 |
 |  | |
|
User's review
|
|
|
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Ok, I've sat on this movie for a few weeks now. I went and re-watched it. Excellent movie. Lewis was in top form slowly developing the character over the course of the movie. Johnny Greenwood's (of radiohead) score was one of the best debuts of a composer in a long time. I will be buying the soundtrack. Now, let's get onto Paul Thomas Anderson. With his mainstream debut he chose a relatively commercially safe topic in pornography and the industry, yet the nay-sayers where there. He followed up with the masterful Magnolia, yet the naysayers where there again. He then decided to film a shorter movie and got a career performance out of Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love. This brings us 11 years into his career as a director and being slapped with the label of being an auteur firmly placed on him. There will be blood is an epic character study about a single person's ascent to riches and decent into madness. The main character is not likable and is a loner. Yet because of the pioneer spirit of the time becomes wealthy. He uses his adopted son for material gain. He is forceful in his speech. And he is not someone who we the audience is meant to be symptomatic towards or like. This to me is where the audience splits. From movie goer to film goer. A movie goer goes to be entertained, always. They want their stories to be bundled up in one coherent piece where there is little to figure out. There is nothing wrong with type of viewer. They Tend to give entertaining movies higher ratings and artistic movies lower ratings. The film goer tends to be more elitist then the movie goer. Educated and aware of the "right" pieces of art (in whatever form. Astute about politics and litarture and is able to pick up on subtlety's that are (or not) there. They tend to give entertaining (aka popcorn) movies lower ratings and artistic movies higher. And then there's the movie geeks (King of which is Rodger Ebert), they will watch everything and anything and rate according to what the movie is trying to do. Now an embarrassing admission. I was more entertained by "In the name of the king" then I was "there will be blood". Yet there will be blood is the superior piece of work. And it does come down to ambition, there will be blood tries to tell us something (check other boards this is not the place to discus such things) While in the name of the king only seeks to entertain with a basic story that has been told time and time again. There will be blood is a different movie and I as a movie geek would be very disheartened if it didn't split the audience the way that it has. It is because of this split I feel that it's done it's job properly and will be remembered 10 years down the line by film lovers and movie geeks, while the popcorn crowd waits for the latest blockbuster.
8/10
26.1.2008 -
deane_david@ - age: 26-35
|
| |  |  |
| Note: Reviews posted on this page are personal opinions expressed by our visitors. We are not responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
