godfather, Part II, and the comedy was Young Frankenstein.
Posted by Mgmax
at November 29, 2007 02:04 PM
Posted by p.Vice
at November 29, 2007 02:22 PM
Posted by Eric Stanton
at November 29, 2007 02:23 PM
comment #39
says ...I hate to state the obvious, but I'm usually pretty good at it: TCM Rules.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 02:30 PM
Posted by Mgmax
at November 29, 2007 02:31 PM
Posted by Sean
at November 29, 2007 02:38 PM
Posted by Sean
at November 29, 2007 02:39 PM
Posted by Ian Sinclair
at November 29, 2007 02:46 PM
comment #44
says ...No, Ian, that was "responding", not "ignoring". Easy mistake to make, I know. Especially since, if you ignore everybody who insults you, then there will be nobody left for you to talk to. You are the kind of loser who thrives on conflict and, thus, you troll these websites. Ignoring the people who actually respond to you would defeat your entire raison d'posting.
Posted by Sean
at November 29, 2007 02:49 PM
Posted by Ian Sinclair
at November 29, 2007 02:53 PM
Posted by Sean
at November 29, 2007 02:53 PM
Posted by Sean
at November 29, 2007 02:55 PM
Posted by Sean
at November 29, 2007 02:56 PM
comment #49
says ...You're right Sean, it's a goddamn shame to have overlooked it. I swear I noticed the first time I read the thread, but then I got distracted before I could comment. Sometimes being first sucks.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 03:00 PM
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 29, 2007 03:01 PM
comment #51
says ...Mgmax, word to your comments on "Nightfall." Any noir fan should try to see it.
Sean - you're welcome.
And since I just looked at the TCM January schedule, I'll complete this public service announcement by mentioning for any Sam Fuller fans that TCM is showing "Park Row" on Jan 22 at 8 pm (ET). I don't know if this is on DVD but I don't think so, and if it's been on TCM before, I've missed it.
Posted by Eric Stanton
at November 29, 2007 03:05 PM
comment #52
says ...Sometimes I really feel bad for Hunter Tremayne because I think that he lives in a fantasy world where he's written the last third of Beowulf. I mean, do you think he really believes it to be true or does he just hope that his lies will be believed? I'm just astounded by people who come to film message boards when they clearly don't like movies or having conversations.
Posted by Noah
at November 29, 2007 03:06 PM
comment #53
says ...Noah - obviously I missed something; what's this "hunter tremayne" stuff and did he really claim to write the ending to 'Beowulf'? Keep in mind, I love laughing at Ian. It makes coming to this site twice as much fun. But I don't get here all the time, so I obviously missed something wonderful.
Posted by Sean
at November 29, 2007 03:11 PM
comment #54
says ...First things first: Park Row is a really good movie that isn't on DVD and I highly recommend that anyone who can check it out, thanks for the tip, Eric.
Next, Sean: "Ian Sinclair"'s real name is Hunter Tremayne. He says he's a British playwright living in NYC and that he came up with the concept for the last third of Beowulf and sold it to Roger Avary. In the past he has also said that he is a clinical psychologist and a woman.
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 29, 2007 03:57 PM
Posted by ZayTonday
at November 29, 2007 04:40 PM
comment #56
says ...Regarding skidoo: I hosted a series of sixties and seventies films in Philly's International House three years ago, and showed Skidoo on a double bill with the rarely seen Milos forman film Taking Off, plus Michael Winner's The Jokers. Skidooo sold out the joint. the movie remains absolutely awful but not unwatchably so, especially becaus eof the cast and Preminger trying to be hip. Taking Off, meanwhile, is a small masterwork. As for skidoo's DVD status, Paramount is looking to license it and many other titles from their library they don;t know what to do with--including other Preminger films.
Posted by movieirv
at November 29, 2007 04:43 PM
comment #57
says ...ZayTonday - in what may be my only defense of Ian Hunter (as I will be calling him), I took his "haven't seen it" yet comment as referring to BEFORE THE DEVIL... as you had asked for his comments on that -- not TWBB. (Ian, whether this is an accurate interpretation of your response, or just a convenient way of backtracking, you're welcome.)
