-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

*** Official THERE WILL BE BLOOD Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
60 replies to this topic

#1 of 61 Dennis Castro

Dennis Castro

    Second Unit

  • 291 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2003

Posted January 07 2008 - 01:57 AM

Couldn't find a discussion thread on this.

Another fantastic performance from Daniell Day-Lewis.

A relentlessly brutal film.

Loved it!
S&S flims seen: 33

Most Recent:
Solaris/****
Blade Runner/***The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly/****

#2 of 61 Eric Peterson

Eric Peterson

    Screenwriter

  • 2,959 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 02 2001

Posted January 07 2008 - 02:30 AM

I'm dying to see this film, but it's still in limited release. I live in the Chicago burbs, but it's only showing on 3 screens downtown. I was close to pulling the trigger yesterday, but by the end of the day, it was cost $75+ for two of us to drive downtown, pay for parking, two tickets, & refreshments. I decided to wait and hopefully it expands next weekend.

#3 of 61 Dennis Castro

Dennis Castro

    Second Unit

  • 291 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2003

Posted January 07 2008 - 04:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Ruben
I was also troubled by the decision to have Paul Dano play both brothers, Paul and Eli Sunday. A lot of reviewers refer to them as "twin" brothers, but no one ever says that, and in fact it's been widely reported that another actor was originally cast as Eli. Introducing two characters played by the same actor with no explanation and no significant change in appearance creates narrative confusion at a point in the film when the plot is still getting established, and I think it was a mistake. (Which is not to say that casting Dano was a mistake; he nails the role.).

There is an odd moment were Eli introduces himself the to Daniel. Daniel has a what seems to me a very odd reaction, almost a "What the ????" expression and I believe he actually turns and looks and his son H.W. as well. Almost as if he is thrown a little that Paul and Eli could be twins? The fact that he didn't say anything about it the rest of the film seems to me to fit his character. I don't know. Maybe I misinterpreted it or read too much into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
Still, for all my problems with it, it's a true original, unlike anything I've seen before, from Anderson or anyone else. Those don't come along often.

M

I agree.
S&S flims seen: 33

Most Recent:
Solaris/****
Blade Runner/***The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly/****

#4 of 61 Rhett_Y

Rhett_Y

    Screenwriter

  • 1,252 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2001

Posted January 07 2008 - 06:41 AM

I want to see this one to. It looks very very intriguing, and for some reason very brutal. Not just brutal violence but brutal for the time period. Does that make sense?

It is on my list of films to see very soon.
My DVD Collection

#5 of 61 Kirk Tsai

Kirk Tsai

    Screenwriter

  • 1,424 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 2000

Posted January 07 2008 - 11:36 AM

Quote:
I was also troubled by the decision to have Paul Dano play both brothers, Paul and Eli Sunday. A lot of reviewers refer to them as "twin" brothers, but no one ever says that, and in fact it's been widely reported that another actor was originally cast as Eli. Introducing two characters played by the same actor with no explanation and no significant change in appearance creates narrative confusion at a point in the film when the plot is still getting established, and I think it was a mistake. (Which is not to say that casting Dano was a mistake; he nails the role.)

I agree. I had not known there were two characters, and for me during the screening, I thought that perhaps Eli had simply given the false name of Paul when he first met Plainview (and hence the look between Daniel and HW later when Eli introduces himself). It wasn't until later in the movie that I realized they were two separate guys.

#6 of 61 Robert Holloway

Robert Holloway

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 135 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted January 07 2008 - 05:45 PM

Steve

Great comments. Hard to imagine the Paul / Eli thing was an error. It;'s set me thinking and I'd love to heard PTA's point of view

It certainly is an intimate epic that we are kept at arms length from by the character of Daniel Plainview.

Great to see another agree on the score. i simply can't believe anyone thinking it was nayhting other than amazing. The use of Brahms and I think, Arvo Part was very clever

By the way, when you were an hour or so into the film did you have this sense of dread that there will in deed be ... blood?

Rob

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Y
My reaction to Paul/Eli was exactly the same as Kirk's, and I'm not usually thrown by these things. Upon leaving the theater I was convinced such a cheeky stroke must have been intentional, even if it was a relatively "last-minute" artistic decision due to some casting changes. In a movie where everything else is so carefully crafted, you can bet its ambiguity was not lost on the filmmaker(s).

I, like Michael, had issues with the film, though it has lingered in my memory - always a good sign. But I just can't pin it down. On the whole it was very compelling. But what exactly are we meant to digest?

The "tapering of vision" in the last act makes sense when you realize that the film has really very little to say about greed, oil, or religion (nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times), and is really only interested in one man's doomed and blackened heart. Making that heart a metaphor for America is another matter.

