Genres:     Drama and Adaptation
Starring:       Daniel Day-Lewis, Mary Elizabeth Barrett, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier, Christine Olejniczak
Directed by:     Paul Thomas Anderson

Dari judulnya, rasanya gampang gampang susah buat menebak isinya. Blood = darah = pembunuhan = sadis = mayat = mutilasi.... SAMA SEKALI BUKAN, bahkan temanya sama sekali di luar dugaan.

Kisahnya bercerita tentang penambang/ pengebor minyak/ pebisnis minyak yang bernama Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) yang sangat mencintai uang, minyak, dan dirinya sendiri.

Daniel membangun bisnisnya sendirian pada tahun 1900an hingga ia cukup sukses bersama putranya bernama H.W.. Seperti pebisnis yang maunya untung melulu, Daniel sering menipu orang buat mendapat laba.

Tidak ada yang sanggup menghalangi ambisi Daniel untuk menjadi pengusaha minyak sukses, sampai-sampai anaknya H.W. kecelakaan jadi tuli. Kasian banget, punya ayah kayak gitu.

Lalu ada juga tokoh pendeta eksentrik bernama Eli Sunday yang cukup berperan karena dia sering mempersulit produksi minyak Daniel. Akhirnya di menjelang akhir cerita, Daniel rela dibabtis lagi untuk meredam tokoh ini. Sampai segitunya Daniel demi memperjuangkan minyaknya.

Walau pendeskripsian di atas terkesan menyudutkan Daniel, sebenarnya dia nggak buruk-buruk amat. Sifatnya saya rasa sangat wajar sebagai seorang pengusaha yang ambisius, sangat manusiawi.

Potongannya juga nggak kayak antagonis yang sukanya membunuh orang. Bahkan, mungkin tokoh seperti Daniel Plainview ini sangat mudah ditemui di kehidupan kita sehari-hari.

Pada dasarnya, menurut saya, tidak ada antagonis di film ini. There Will Be Blood hanya menggambarkan sifat manusia yang materialistik, sehingga tiap manusia terjerumus dalam dosa dan kesalahan (ciyeh...).

Misalnya tokoh pendeta Eli, pada awalnya mungkin dia seperti malaikat yang suci dari dosa. Namun di akhir cerita ia sampai rela menjual keimanannya pada Daniel. Betapa mudah manusia lupa jika dihadapkan pada harta.

Daniel sendiri pun juga begitu, karakter tokoh ini cukup rumit karena memiliki banyak konflik di dirinya sendiri. Dia berkata bahwa dia membenci semua orang, dan hanya paduli pada dirinya sendiri.

Dia memiliki prinsip, kuasailah orang lain lebih dulu sebelum mereka menguasaimu. Jadi, Daniel selalu memandang jelek semua hal yang dikatakan/ dilakukan orang lain. Lumayan paranoid lah.

Misalnya pada saat anaknya H.W. berkata akan mengebor minyak di Meksiko demi membantu ayahnya, ia malah melarangnya karena ia takut anaknya akan menjadi saingannya. Padahal kalau dipikir tidak perlu menuduh sejauh itu.

Film ini berakhir ketika kewibawaan Daniel telah habis karena ia termakan sifat jeleknya sendiri. Padahal kayaknya dari awal nggak ada konflik yang berarti, cuma lika-liku perjalanan bisnis Daniel semasa itu.

Menonton ini seperti menonton Godfather, tapi nggak ada pembunuhan atau peperangan mafia, kayaknya.

Can somebody tell me why people like this guy ? He's a bad actor i hate hate hate DDL!

This reminds me of a famous scene in the Scorsese-directed movie Gangs of New York in which Bill "The Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) shows his blossoming successor, Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) how to kill a person on a pig's corpse.

"The nearest thing in nature to the flesh of a man is the flesh of a pig...This is the liver. The kidneys. The heart. This is a wound -- the stomach will bleed and bleed. This is a kill. This is a kill. Main artery. This is a kill," Cutting explains, violently shanking the dead body to emphasize the word "kill."

This video stabs in a kill zone on the McCain body, pointing out that what McCain has touted as his strong point, experience, is not beneficial for Americans-especially their wallets; his experience lies in shady bribes.  A major difference being the lack of lipstick on The Butcher's pig.

I anticipate that McCain will scramble to make a statement that encourages people to focus on what we're going to do now to fix the future instead of looking to the past.  Uh... How can we fully understand the present without knowledge of the past?  Without knowing a person's history, we're condemning ourselves to a subjugation under unqualified people with tarnished decision-making skills.    It is highly unlikely that at McCain's age he is going to alter how he handles a situation that will add another comma to his bank account statement.

