comment #1

malibugigolo says ...

If Arizona Joe is here...

What about the Life-lute-less cats today?

Talk about tragedy....

Ernie Kent...my private school alums need our tie back you hack..

comment #2

Balthazar says ...

Nice night for "Blood"!

If it wasn't already clear, it's shaping up as a two-horse race at this point, IMO.

We'll know the Picture and Director winners, IMO, when they announce the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay -- I think THAT will be the bone given to the movie then loses Director and Picture.

So, Country fans, don't get distraught if PTA gets a screenplay Oscar.

comment #3

actionman says ...

This is awesome. I totally loved everything about There Will Be Blood, and even if it doesn't win best picture at the Oscars, I will be pumped to see it nominated. Such an amazing year. I can't wait to see TWBB again. It's been all I've been able to think about these last few days, and its brilliance is just growing on me the more I analyze it. But as well shot as it is by Elswit, who is a master, I think Deakins must win for Jesse James; his work on in that film is some of the best I have ever seen. Such a beautiful film.

comment #4

lazarus says ...

Is anyone else surprised by this? How is it that No Country For Old Men is placing #1 on the Critics Top 10 Scorecard, and has received more Best Film nods from various critics groups, yet fails to win any of the top awards? They weren't even close as runners up in any of them, either.

TWBB obviously needed this more than No Country did, as the latter's place at the Oscar table is a given. With this now in the bag, how can the Academy fail to nominate TWBB across the board as well?

Is it possible that after a few years of "smaller" BP winners, the Academy might be feeling epic again? No Country is a concise, nearly perfect film, but perhaps they will have more admiration for the greater size of PTA's vision and accomplishment, even if they find it a bit unsettling.

comment #5

PerfectTommy says ...

I'm happy to see Casey get the award but his was, of course, more than a supporting role. Perhaps we could change supporting to "Lesser Salaried Actor" or "Actor with Fewer People Magazine Covers".

comment #6

Dave says ...

I finally saw TWBB last night. And by "finally," I mean they finally released out here in Washington, six years after Jeff first saw the film, and five after he started spoiling things.

First things first: Jeff, you are completely wrong if you think the "diseased" factor hurts TWBB. It's what makes the movie *fascinating*, and what makes it resonate long after you leave the theater.

As a character study, it's no more "diseased" than Zodiac or No Country for Old Men.

As for my thoughts, a few of them: (SPOILERS!)

-- I agree with the "Plainview redeems himself to his son" school of interpretation. The "you are an orphan" speech is there to represent not Plainview's total collapse as a moral creature, but as his way of freeing his adopted son from the evil that he is.

Why do I think this? Because just after, Plainview remembers happier times with his H.W. It's clear (to me) that comes from some form of guilt that he's just that broken.

-- On that same thread, who here believes as I do that when Plainview puts H.W. on the train early on in the film, he's not so much abandoning him as trying to save him? Personally, I think that Plainview never intended to see H.W. again-- he only changes his mind and sends for him after his "brother" turns out not to be his brother, and he finally achieves some form of stable success with the pipeline. Plainview "arrives" and wants to try again with H.W.-- but of course fails, because he can't change who he is, as witnessed by the restaurant scene with Tilford.

-- Just as I never thought the Coens had it in them with No Country, I never thought PTA had it in him with TWBB. I've loved each and every one of PTA's previous films, but TWBB was on an entirely different plane, and represents such a leap from his previous talents that it's a shame PTA won't win the Best Director award this year.

-- DDL *will* win Best Actor. Forget all the horseracing, he wins, period.

I loved it, every bit of it. "Diseased"? Are you MAD, Jeff? It's brilliant, one of the best character studies of a flawed man I've ever seen.

-- Finally, the last line "I'm finished"-- he's finished insofar as he's accomplished everything he can accomplish, and ruined everything he could ruin. It's delivered so humorously, so boldly, that I laughed out loud at how brazen a choice it was. That whole final scene, where Plainview exposes Sunday as being the exact same kind of man he was, was outstanding. Not quite as intense as the tension-builder of the drug-deal-gone-bad in Boogie Nights, but damn close to it.

And c'mon, Jeff-- the best word in the movie is "Drainnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnage!!!"

God, I can't wait to see the movie again. It's art, high art, and DDL. . . wow.

