Pop culture Politics Perversion Advice Speedmonkey.net

Details

Rate

Images

Paul Thomas Anderson, you made "Magnolia." You made it, I saw it, and that means I saw you jerk yourself off for three-hours-plus. But then, you made "Punch Drunk Love," and now "There Will Be Blood." I forgive you.

This is no little thing for me to say. "Fagnolia" was the most pompous bullshit I've ever seen outside of experimental art films that piss the audience off on purpose so the little beret-wearing piece of shit "auteur" in the corner can study their reaction and observe something that he/she finds deep about it
for his/her own good.

It wasn't the study of coincidences in life or parents and children, as you may have planned, but a well-funded, well-casted speech on film that said to the viewer, "In the HUMBLE opinion of this narrator, this is how it is, and anyone who thinks different clearly has no heart or compassion for his fellow man because, look, look, I had some random fucker in some dumbass scene holding up a sign that refers to The Book of Exodus and then had frogs fall out of the sky so I could bring my dumbass biblical reference at the end full circle in my jerkoff film to re-solidify after all the preachy dialogue that my word is truly the word of God."

No one but M. Night Shyamalangadingdong could hold a candle to such moronic arrogance when it came to that one, Mr. Anderson.

But let's get to "There Will Be Blood" now, because I feel like I've just watched a retarded child grow up to cure maybe not cancer, but at least make one helluva damn good movie.

In this film, "There Will Be Blood," Daniel Day Lewis swallows the soul of the character Daniel Plainview, an oilman at the turn of the 20th century who sets out to make his mark in Southern California, that setting being the ONLY thing in here that stays consistent with the rest of your films, Paul.

I call you Paul now because I feel too much like your disappointed father after "Magnolia" to keep calling you Mr. Anderson and yet too admiring of you to call you by your old professional name... PT. 

Really, were you going to start a circus? Paul's better. Welcome home, Paul. Anyway, not that you need to know this (since you made the flick), but I'll recap the plot just in case this movie review gets read by anyone who's not you. This is a website, after all. So, yeah, Plainview uncovers some oil and plans to move towns, but not before one of his men is killed in a drilling accident and is survived by his baby boy.

In a moment that keeps us from hating Plainview through some shady moves he makes, he travels with the baby at his side to seek his further fortune. Once he is established, a young man guides him to a town where oil is coming out of the ground without even a drill. It's here, in the town of Little Boston, where Plainview stakes his real claim and ends up having to deal with his new nemesis, a preacher boy named Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), whose yearn for riches and fame seeps through his "Christ-like" demeanor, but who Plainview can see through. And as Plainview can spot a bad man when he sees one, Eli can (or thinks he can) see the goodness that weakens men like Plainview in their greedy efforts.

Their relationship is the backbone of the story, as it comes down to not some shallow symbolic crap of how it's a battle between God and the Devil, but a character study so thick that it makes it impossible to sum up in such a shallow way. While their relationship is the backbone, the relationship between Plainview and his son (played with grace for a child actor, not like that annoying little Damien-like sack of shit who played the genius prophet kid in "Magnolia") is the heart of the story, and it gets tugged without ever really being tugged, only nagged at, which could be seen as how Plainview sees love (nagging), which would likely be accurate in a film where it's so damn apparent that whoever put this together knew what they were doing.

As Plainview is nagged to love his fellow man, we are nagged to love him just the same. Never does one necessarily identify with him, but the infrequent moments where his blackened armor is knicked or, in some cases, stripped of him, keep us on his side.

A character study is, again, what this is, and a fine one. This is a film that knows its characters so well that one could see it as a good flick if it were told from ANY character's perspective, which is rare as hell and faaaaar more powerful than trying to do an ensemble piece that screams at us in tears to identify with 30 characters all at once because they're all kinda playing the lead here (yes, I speak of the "M" word).

While I can't say wholeheartedly that everyone who sees this flick will like it (some folks just prefer "Transformers" no matter what and there's nothing to be done for them but a nice Happy Meal), I'm more than happy to endorse your film, Paul.

This is something that will go down in the books, whereas even your proud little piece "Boogie Nights" will likely be remembered as immature and a tad overrated one day. "Punch Drunk Love" was the sneeze that broke the fever, and now it looks like you're just plain healthy and loving it.

Welcome, Paul. Welcome to the small world of Hollywood filmmakers that I'll defend. You gave up the control of your familiar casting decisions, you gave up the same score you've had for four movies now and trusted someone ELSE (gasp!) to bring their vision to the table (this may sound cliche, but Johnny Greenwood's score is "haunting" and carries this film through moments that may well have been seen as slow by some with dead air or some  classical-orchestra-for-the-Oscar-hopeful-
sounding bullshit), and you made a MOVIE, not "a PT Anderson film," but a REAL MOVIE that doesn't have your splooge all over the screen.

In giving up the need to look brilliant, you've finally shown us how brilliant you are. If only you and Wes Anderson could have a drink and you could let him eat just some of your brains. Just a mouthful, really, enough to let another good artist quit letting his tired ego get in the way of his art.

"There Will Be Blood" runs more than two and a half hours, yet (another cliche to say this, I know) it seems like it hasn't been near that by the time it's over. This could've been a four-hour movie, but only PT would make some stupid "it NEEDS to be that long" move like that. PAUL knows much better.

Good work -- Sincerely, Dr. Tom
 
(five bongs)

Read more movie reviews

Name
Email
Comment