Tomorrow's debate will be a veritable mud wrestling match.  Oh, my thumbs will be a live twittering.  MMhmm.

Here's the mini-doc.

O site da extinta revista norte-americana Premiere elegeu as cenas de sexo mais quentes do cinema.

Para os filmes selecionados, foram utilizados vários critérios de filtragem, como sensualidade, situação dos personagens e até mesmo a inocência de um ato para representar o sexo, em si.

Além dos principais nomes eleitos, clássicos como Barbarella, ...E Deus Criou a Mulher, Fome de Viver, Lúcia e o Sexo e Cidade dos Sonhos, entre outros, também foram lembrados pela revista por suas cenas tórridas.

Confira abaixo os principais longas da lista:

E Sua Mãe Também (2001)
Direção: Alfonso Cuarón

O clássico filme de Alfonso Cuarón coleciona cenas quentes, inclusive homoeróticas. Protagonizado por Diego Luna e Gael García Bernal - em um de seus primeiros papéis de destaque -, E Sua Mãe Também é um 'road movie' (que se passa na estrada) sobre dois amigos cujo desejo sexual move suas atitudes. A cena em questão está no final do longa-metragem, quando os dois resolvem saciar as vontades da personagem Ana (Ana López Mercado), juntos.

A Bela da Tarde (1967)
Direção: Luis Buñuel

O mais popular filme do mestre do surrealismo, Luis Buñuel é repleto de cenas provocantes. O filme conta a história de Séverine (Catherine Deneuve), jovem rica e casada que procura um bordel para realizar suas fantasias sexuais longe de seu marido. A Bela da Tarde não traz cenas explícitas, mas prova que, assim como as fantasias de Séverine, a imaginação é o melhor combustível tanto na cama, quanto nas telonas.

Betty Blue (1986)
Direção: Jean-Jacques Beineix

O provocante Betty Blue acompanha um zelador que conhece uma mulher de temperamento explosivo, iniciando um romance perigoso e tentador. Em uma tarde de verão, os dois consomem seus desejos.

Marcas da Violência (2005)
Direção: David Cronenberg

Ao contrário de outros filmes em que a tensão sexual é carro-forte, Marcas da Violência mostra que família de conservadores podem ter uma vida sexual completamente ativa. Os atores Viggo Mortensen e Maria Bello, que interpretam os personagens centrais, provam que isso pode ser verdade. Na cena, Eddie Stall (Maria Bello) se veste de cheerleader para provocar Tom (Mortensen).

A Insustentável Leveza do Ser (1988)
Direção: Philip Kaufman

Na década de 60, Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) adorava ter práticas sexuais com diferentes mulheres. Neste cenário, duas delas, Sabina (Lena Olin) e Tereza (Juliette Binoche) se tornam uma constante em sua vida, formando um tenso triângulo amoroso.

A Última Ceia (2001)
Direção: Marc Foster

A Última Ceia, que aborda com brutalidade o racismo na América, tem uma das cenas de sexo mais polêmicas do cinema. Nele, a personagem de Halle Berry resolve explorar o ato sexual de forma franca, mesmo em uma situação de auto-destruição.

Pecados Íntimos (2006)
Direção: Todd Field

O comentado longa-metragem de Foster mostra um casal que se conhece no subúrbio americano. Mesmo com seus filhos como tema central, os dois resolvem não mais controlar seus instintos básicos e fazem sexo em uma lavanderia, entre outros lugares, em um ciclo que não pára.

A Secretária (2002)
Direção: Steven Shainberg

Em A Secretária, a comportada Maggie Gyllenhaal mostra que também pode ser bastante sensual nas telonas. A adolescente vivida por ela acaba de sair do sanatório e arranja um emprego de secretária. Na cena citada, ela fica completamente nua, enquanto o personagem de James Spader lhe dá um banho.

Coração Satânico (1987)
Direção: Alan Parker

No bizarro filme de horror, Coração Satânico, há de tudo um pouco. A cena mais homônima, provavelmente, envolve não apenas o sexo em si, mas muito sangue de galinha compondo o cenário.

Depois Daquele Beijo (1966)
Direção: Michelangelo Antonioni

O clássico de Antonioni é inocente, se comparado a produções mais recentes. No entanto, na cena em questão, a atriz Jane Birkin fica completamente nua, chocando as platéias conservadoras que acompanharam o longa-metragem na época. Assim, o diretor conseguiu abrir espaço para a nudez frontal em filmes dirigidos ao grande público.