Sean and CJ - thanks. I know somebody would have ended up using those words for the same purpose -- it's all about the timing.
Posted by Caustic712
at November 29, 2007 05:32 PM
comment #58
says ..."Okay, here is the truth. In 1986 I invented a story called THE OLD MAGIC, a story that I retained copyright for and which Neil Gaiman adapted my story. Neil Gaiman made a deal with Roger Avery for Beowulf, the ending of which is the ending of my story The Old Magic."
http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2007/11/i_am_beocritic.html#comments
I've been wondering when someone would follow up on this. I find it odd that (to my knowledge) he never mentioned it again. I honestly think he was drunk when he posted it, and now wishes he hadn't.
Posted by frankbooth
at November 29, 2007 05:41 PM
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 29, 2007 05:50 PM
comment #60
says ...Movierv, I heard about that screening. Could you drop me an email at my site? I'd like to find out more...
Posted by christian
at November 29, 2007 06:11 PM
comment #61
says ...Oh, for goodness sake - "Ian Sinclair", a millionaire psychotherapist buffoon, card-carrying populist snob and all-round 1930s cartoon caricature of an effete Hollywood Englishman, is a fictional character I created for a play. Not a word he says is to be taken seriously; he's just a bit of fun.
Posted by Hunter Tremayne
at November 29, 2007 06:31 PM
Posted by christian
at November 29, 2007 07:26 PM
comment #63
says ...Any chance you'd care to confess to being DZ as well? I'd sleep better at night knowing there was only one crazy person on the internet instead of a bunch of them.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 07:30 PM
comment #64
says ...Ian had previously asked me not to reveal what I knew but in light of this post by an obviously phony Hunter Tremayne, I feel it only fair to the other users of this site to reveal the truth. Ian has been my psychotherapist for several years, as well as that of "Hunter Tremayne," which is the stage name of my half-brother, Cletus Featherall. Cletus and Ian collaborated on a rock opera adaptation of Beowulf, "Flower of Warriors," at which time Ian had to give up treating Cletus due to the professional conflict. Cletus, who by this time had developed substantial projection issues toward his therapist, including a quasi-English persona, sued Ian but was awarded custody of his English accent and collection of astrolabes, while Ian was given full possession of the creative materials of the partnership, which he peddled unsuccessfully to Neil Gaiman. Eventually "Flower of Warriors" had its premiere at mid/WEST '05 in Columbus, Ohio, under the direction of Carveth Osterhaus, in a production the Cleveland Plain-Dealer raved as "not without merit."
Posted by Mgmax
at November 29, 2007 07:31 PM
comment #65
says ...Then we can all safely ignore him from now on. Nothing like arguing with someone who doesn't exist. (If you had frequented The Hot Blog a couple of years ago, when an abusive psychopath from Hicksville, NY hijacked nearly every thread with his twelve different IDs -- often having discussions with himself -- you'd see why some of us are not amused.)
Can you come up with a new character who doesn't routinely annoy the living hell out of everyone here? Mistress Malevolent doesn't count, for reasons that should be obvious.
Posted by frankbooth
at November 29, 2007 07:33 PM
Posted by frankbooth
at November 29, 2007 07:38 PM
comment #67
says ...It was kind of worth it though, wasn't it Frank?
I mean, come on. "not without merit"
That's top shelf comedy right there.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 29, 2007 07:47 PM
Posted by Unison
at November 29, 2007 08:25 PM
Posted by Hunter Tremayne
at November 29, 2007 09:56 PM
comment #70
says ...How about no more new characters? How about stop being a douchebag and just talk about movies if you have something interesting to say? You can have your favorites and your rooting interests, but quit with the "told you so" attitude. You're a grown man, act like it. Nobody wants to deal with your message board performance art, just be a rational human being. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by Noah
at November 29, 2007 10:06 PM
Posted by Noah
at November 29, 2007 10:07 PM
comment #72
says ...Oh, so all those times that "Ian" called me a child molester and generally defamed me, it was just for chuckles? Amusing twitters?