(Sorry, I know this is all Harry Knowles-style effusive praise, but I was blown away by TWBB).

comment #7

T. S. Idiot says ...

Saw TWBB today, and it's as good as advertised. DD Lewis gives one of the greatest performances of all time, up there with Brando in Tango. One disturbing thing, however, is that the packed audience I saw it with in Montclair, NJ, usually the most sophisticated bunch in the suburbs, was stunned and angry at the end. "There's nothing special about that" was one many moronic comments heard on the way out.

comment #8

EOTW says ...

Gotta agree after now having seen INT twice. Cate deserves it. I LOVE Amy Ryan (especially on "The Wire." SO Sweet) But I do think Cate really gets lost in that performance, making it something special to watch and appreciate.

comment #9

Mumbleboy says ...

Feel free to disagree with me (since I may disagree with some of what I first thought), but I had a different perception of that final scene with H. W. in TWBB. Here is what I wrote in my initial reaction. *spoilers* It's in there somewhere.

"It has been quite a while since I've reviewed, if it could be called that, or written a reaction to a film. The film I saw two nights ago was so moving that it has buried itself under my skin and burrowed into my mind. While I am still not quite sure of its meaning, I am quite convinced of its power. As hard as it hit me, I am still not quite able to give it a blanket recommendation. It challenges the viewer by following the story of a man with no recognizably redeeming qualities. Even the people he crosses and crosses paths with are lacking in virtue.

Daniel Plainview (what a great last name), is a man so consumed by ambition and greed that they become an end unto themselves. It's not the money or power he's after, although he may think it is, but he is filled with a desire to take all he can from those who have it, whether it be oil or land or their faith. He uses deceit at every turn to accomplish his goals. He will say whatever or use whoever he can to convince people to give up what is theirs. Although he doesn't go through the entire film without ever feeling anything real. I can think of only two scenes in which he experiences true emotion: "I've abandoned my boy" and "a baby in a basket". In the first, he feels regret and in the second, loss. In the same way that only a few shafts of light pierce the darkness in which he mines, only a few moments of humanity shine through him in the film. He is so filled with darkness that it bubbles up to his surface, much like the oil on the Sunday ranch.

The film explores the connection and competition between business and religion. It's as if they share the desire to gain the same things and use similar deceptive techniques to attain them. The faithful will toss aside their supposed beliefs once their greed is no longer satisfied. It is only once they do that, that they are destroyed, and then Daniel's business is done."

Further thoughts:
Throughout the rest of the film he seems able to push down his human feelings, but in those two scenes they burst out of him, just like the geysers of oil burst from deep beneath the ground. Plainview seemed to be searching for his humanity, or at least some connection to it, and he found it in through family; although neither familial connection was real. He had replaced H.W. with his long lost "brother" right before he sent his "son" away and then recalled his son once he lost his brother for good.

The main reason I feel that TWBB is so much better than No Country, which I really liked and admired as well, is that NCFOM had a few too many gaps in internal logic (i.e. the cop turning his back on a recently arrested man and the lack of response from the police when one of their own had been murdered) and TWBB seemed perfectly constructed and deeply resonate. Also, I keep thinking about TWBB but with NCFOM, once you wrap your mind around its main theme, it doesn't seem as thickly layered.

TWBB is one of those films that I feel I, or someone more talented, could write page after page on. The more I think about it, the greater and more fully realized it seems.

Then again, that could just be me.

comment #10

lazarus says ...

T.S. Idiot--Brando's Last Tango work will never be equalled, because I don't know if another actor with that level of versatility will also allow himself to be exposed and baited by the director to that degree. Plainview might be a brilliant creation, but it's completely separate from the human being known as Daniel Day-Lewis, whereas there is a lot of Marlon Brando in Paul, and it's this melding of the two that makes the performance so real, and the theatrics more involving than admirable.

This isn't a slight against Lewis, who may be the greatest actor since the Master of the Method, but I tend to be internally applauding too much while watching him to get as emotionally gripped as when watching Brando.

comment #11

Hash says ...

Saw it tonight in Chicago. Amazing.

comment #12

Scott Feinberg says ...

Sorry Jeff, but I have to say that over the past few days you have had a lot of misplaced anger--
Ellen Page? Amy Ryan?
Obviously you're entitled to not like them, but there is absolutely no reason to dump on them... in both instances you yourself have acknowledged that they did good work... just because they would not have your vote for an award doesn't mean that they deserve to be dumped on as if you thought their performances wasted your time--you LIKED them, remember?
As far as Ellen/Juno, you wrote "I'm fine with it--it's a very smart and likable film," and then proceeded to devote back-to-back posts to dumping on it in an apparent effort to derail the hot streak that is currently on. The truth is you might succeed in harming the chances of a Juno, but I've got news for you: you might not like what you get instead. It's probably not going to be Zodiac. It's probably not going to be I'm Not There. But it might be Hairspray or something like that...
As far as Amy Ryan, you have acknowledged that it was a good performance, but you clearly prefer Cate Blanchett--that's fine. But to write "Cheers to the National Society of Film Critics for denying their Best Supporting Actress award to Gone Baby Gone's Amy Ryan"? Is that reporting the story, or is that being a jerk and inserting yourself into the story?
From what I understand, you're a good guy. I would hope that you would remember, amidst the storm of emotions that we all experience during Oscar season, that you are talking about real people who put their hearts and souls into their work... in these two cases, relative newcomers who are trying to establish themselves.
You may think that your remarks are just flippant asides, but the truth is that people listen to you, and comments that you may not have thought through actually can carry a big impact.
It's one thing to dump on a jerk like Eddie Murphy who has a false sense of entitlement and hasn't shown hunger for his work in decades, but I hope you'll think more carefully about it before you dump so harshly on people like Ellen and Amy, who are just getting their start and have shown no sense of entitlement, nothing but commitment to their work, and who frankly--in your own words--did good jobs in their respective films.

comment #13

Josh says ...

I completley agree with Scott. You need to let it go. I let it go along time ago that Gone Baby Gone was not going to be nominated for Best Picture despite the fact that I feel it deserves a nomination. I love Zodiac and I agree that it is a shame that it won't get nominated but it will be a movie that will be remembered 15-20 years from now as a landmark film. I am sick and tired of seeing you bash Ellen Page. She deserves her nomination and her work in Juno was one of the most complex and mature performances of the year. Yes she was very funny but she was also great in the dramatic scenes of the movie. Plus comedy is much harder to pull of than drama.

comment #14

EDouglas says ...

I love Amy Ryan, but she's this year's Virginia Madsen... no chance of winning the Oscar for Gone Baby Gone. Just saw "I'm Not There" again the other night (in a PACKED NYC screening even over 6 weeks after opening) and BLanchett owns that movie... chances are that she'll win this, especially if she ends up not getting nominated for Elizabeth (which could still happen but looks doubtful with the SAG precursor)

comment #15

corey3rd says ...

how come 20 of the 61 members didn't care to vote? What's the point of a Society if a third of your members don't care to cast a ballot?

comment #16

Gordie Lachance says ...

I like Dave's points, especially about Plainview's motives in taking his son back. It reminded me of the scene in Schindler's List where Ralph Fiennes is trying to follow Schindler's advice where "Power is when you don't kill someone". He's a sociopath trying on human face and finding it like an ill-fitting suit.

Yesterday, when I opined that no one "talks" about All The President's Men, this is what I meant. Not simply name checking a film and saying "it's great" or "classic", but disscussing what it all means, arguing a little... Zodiac (and President's) great as they are, re-watchable as they are, just don't have much meat on their bones.

Also, I too saw TWBB at Montclair's fine Clearview Cinema. At the end, there was no hub-bubbing or grumbling about it at all. Everyone seemed to like it. I was shocked at the number of blue-haired old ladies in the crowd, though. I didn't figure this for a chick flick.

comment #17

Erik Childress says ...

Chicago actually bucked the trend with Cate Blanchett weeks ago. Toronto and Vegas also followed suit.

comment #18

Craig Kennedy says ...

Forget about Amy Ryan, the real story with the NSFC is There Will Be Blood.

comment #19

BurmaShave says ...

What's with the NO COUNTRY shutout? Why is it always one or the other getting shut out? These are two of the best films of the year.

comment #20

christian says ...

I was surprised how funny TWBB was. It's certainly DDL all the way to the Oscars -- assuming we'll have one. Still processing thoughts about the film, but I know it's pretty damn good.

comment #21

Mario Borroto says ...

As I've mentioned in the pass regarding your musings on Brando and Day-Lewis, you assume far too much Lazarus.

I was as emotionally involved in Plainview as any performance of Brando's I've seen. I think it is ridiculous to speculate on the degree to which an actor connected to the character. While it is well documented that Brando was very well connected to his character in Last Tango in Paris, the same can be said for any Day-Lewis performance given the amount of time he spends in character. To suggest that spending so much time in character creates little connection between the actor and the character is ludicrous. It is more than just theatrics, something you can tell just by watching the passion brought out of the character.