O Último Tango em Paris (1973)
Direção: Bernardo Bertolucci

O tenso thriller O Último Tango em Paris mostra o affair entre uma jovem e um americano que acabou de perder a mulher, que cometeu suicídio. Os dois iniciam uma relação nada mais do que sexual - resultando na famosa cena em que eles transam de frente -, até que os sentimentos de ambos vão fugindo do controle.

Leia mais clicando aqui.

Yes, the filming was gorgeous.  Yes, the score was bone-chilling.  Yes, the mix of subtle and over-the-top acting was beyond phenomenal.  But, the story, well, the story was rather by the book (no pun intended).  I'd describe this movie as many calms before few storms.  Yes, there were rare moments of true tension and great suspense, but in the end, not all that much took place.  The climax was rather ... anti-climatic.

I did, however, enjoy the juxtaposition of the endless greed of an oil tycoon and the comparable lust for power by the preacher man.  I thought those two characters, while so similar, were perfect foils for one another.

And, of course, Daniel Day-Lewis was mesmerizing, as always.  Simply watching him transform every being of his person into the character he played made the movie worthwhile.  Otherwise, though, I'm afraid I can't say I'd recommend this film to the mainstream viewing audience.

DRAMA

August Rush
Watched August Rush about a month ago. One way to put it (as some on IMDB actually did) is a "predictable piece of trash that gets increasingly soppy with every minute into it." The other way to put it would be my way, which goes: "Wow, nice."
Not that I didn't find it predictable. Halfway through the movie (WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!),  I knew that papa Louis, mama Lyla and kiddie Evan were all going to reunite at Central Park in an immensely feel-good climax. I knew he would manage to get away from that bad Robin Williams character, who wanted nothing better than to sell him to the highest bidder, and make it to his rightful place under the sun. I also knew that Lyla's father would spill the beans in his dying hour and tell her how he had sent her child to an orphanage. It was predictable alright.
But August Rush is also one of the cutest movies I have seen till now. So it's cliched, so it runs like a fairy tale ... so what? Holes happen only when you pick them; let them be and they'll let you be too.  And besides, the movie soundtrack is superb - second, probably, only to Once.
Hmm. I know I am getting a little preachy with my philosophy but, HAH! It's my blog, ain't it?

In the Name of the Father
The first thought that struck me when I saw the cover of this DVD was how much Daniel Day Lewis looked like Jim Morrison in his most famous pose (Yup, the one with him standing shirt-less with arms outstretched). So, idjit that I am, I rushed to IMDB and started a chatroom thread on how Day could have done a much better job than Val Kilmer as Jim in The Doors. And lo! I was promptly attacked by thousands of Kilmer fans who demanded to know how "IMDB could allow trolls to have a free run in their network" and "why idiots like these keep saying how one could have been better than the other" and rattle, rattle, rattle, rattle.
By the fourth day, they were getting really nasty, so I decided to stay off that particular forum for a while. No, I can't take criticism. Not after it gets dirty, anyway.
Now, I really don't know why Hollywood happens to be so sympathetic to the Irish Republican Army, but it's really making me like them too. Look at any movie based on the subject - be it The Wind that Shakes the Barley or The Devil's Own - and you'll never find anything bad being said about them. Not that I'm complaining; to me, Cillian Murphy and Brad Pitt represent the IRA.
Well, getting back to the topic... In the Name of the Father happens to be one of my favourite movies a bit because of the movie, which is so good, and a lot because of Daniel Day, who is God.
Hmm. Still think he should have played Morrison.

Amores Perros
Gael Garcia Bernal, an ultra-hot Vanessa Bauche, lots of violence... what's there not to like? Well, the Daniel y Valeria part did grate on my nerves a little, what with the poor crippled lady hobbling around the room shrieking 'Ritchie Ritchie' non-stop for days together, but I lightened up after realising that it was done intentionally to show us what the two were going through on account of the accident that links all the stories together. The Octavio y Susana part I liked the best.

But hey! Think it's just stopped pouring outside, and maybe I should scram if I don't want to touch base with soggy underwear. So, rest of this bull later?

That is not a typo folks.  I am leading the drive to lash back at backlash, though I suppose technically it never lashed me in the first place...yet.  For me, this is a preemptive strike against a backlashing.  And this time we'll find those WMDs.

One of the most popular ways bloggers seem to be generating buzz is to grab something likable, for example bunny rabbits with big round eyes, and hating it.  Then they get their buddies to do it too, so they all conform to the bullshit hipster "non-conformity."  On a site like BuzzFeed, they gather it up and present it as a trend.  This is the same thing the stockbrokers in Boiler Room did: they created their own hype, their own buzz, their own inflated stock price.

Do a search for backlash on BuzzFeed. 93 hits and counting.  Who will you find there?  People like Zooey Deschanel, Michael Cera, Tina Fey, and Daniel Day Lewis.  I call bullshit.  Tell me what is wrong with any of them.  I dare you.  What?  Is Tina Fey too funny (and hot IMO)?  Is Michael Cera too awkwardly charming?  Is Zooey Deschanel not the most adorable fucking thing ever?  Is Daniel Day Lewis too good of an actor?

Fuck you backlash machine.  You fake buzz generating succubus.

Go to the gallery for pictures of more stuff bloggers would pick on needlessly, given the chance.

In less than forty pages, I'm done with the book. I don't want it--or rather, my fascination with it--to end yet, so I'm searching for the movie version. Is this even available on DVD locally, legally? I've seen the trailer on youtube, and am super thrilled to see Daniel Day-Lewis portraying the ladykiller Tomas. Tomas = Daniel Day-Lewis?!?!?! Needless to say, Es muss sein! (It must be!)

You know what I want for Christmas!!!!

(Erm, the DVD or DDL? Hee)

I can answer a few questions about the upcoming Frankie and Chub video:

Will the production values be just as crappy?
Probably. But on a more ambitious scale.

Will Frankie's obsession with Tina Fey be addressed?
Most likely, unless he's moved on to Sarah Palin.

Will Tina Yothers make another cameo appearance?
 Yes, but you'll have to wear the special 3-D glasses to see her.

Will there be slapping?
There will be slapping. (That would make a great title for a Daniel Day-Lewis film, wouldn't it?)

Gangs of New York [Blu-ray] is available at Amazon for $19.95. To Order click here
Amazon Product Pages contain a lot of other details on this product as Customer Reviews, Sales Ranking, Special Offers, Alternate products that customers are going for and much more.Want to read these details? click here

Want to get some other Format / Binding / Version? You can search for them from here

Other Products of Interest

• The Aviator [Blu-ray]
• The Godfather - The Coppola Restoration Giftset (The Godfather / The Godfather Part II / The Godfather Part III) [Blu-ray]
• Kill Bill - Volumes 1 & 2 [Blu-ray] (Amazon.com Exclusive)
• There Will Be Blood [Blu-ray]
• Catch Me If You Can (Widescreen Two-Disc Special Edition)

2- Cães de Aluguel (Reservoir Dogs, Quentin Tarantino)E sou apresentada a Quentin Tarantino. Basta

3- Os Imperdoáveis (Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood)E sou apresentada a Clint Eastwood. Peraí, é o Clint velho de guerra, esse já conheço! Esse ano coincidentemente também marca minha mudança da zona rural para a urbana e, na boa, eu devia ter ficado por lá plantando feijão e o William Munny também. Que foi, ninguém come feijão?

4- Vício Frenético (Bad Lieutenant, Abel Ferrara)Foda-se tudo, quem domina o mundo é Harvey Keitel.

5- O Último dos Moicanos (The Last of the Mohicans, Michael Mann)Daniel Day Lewis indião cabeludo num filme do Michael Mann? De quebra o livro do Fenimore Cooper era um dos meus preferidos de quando era criança. Precisando urgentemente rever para melhor apreciação do poderio inesgotável de Michael Mann, pois o poderio do Day Lewis a gente vê pela foto.

Real melhor filme do ano: Comida (Jídlo, Jan Svankmajer)[dailymotion id=k35td0UYWVV9JmeOEy]

Nota: Viu? Viu? Num mesmo post citei Herzog e Bad Lieutenant e fiquei quieta! hehehe

i can't figure out the time on this damn thing. so all the times for my posts are wrong.
there is no time, anyway.

this is an actual page from my journal that i wanted to post on here.

movies i want to see
tropic thunder
mamma mia!
burn after reading
my best friend's girl
the other boleyn girl
vicky christina barcelona
smokin' aces - loved it. loved it loved it loved it loved it.
the ballad of jack and rose- yeah no, see.. i thought it was about titanic. i was so wrong. it was different. (but daniel day lewis is sexy, so that helped.)
white oleander
there will be blood
no reservations - it was cute.
college
the women - great chick flick. a little drawn out, but i think the very last scene made the whole movie.
righteous kill
house bunny- hilarious. who doesn't love anna farris?
lakeview terrace- unfortunately, i was a bit drunk so i don't remember much. but i think it was good!
secret life of bees
quarantine

back to bed - Jude.