I find it hard to believe that a playwright would have ignored the number one rule of his craft: know your audience. In this case, I think the only entertainment value was directed at an audience of one.
As far as I'm concerned, "Ian" is the real person and "Hunter" is the persona who comes out to try and set the board back from scratch.
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 30, 2007 12:48 AM
comment #73
says ...Oh, Mgmax: even though we have our differences re: politics, you have thoroughly earned my respect. I'd like to buy you a drink sometime.
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 30, 2007 01:14 AM
comment #74
says ...The movie's not that great, and it's not a "masterpiece." it's a great *looking* two-character film that goes on for way too long and then ends so dismally (and that's even compared to No Country for Old Men) that you wonder why you just wasted your time on it. No one is going to nominate Paul THomas Anderson for not making a "Paul THomas Anderson Film"... just look at all the problems Scorsese had until he went back to doing movies about gangsters.
Posted by EDouglas
at November 30, 2007 03:29 AM
Posted by Eric Stanton
at November 30, 2007 09:35 AM
Posted by Sean
at November 30, 2007 09:59 AM
Posted by Mgmax
at November 30, 2007 10:08 AM
Posted by George Prager
at November 30, 2007 10:26 AM
Posted by T. S. Idiot
at November 30, 2007 10:51 AM
comment #80
says ...You're entitled to your opinion Ed, but you also walked out of Inland Empire. I'm guessing you and I will never sit down for pizza and DVD night.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 30, 2007 11:12 AM
comment #81
says ...I think the Hot Blog guy's real name was Richard Nash (that's the name he occasionally has used since then) but who knows. His aliases included "Sanchez", "Bruce", "Joefitz", "Blustealer" and about 20 more. At various times he was a Latino, two different African-Americans, and a woman.
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 30, 2007 11:15 AM
comment #82
says ...Another ringing endorsement from edouglas! If anyone is on the fence, that should tip the scales in favor of seeing the film.
Offense intended, Ed, but you have to admit -- your taste is usually the exact opposite of nearly everyone who posts here regularly. I do give you credit for consistency, though, the same way I give it to D.Z. for refusing to budge on his "principles." Stick to your guns!
Posted by frankbooth
at November 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Posted by George Prager
at November 30, 2007 11:59 AM
Posted by George Prager
at November 30, 2007 12:04 PM
comment #85
says ...Thank you Frank for saying what I was actually thinking and for making me laugh.
Speaking of the devil, has anyone noticed how much lovelier it's been around here since Jeff banned NYCBB?
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 30, 2007 12:45 PM
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 30, 2007 12:58 PM
comment #87
says ...Yeah, I don't now what he said, but his last post was changed to this: "Wells to HE posters: No biggie, but as of this morning NYC Busybody has a great future ahead of him on other forums. I've made it clear that anybody can say anything about anything, including attacks on my views, choices and errors. The one thing that doesn't fly are harsh personal attacks with a diseased emotional taint. He's crossed it for the last time here, and I wish him all the best."
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/09/clinton_has_it.php
That was on September 13 and he hasn't been back since...at least under that name.
Posted by cjKennedy
at November 30, 2007 01:05 PM
comment #88
says ...Maybe it's the contrarian in me, but I kinda miss him. I like having a yardstick for right wing loonies.
Posted by christian
at November 30, 2007 03:40 PM
comment #89
says ...Well, we have "Dirty Harry" now, so I can't say I miss the unmitigated chundermuffin that was NYCBB. I'm actually fine with DZ, Ian and a few of my other unnamed bete noirs. Imagined being cornered by NYCBB at some sort of function? Sweet forever sleep could not come soon enough.
Posted by Pinko Punko
at November 30, 2007 04:23 PM
comment #90
says ...Anytime, Craig.
I somehow missed NYC's banning, too. I also have a suspicion that he was the briefly-ubiquitous Jayne Gacy.
Jeff, you're a huge faggot. You're also an appeasing surrender-monkey Demon-crat with Bush Derangement Syndrome who will probably vote for HELLary and help perpetuate the baby holocaust. And I'm pretty sure you killed Vince Foster.
Posted by frankbooth
at November 30, 2007 04:38 PM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)