It's an intimate epic, and yet the object of the camera's intimacy keeps us at bay with rhetoric and violence, so we are left with a feeling.... is this all there is to Daniel Plainview? (Yes and No are my answers so far)

I loved Johnny Greenwood's score, which forced you out of the reverie that such horse-clopping visuals might provoke in an audience. It seemed to drag the whole oily affair out of the earth and into a kind of doomsday.

It was also nice to see a little-used Brahms concerto play such a prominent role in the storytelling.

I dream in HD
.....of Branagh's Hamlet

Member since
.... The Start

#7 of 61 Kirk Tsai

Kirk Tsai

    Screenwriter

  • 1,424 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 2000

Posted January 08 2008 - 12:37 PM

Quote:
Great to see another agree on the score. i simply can't believe anyone thinking it was nayhting other than amazing.

PTA's Punch Drunk Love also featured an aggressive film score, and I recall hearing several people voicing their displeasure about it. The score is not dissimilar here, with a lot of it being deliberately unpleasant or ominous. I expect many viewers to actively dislike it. After Punch Drunk Love, I suspect PTA is okay with that.

For those who have yet to see it, the ending of the credits also has a dedication.

#8 of 61 MikeRS

MikeRS

    Screenwriter

  • 1,326 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 17 2002

Posted January 08 2008 - 07:50 PM

Oh yeah....

The Baptism scene rules all.

One of the most entertaining (Posted Image ) scenes of the decade.

#9 of 61 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Studio Mogul

  • 24,498 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted January 12 2008 - 11:44 PM

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "There Will Be Blood". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "There Will Be Blood" should be posted to the http://www.hometheat....ml#post3304785.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#10 of 61 Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,679 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted January 13 2008 - 06:02 AM

One thing about the title and how it relates to the film as a whole: Bloodlines.

Daniel Plainview was dealing with fake blood relatives for most of the film (H.W. was his fake son, no true relation, and his "brother" turned out to be a faker as well). But neither betrayed him in the truest sense, though Daniel couldn't quite reconcile their lack of the Plainville DNA to ever fully embrace them as family in spite of their own ambitions, they just weren't of his blood relation and that was that. Now contrast that with Eli and Paul Sunday where Paul willingly betrays his family - his blood, for money and ambition, and no appreciable remorse of the impact it would have on his family's future.

Is blood thicker than oil? Posted Image

Just something to ponder.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#11 of 61 Thi Them

Thi Them

    Producer

  • 3,650 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 20 1999

Posted January 13 2008 - 03:44 PM

I thought Dano was playing the same character throughout the whole movie? We never see Paul and Eli together, especially when they should be together during the family dinner. Or, did Paul leave his family with the money he received from Daniel?

~T

#12 of 61 Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,679 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted January 13 2008 - 04:47 PM

There are 2 distinct brothers. Paul took off after getting his blood money from Daniel. Daniel alluded to this during the final scene.

Originally 2 actors were to play 2 Sunday brothers, but the actor who was to play Paul didn't work out, so PT Anderson decided to just make them twins, and Dano stepped up to the plate to play both roles.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#13 of 61 JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor

  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted January 14 2008 - 02:39 AM

Dying to see this.

#14 of 61 Quentin

Quentin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,492 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002
  • Real Name:Quentin H
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted January 14 2008 - 05:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sun
There are 2 distinct brothers. Paul took off after getting his blood money from Daniel. Daniel alluded to this during the final scene.

Originally 2 actors were to play 2 Sunday brothers, but the actor who was to play Paul didn't work out, so PT Anderson decided to just make them twins, and Dano stepped up to the plate to play both roles.

Yes. If nothing else, the final scene absolutely confirms there are 2 distinct brothers as Daniel taunts Eli with news of his brother Paul's success.

For a while, I admit, I thought they were the same - that Eli had 'played' Paul and had a grand plan. But, this is simply not the case.

#15 of 61 Eric Peterson

Eric Peterson

    Screenwriter

  • 2,959 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 02 2001

Posted January 15 2008 - 05:08 AM

I finally got to see this film on Saturday and it's still settling in. DDL's performance is certainly noteworthy, but I also thought that his turn as "Bill the Butcher" was an Oscar lock and that turned out to be untrue.

For a 2-1/2+ hour film, it moved along fairly rapidly and several shots were breathtaking including some of the early footage in the diamond mines, the early oil wells, the oil fire, & the baptism scene. During the baptism scene there were many people laughing - GREAT STUFF.