2- Batom no Colarinho (Lipstick on Your Collar)Sou uma dessas pessoas afortunadas que viram o Ewan McGregor antes mesmo dele se enfurnar no cinema com Peter Greenaway e Danny Boyle, quando esta minissérie do soberbo dramaturgo Dennis Potter passou na TV cultura. Paixão à primeira vista, quem diria que anos depois ele se tornaria O scotchy master.

3- É Tudo Verdade (It's All True)Nosso amado Salve Salve Getúlio fez cara feia, um dos carinhas da Jangada morreu e a RKO mandou o diretor voltar para casa quando já tinham destruído a edição e o sentido de Soberba. Nesse ano foi lançado os resquícios do filme da política da boa vizinhança de Orson Welles e fica claro que este é expressivo demais para concorrer com o Zé Carioca. Tudo bem, isso acabou rendendo uma vida de obsessão ao Sganzerla.

4- A Época da Inocência (The Age of Innocence)Nunca um beijo na mão foi tão erótico e nem Scorsese mais subestimado.

5- Amor À Queima Roupa (True Romance)Taí um filme que ... (Tony Scott filho da puta), mas que adoro. Tal qual Assassinos por Natureza não me canso de assistir, ambos são definitivamente românticos e saídos da mente de Tarantino, além de cults óbvios. Passei anos querendo uma saia com estampa de vaca igual da Patrícia Arquette, encontrei num brechó e não serviu. Gary Oldman rastafári cafetão, Val Kilmer de Elvis, Brad Pitt chapadão e o tal duelo entre Christopher Walken e Dennis Hopper, até o Tony Soprano e o Primo Cruzado dão as caras por alí. Bronson Pinchot é ídolo.

Real Melhor Filme do Ano: Blue do Derek Jarman

There will be blood hat auf jeden Fall eine Menge zu bieten. Unglaublich atmosphärische "Musik" (von Radiohead-Gitarrist Jonny Greenwood), eindrucksvolle Bilder und schauspielerische Glanzleistung nicht nur von Daniel Day Lewis. Die Geschichte ist hart und bietet keine Erlösung für den Zuschauer. In Amerika herrscht der Kampf ums Öl und um die Seelen der Menschen, man kann die Anfänge von Lobbyismus und Co. bewundern und in tiefe menschliche Abgründe schauen. Ruhig, lang, heftig und sehenswert.

O roteiro é baseado no livro Oil! (1972) do escritor Upton Sinclair.

Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis) e o seu filho são caçadores de petróleo que perfuram poços na califórnia no inicio do século XX. O pano de fundo do filme é o confronto entre Plainview e um jovem pastor, Eli Sunday (Paul Dano).

Quando Manohla Dargis, crítica de filmes do THE NEW YORK TIMES disse que Sangue Negro é ''Um pesadelo épico, expelindo fogo, enxofre e maldição das profundezas do inferno'' ela não estava brincando, o filme não tem final feliz, não tem sentimentos, é brutal, decadente e cru do início ao fim, atualmente esta faltando finais felizes no cinema, alguns acham isso ruim, mas mesmo quem acha isso ruim,não pode tirar o mérito de clássico de Sangue Negro, talvez o mais brutal dentre essa nova safra de filmes.

A fotografia do filme é outro ponto a ser notado, com cenarios que visam dar uma dimensão de um deserto intocado é de arrepiar. O confronto entre Plainview e Sunday (Daniel Day Lewis e Paul Dano) um verdadeiro duelo de gigantes, só não se compara com um confronto entre o bem e o mal, por que nesse cenario não existe mocinhas, não existe fracos, esperança, nem heróis ali há um confronto de ''mal contra mal''.

A trilha sonora feita por Jonny Greenwood (Guitarrista da banda Radiohead) é tenebrosa e totalmente pós - moderna e sem ela o filme não seria a mesma coisa, falando em pós - modernidade, Sangue Negro talvez se consagre como o primeiro grande clássico do cinema pós moderno.

É um dos filmes mais completos ja feitos e afirmo aqui que daqui a alguns anos ele sera consagrado como um dos maiores clássicos do cinema americano.

Oscar 2007

Venceu nas categorias de Melhor Ator Principal (Daniel Day-Lewis) e Melhor Fotografia (Robert Elswit).

Indicado nas categorias de Melhor Filme, Melhor Direção, Melhor Roteiro Adaptado, Melhor Direção de Arte, Melhor Edição e Melhor Edição de Som.

Nota: 10

Trailer:

Only a couple times in my life have I not finished a movie. And in neither case, I hadn't paid for a ticket or a rental. Both of which will, likely, be the subject of futures posts in this series. They were "What the %$&@ Do We Know?!?" and "Dances With Wolves." Though the latter is simply entertaining as one of the many who are inexplicably entranced by the new Battlestar series. In both of those cases, I borrowed it from someone else, so I felt no need to "get my money's worth" from the situation. For the sake of this conversation, "Dances With Wolves," is more relevant.

Both "There Will Be Blood" and "Dances With Wolves" make me think of what the Oscars are all about. Undeserving films that reek of someone trying desperately to be artsy and proactive, while only coming across pretentious and dull. In other words, I see what the critics saw, I just never bought it.

DDL, as far as I'm concerned, deserved the Oscar. In many others (Gangs of New York come to mind) I wholy respected his talent and performance but still found the overall package of a movie dry and dull. When a movie blatantly attempts to be gritty, it feels false, and its hard for me to get sucked into the world and find it believable. And I found that to be the case here as well. That being said, there is no way that he lives up to the hype surrounding it. Would there have been a bigger upset (Norbit winning for makeup aside) at the past Oscars if he hadn't won? I feel like this wasn't due to his competition, or him having a legendary performance that will be held in an Anthony Hopkins/Silence of the Lambs sort of way. He was fabulous. A character completely driven by competition, will his only regard being how to 1-up himself and everyone around him. The movie opened with such promise, seeing this man push himself beyond the point of injury, and with no one crackin' the whip above him. Self-made man and all that stuff. But were we so desperate for an interesting in a fictional biopic that anyone willing to become a tortured soul and expose the darkest parts of himself will make us stand and cheer? Granted, flipping through recent nominees for Best Actor, very few performances that "stood above the crowd stand out. PSH as Capote is the only other nominee/winner that made me pause to wonder. So maybe we were just due, and we were going to embrace whatever movie came along. But the over-hype kills it.

If I'd gone in expecting a grand performance and a solid movie, I think I could have left ok. But the critics lead you to believe that this was going to be the Next Big Thing. The acting is done well (I forgot to mention, kudos to Paul Dano for his preacher/scammer/who-knows-what performance) but the characters just leave you feeling like your watching segmented whiplash. It never comes together. You watch acts, the earth explodes, you watch people well past the brink of insanity, and then back. Sure, it is all connected, but for something that tries to hard to be a "era-piece" I just never cared or felt I could enter the world created. And the more I felt the movie trying to force me, the more I resisted and became aware that it was just trying to hard.

So in the end, I found a movie that was, taken in parts, OK. Lots of fun conversations could be had peering into these little windows of religious zealousness, family, greed, and too many things to distill. The sum of its parts were just mediocre, and especially in (mercifully) not winning "Best Picture) I can only hope is will have a quick death and fade away from everyone's "Modern Day Top 100 Lists."

But here's an interesting note. Did you know that the milkshake bit was non-fiction? True story...from the Teapot Dome Scandal. Check it out...Senator Albert Fall is the original milkshake drinker.

Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Daniel Plainview, the selfproclaimed "oil man" who exploits and develops oil resources in California. He travels with his would-be son H.W. played by Dillon Freasier. Most of the action takes place in Little Boston, near the Sunday family ranch.

Plainvew gets a tip from Paul Sunday, twin brother to Eli, who will later play a pivotal role in the rest of the action. Both Paul and Eli are played by Paul Dano. On hearing that there is oil on the Sunday ranch, Plainview takes his adopted son H.W. with him and goes to investigate. Most of the rest of the movie takes place in and around this small community, which experiences the shock and boom of becoming an oil town.

Great attention has been played to detail in the look and feel of the movie. Even the structures have that beaten up, sepia tinted well-worn look. Dress and style are impeccable and the scenery is beatuifully bleak and harsh. When Plainview promises to build a school for the town saying that the children are the future you get teh feeling he is a slick politician as well as a ruthless business man.

And then there is the church. The most intense conflict of the movie has its nexus in the headbutting between Plainview and Sunday which translates into a conflict between the church and the developer. Money and religion, to put it plainly. But it seems to be more than that. Whatever is going on between Sunday and Plainview seems personal. At one point Plainvew cynically allows himself to be baptised in order to seal a deal for access to some land. He later forces the preacher Sunday to renounce his God in order to make money off the only piece of land in the area Plainview does not own. There's a lot of threats and tit-for-tat between Plainview and Sunday.

Loosely based on Upton Sinclair's novel "Oil" the movie is very ambitious and makes good use of its epic running time of two and a half hours. It shows the paranoia and lack of empathy of Plainvew in all its glory, the greed and oportunism of the oil developers as well as well as those who get swept up in its wake. Day-Lewis delivers a mesmerising performance as usual, complete with odd speech patterns and a distinct walk and all the rest. Perhaps I am a little spoiled when it comes to Day-Lewis in general.

But, I find I have reservations. Day-Lewis and Dano both seem to have a little too much fun at times. They have been given pretty free reins as far as I can tell, and it's not that I don't enjoy their encounters, but at times they seem a little over the top. It's not that they are in any way bad, per se, but something about them seems a little off. I don't know if it is just the sudden explosions of emotion that stick like a bone after all the calmly observed action.

I don't really feel there's much character development either. Plainview starts out a bastard and remains a bastard to the end. He one-ups himself in being a bastard, but that's about it. Sunday is a creep. He keeps on being a creep. H.W. grows up, and as could be expected from his step father's complete rejection of him after he turns deaf in an accident, rejects Plainview and goes off with his wife to set up business for himself. No anagnorisis. No great peripeteia. Just business as usual.

I don't mean to convey the message that I didn't manage to enjoy myself. I don't know what I was expecting, but somehow I felt there was something missing. And as for the music it was frankly overbearing at times and that always annoys me.

Good stuff, but not quite as good as it thinks it is, or as good as it could be.

MULE

--I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people.

Daniel Day-Lewis – that is a name guaranteed to raise my interest in a film. I’ve been amazed by him since I was a freshman in college and saw A Room With a View. He took stuffy, priggish Cecil Vyse and made me actually feel compassion for him – not enough to make me want the heroine to marry him, but in Day-Lewis’s hands the character became recognizably human and not a caricature. He followed this performance with many other dazzling works: The Unbearable Lightness of Being, My Left Foot, Last of the Mohicans, The Age of Innocence, In the Name of the Father, The Crucible, The Boxer, Gangs of New York. If pressed to name the greatest actor of our times, I would have to name Day-Lewis. His characters are always three dimensional, and he never repeats himself. He’s truly an actor’s actor.

It was no surprise then, that he won the Best Actor Academy Award this year. Day-Lewis approaches his roles like a master craftsman. He chooses his projects carefully and gives himself over completely to the creation of his final product. I knew without having seen the film completely that this would once again be an extraordinary piece of acting, yet I was still shaken by the power of Daniel Plainview and his descent into madness.

Loosely based upon Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil, There Will Be Blood is the story of Plainview, an oil man, and his rise to excessive wealth. We see Plainview’s iron will from the very beginning when he falls to the bottom of a mine shaft, breaks his leg, and proceeds to grit his teeth, pull himself out of the shaft, into town and stake his claim. Nothing stands in the way of what he wants.

As many people have noticed, Day-Lewis has given Plainview a familiar voice. Close your eyes and you would swear you were listening to John Huston, the legendary film director. An authoritative voice, it coaxes and cajoles, flatters and seduces the people that Plainview does business with – all except Eli Sunday. Although, reflecting once again upon the end of the movie, I think that’s wrong. Plainview did pull Eli under his spell, but in a different way from other folk. Eli wants to be Daniel Plainview, but his own version. He wants to be a powerful man of God and the enmity that grows between them stems from Plainview’s rejection of Eli early in the film. They are two sides of the same coin, but Plainview loathes Eli’s hypocrisy. Eli uses his influence to make things difficult for Plainview but always longs for them to be closer – for them to work together symbiotically gaining wealth and power. This is unattractive to Plainview for two reasons. One is as he says in his quote above, he can’t abide competition. The other is that for all of his seductive ways Plainview never truly hides what he is the way that Eli does.

For once, I have to disagree with Roger Ebert. In his review he states that Plainview has no feelings for his son, and that the boy is only a pawn to be used to help smooth over business deals. Of course, he does use H. W. for this purpose, but I think there is more to their relationship than that. H. W. is his father’s anchor to reality and sanity. This is shown most clearly after the boy is deafened in an accident and sent away to a special school. Up to this point, Plainview has been shown to be manipulative and ruthless but rational. After H. W. leaves, Plainview becomes steadily unhinged as if that boy were the glue that held him together or perhaps, the mirror that reflected the image that Plainview wanted to see. In fact, I think that the act of sending his son away is the act that starts eating away at Plainview’s sanity. There are constant references to him “abandoning his child,” and he gets very defensive about it; in fact, he plainly threatens to cut the throat of a businessman who only hinted that he should be taking better care of H. W.

Before H. W.’s accident, Plainview is shown as a caring father – a bit remote at times, but he loves to share his work with his son, not just bring him in as a shill. He teaches him the business in all of its aspects. When H. W. mentions that the little girl he has made friends with has been beaten by her father for failing to say her prayers, Plainview takes steps to ensure that doesn’t continue. He shows physical affection to the boy and tells him that he loves him. After the accident and H. W.’s removal, when Eli temporarily gains the upper hand over Plainview and humiliates him in the church by making him confess, “I’ve abandoned my child. I’ve abandoned my boy,” I suspect something cracks even further in Plainview’s mental stability. He’s never the same afterwards.

I’ve never read Upton Sinclair’s Oil, but this movie reminds me of works by Sinclair Lewis (Babbit and Main Street spring to mind). Lewis loathed hypocrisy and frequently exposed it in his works. Elmer Gantry is another novel dealing with a hypocritical preacher. It was filmed in 1960 with a brilliant performance by Burt Lancaster in the title role. It is Eli’s hypocrisy that fuels a great portion of Plainview’s rage in this film. To Daniel, greed is a natural human desire, to hide that behind poses of spirituality or morality is unnatural and obscene.

Paul Thomas Anderson has created a strange, powerful film. It’s not perfect. Other characters are much less fleshed out and women are almost non-existent. Still, it’s quite an achievement with another breath-taking performance by Daniel Day-Lewis that will be talked about for years.

Pavisam savādā kārtā šoreiz Maikls Manns nolēma atteikties no savas iecienītās urbānās vides un pārcelties pie mežonīgās dabas. "Pēdējā mohikāņa" sižetu, domāju, zin katrs sevi cienošs pēcskolas vecuma jaunietis. Čingačguks, Kora, Edvarda forts, franči, angļi, nelietīgie hūroņi, baltais cilvēks runā divās mēlēs. Tiesa, ir nedaudz dīvaina sajūta: labi pazīstamā bulgāra Goiko vietā sarunas ar teroristiem ved izcilais aktieris Daniels "Vanagacs" Dejs-Lūiss, kurš uz beigām jau naturāli pēc Mela Gibsona Drožsirža sāk izskatīties, taču kopumā mežonīgi pastorālā drāma ir teicami uzkonstruēta un atnesa Dantem "BAFTU" par mākslinieciski augstvērtīgām ziņām no rezervātiem.

in 2008 martcore says
apm.ņurd.

Fé e ambição andam juntas.

Ontem tive que tirar um atraso cinematográfico. Devido a diversos fatores, ainda não tinha assistido ao filme Sangue Negro de Paul Thomas Anderson, um dos melhores diretores da atualidade. Gostei e muito de seus três filmes anteriores, Boogie Nights, Magnólia e Embriagado de Amor. A expectativa para esse filme era grande, principalmente depois de tantas respostas positivas por parte da crítica especializada. Eis que uma ansiedade traz sentimentos diversos quando realizamos o que nos deixava ansioso.

O filme conta a história de Daniel Plainview, um mineiro/geólogo que busca a todo instante, independentemente de quem esteja ao lado, a frente, atrás, o seu maior artigo de fé: ficar rico o petróleo. No meio de seu caminho, entre outros está um pastor evangélico que tem sua maior ambição: ser reconhecido como um grande homem de fé.

Apesar de ser um pouco lenta, a narrativa, vemos um diretor primoroso, que não precisa provar mais nada, ainda mais quando conta no elenco Daniel Day-Lewis, no papel principal e praticamente leva sozinho o filme, numa parceria ente diretor-ator que poucos filmes fizeram tão bem e que valem todos os prêmios que ganharam. Os outros são coadjuvantes não somente no filme mas na ambição do personagem, que parece não transmitir nenhum ressentimento ou qualquer tipo de conflito entre o que faz e o que sente, como se sempre houvesse um propósito para seus atos. Ao mesmo tempo, mas em menor volume e vigor, o pastor, vivido por Paul Dano, tem seus objetivos claros, os quais se cruzam com esse homem com pouco coração e completamente desprovido de compaixão. Mas quando se espera compaixão e amor por parte desse “homem de Deus”, a semelhança com Daniel Plainview é evidente.

Fanatismo e fé se misturam em objetivos diferentes mas que têm encontros comuns em seus caminhos e esses caminhos são magistralmente transpostos à tela em cenas hora poéticas, hora longas demais, mas que sem dúvida alguma, deixa o filme muito belo, apesar de uma história não tão bela.