My problem with the film is similar to many others that I've read and is not specifically the ending, but the final 30 minutes or so. The tone changes dramatically when the plot fast forwards to 1927 and it feels like a completely different movie. I'm not sure what PTA could have done to improve this, but as it currently is, I found it jarring.

This is still one of the very best films of the year, and I cannot wait to see it again, but I'm not sure if I'll spend the money at the theater again or wait for DVD.

#16 of 61 Vickie_M

Vickie_M

    Producer

  • 3,208 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 2001

Posted January 15 2008 - 06:31 AM

Interesting thoughts Patrick!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sun
Paul willingly betrays his family - his blood, for money and ambition, and no appreciable remorse of the impact it would have on his family's future.
I don't think we know enough about Paul to be sure of that. His family was messed up. The father was a brutal weakling (he let Plainview walk all over him, but he'd beat Mary for not praying), his twin brother was a con artist posing as a evangelist, plus he lived in Little Boston, which looked to be one of the most boring places in the universe, until Plainview showed up. My take is that Paul, a religious and decent person, just wanted OUT and AWAY, to live his own life somewhere else. He couldn't do that without money, and selling information to Plainview was an easy way to make money. He had no idea that Plainview would cheat his family. He probably thought that they'd make a lot of money and be set for life. His only asking for $500 was pretty selfless, compared to what his family would make.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Plainview was telling Eli the truth when he said that Paul had himself a well making $5000 a week, I think he just said that to screw with Eli's head (in one of the funniest scenes in any movie I've seen, along with the "Baptism" scene).

Oh god, I love this movie. I've seen it 3 times so far, and I plan to see it again, several times. I believe it's an instant American classic, and besides loving the movie, it's a thrill to be able to see a brand new classic in the theater, on the big screen.
Favorite film of 2008 (so far): The Fall

Favorite films of 2007: There Will Be Blood, Across The Universe, The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, Black Snake Moan

My Happy Rhodes MySpace page

#17 of 61 Chuck Mayer

Chuck Mayer

    Lead Actor

  • 7,977 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Chuck Mayer
  • LocationNorthern Virginia

Posted January 17 2008 - 03:24 AM

I don't believe Eli was initially a con artist...I think he was an evangelist. Only after years of success did he succumb to temptation and become a con artist. That's speculation, but I believed that he believed in 1902 everything he said.

Though certainly Plainview was lying to Eli about Paul. He never saw him again. He was doing that to destroy Eli mentally. I do disagree that Paul didn't know what Plainview would do. The kid sold his family for $500.
Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#18 of 61 Henry Gale

Henry Gale

    Producer

  • 4,633 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 10 1999

Posted January 24 2008 - 11:32 AM

Location Goof
Lots of Texas and California locations, beautifully shot etc.
There were some sequences however when the camera had one POV you'd be near Marfa TX and the the angle would change and suddenly there were the smooth hills of California. Probably not the sort of thing many viewers would even notice.
Now, as to the goof.
Preacher boy is headed for his first showdown (where he's about to get slapped silly) and he walks along purposefully past an oil pipe and sludge basin.
The camera angle changes and suddenly the background is...a DAM! Or perhaps it's a LEVEE buts it's NOT around in ANY other shots we see of the derrick area.
It's huge, it fills up the whole background and it's construction is obvious due to the distinctive large slabs of concrete.
Anyone else notice?
"I was born to ramble, born to rove
Some men are searchin for the Holy Grail
But there ain't nothin sweeter 
Than riden' the rails."
-Tom Waits-

#19 of 61 Bradley Newton

Bradley Newton

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 92 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 14 2005

Posted January 26 2008 - 10:52 AM

I saw it yesterday and was completely blown away. I'm glad I knew very little about it going in. What happens to H.W., the brother, when and where there is blood, etc. were plot points that caught me completely off guard. And that last line!! Brilliant. Just brilliant. I'm wanting to see this probably at least two more times on the big screen and I want to drag along as many friends as possible. It's rare that a film lives up to the hype, especially after being SO dissapointed by No Country For Old Men-(loved the first two hours but was very let down from the pool scene to the credits).

#20 of 61 Brett_M

Brett_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,306 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 2004
  • Real Name:Brett Meyer
  • LocationMos Eisley Spaceport

Posted January 26 2008 - 02:08 PM

I am shocked this moving is garnering so much praise. It started well and went nowhere. Relentlessly pointless. Meandering. Daniel Day-Lewis is phenomenal but the without him, this movie would crumble under it's own girth.

A 2 hour and 38 minute movie where nothing happens. Disappointed doesn't even touch how I feel right now.

I'm finished.
Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it meant to roast in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow