Wall•E [review]

July 4, 2008 at 12:08 pm (Uncategorized)

After finding out the unstoppable Pixar was making a purely technical film about a robot trying to save humanity, I knew it was too good to be true. The first trailer I say - during Ratatouille - was simple and I was hooked. From that moment, I had wanted to see Wall•E… badly. (this is the first animated film I’ve ever reviewed)


Wall•E. The best reviewed film of 2008 thus far, and number one on many a top ten lists for 2008. Hell, even IMDb has the film in its Top 10 Films of All Time. Crazy, huh? Well, I guess I saw the film before they hype got to me, but I doubt it would’ve changed my opinion.

Well, the plot is pretty simplistic, but everything that the film contains truly is complex. The animation is spectacular; the most beautiful animated film I’ve seen. You can tell the animators did an exquisite job on the film if you pay attention to the small details the film has to offer. In one scene, Wall•E puts on an iPod, and for the half of a second you see the iPod, you’re in awe at the detail they used on the iPod. The dirtied and scratched up screen is just great. There are plenty of other things, but there was a problem. Alright, so all humans that live are fat and useless, basically. I get it. But not everyone has to look the same. It just seems the animators spent a lot of time on the specifics on the minor things, and kinda lost focus on the big picture and important things; unless they were supposed to make everyone look the same, then… Alright, so apart from the accuracy the animation crew used to create such a great atmosphere, they also made beautiful backgrounds: shots that I have never seen in an animated film before. Brilliance, I tell you. There’s one scene - it’s in the trailers - where Wall•E is chased by shopping carts. He goes a bit far out of the ‘cameras’ sight, so it zooms in on him, and in this ‘zoom’ in, it goes out and in focus very quickly. Small things like that are what make this film what it is.

Unfortunately, I felt the that the animation was the only place where the film scored major points. As for the story itself… I’ve got to be honest, I just didn’t feel it. Sure, its a technical film, but that by no means makes a film anything more than ‘very good’. Beauty can only go so far. The story, while cute, isn’t executed to its full potential. The story is about a robot, Wall•E, doing his duty and cleaning up some of the world’s garbage so that humanity can return and rebuild the land. So he does his job, and we see that he loves a musical, Hello Dolly, and wants to experience love due to it. I found this part to be touching, but sadly, this was the only touching part of the movie. Eve, a robot designed to look for something (I won’t spoil it for those who want to know the bare minimum going into it) on Earth, and along the way, Wall•E spots her. He experiences love at first sight, it would seem. So these two robots mingle with each other, become friends, et cetera. The relationship Wall•E has with Eve is so cold. I couldn’t feel anything for anything they experience. The most touching scene is where Wall•E is constantly by Eve’s side, and when you see what he’s doing, I didn’t feel anything. I didn’t feel sorry for Wall•E, I didn’t wish he’d be happy… it was just so poorly executed. I wanted to be apart of their relationship, but it pushed me to a distance in which I couldn’t feel more isolated. Now don’t get me wrong, some of the scenarios are well written and done well and all, but in crucial parts it choked. Fast-forward, both robots are on a spaceship looking trying to ’save the day’ (again, no spoilers) when they come across a heroic captain and a robot that is similar to Hal in many ways (or so I’ve gathered). Upon this ship is humanity: lazy, fat, almost motionless and ignorant, but yet we’re meant to sympathize for them. The reason for this being is that, well, they’re lazy, fat, motionless and ignorant. All of these things are brought on by the computer working its magic on the people who live in the shuttle. My only problem with pitying these people is that they, in essence, did this to themselves. Alright, not them directly, but their forefathers did ruin the Earth, no? So this is basically the computer’s way of saying “Alright, you’ve done enough, you get to live life carefree, because you clearly cannot take care of yourself. We learn that everyone is nice though, once knocked off their brainwashing chair. I felt that it tried to be a social commentary on what’s to come, and in all honesty, while it did seem plausible, how it was packaged was somewhat of a choke. The film wants to make strong and meaningful statements about how technology will be here forever and will always advance, while the Earth will not. The Earth is fragile, basically. I agree that the film showed this a few times, but never in an outstanding and strong way. As the film was intended for children, I suppose they didn’t want to cram the movie with ‘pointless stuff’ but if they want to make it clear or make it meaningful, they have to do so in a skillful and not condescending fashion towards its audience; which I will admit, is very hard to do. They almost score big time with the message, but it was just not completely there.  All in all, the film - while doing a fantastic job in standing out technically - is not a well built film all around. It has strong points (animation and sound) and weak points (overall story structure and story) and well, while I can’t love it as a complete package, I can love how it was made. ***/****



Permalink No Comments

6 Months Into the Year: My Personal Lineups for 2008

July 3, 2008 at 12:14 am (Uncategorized)

Best Picture
In Bruges
Mister Lonely
Redbelt
Stuff and Dough
Towelhead ***
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. Funny Games US
#7. The Man from London
#8. The Happening
#9. Intimate Enemies
#10. My Blueberry Nights

Best Actor in a Leading Role
Colin Farrell, In Bruges (***)
Martin Freeman, Nightwatching
Richard Jenkins, The Visitor
James McAvoy, Wanted
Sam Rockwell, Snow Angels
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. Chris Cooper in Married Life
#7. Chiwetel Ejiofor in Redbelt
#8. Colin Farrell in Cassandra’s Dream
#9. Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man
#10. Jared Leto in Chapter 27

Best Actress in a Leading Role
Kseniya Rappoport in The Unknown Woman (***)
Uma Thurman in Life Before Her Eyes
Manuela Velasco in [·rec]
Naomi Watts in Funny Games US
Evan Rachel Wood in Life Before Her Eyes
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. Vera Farmiga in Quid Pro Quo
#7. Saoirse Ronan in Death Defying Acts
#8. Kate Beckinsale in Snow Angels
#9. Norah Jones in My Blueberry Nights
#10. Summer Bishil in Nothing is Private

Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Stop Loss
Michael Pitt, Funny Games US
Peter Macdissi, Towelhead (***)
Wagner Moura, Elite Squad
David Statharin, My Blueberry Nights
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. Thomas Hayden Church, Smart People
#7. Doru Ana, Stuff and Dough
#8. Jonathan Haagensen, City of Men
#9. Robert Downey Jr., Charlie Bartlett
#10. Aaron Eckhart, Nothing is Private

Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Juliette Binoche, The Voyage of the Red Balloon
Samantha Morton, Mister Lonely (***)
Marian Saastad Ottesen, The Art of Negative Thinking
Natalie Portman, My Blueberry Nights
Rachel Weisz, My Blueberry Nights
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. Natasa Ninkovic,The Trap
#7. Cate Blanchett, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystall Skull
#8. Sarah Michelle Gellar, The Air I Breathe
#9. Winona Ryder, Sex and Death 101
#10. Hilary Duff, War, Inc.

Best Director
Alan Ball - Nothing is Private
Harmony Korine - Mister Lonely
Martin McDonagh - In Bruges
Cristi Pulu - Stuff and Dough (***)
Bela Tarr - The Man from London
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. The Wachowski Brothers - Speed Racer
#7. Florent Emilio Siri - Intimate Enemies
#8. M. Night Shyamalan - The Happening
#9. David Mamet - Redbelt
#10. Michael Gondry - Be Kind, Rewind

Best Original Screenplay
In Bruges [martin mcDonagh]
Mister Lonely [harmony korine & avi korine]
Redbelt [david memet] (***)
Stuff and Dough [cristi pulu & razvan radulescu ]
The Unknown Woman [giuseppe tornatore]
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. The Visitor [thomas mccarthy]
#7. Forgetting Sarah Marshall [jason segel]
#8. Be Kind, Rewind [michael gondry]
#9. My Blueberry Nights [kar wai wong & lawrence block]
#10. Young People Fucking [aaron abrams & martin gero]

Best Adapted Screenplay
City of Men [elena soarez]
Funny Games US [michael haneke]
The Man from London [bela tarr]
Towelhead [alan ball] (***)
The Trap [melina pota koljevic & srdjan koljevic]
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. Horton Hears a Who [ken daurio & cinco paul]
#7. Intimate Enemies [florent emilio siri]
#8. Iron Man [mark fergus & hawk ostby]
#9. Snow Angels [david gordon green]
#10. The Life Before Her Eyes [emil stern]

Best Cinematography
City of Men [adriano goldman]
The Man from London [fred kelemen] (***)
Married Life [peter deming]
My Blueberry Nights [darius khondji]
The Unknown Woman [fabio zamarion]
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. The Trap [aleksandar ilic]
#7. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull [janusz kaminski]
#8. In Bruges [eigil bryld]
#9. 10 000 BC [ueli steiger]
#10. Ploy [chankit chamnivikaipong]

Best Animated Feature
Film Noir (***)
Horton Hears a Who
Kung Fu Panda
Wall•E

Best Film Editing
Be Kind, Rewind
Mister Lonely
My Winnipeg (***)
Speed Racer
Young People Fucking

Best Art Direction
Death Defying Acts
In Bruges (***)
My Blueberry Nights
Speed Racer
War, Inc.

Best Costume Design
Death Defying Acts
Mister Lonely (***)
Nightwatching
Semi-Pro
Speed Racer

Best Makeup
[•rec]
Diary of the Dead
Frontiere[s] (***)
Pathology
Rambo

Best Visual Effects
Hancock
The Incredible Hulk
Iron Man
Speed Racer (***)
The Spiderwick Chronicles

Best Sound Mixing
Cloverfield
Hancock
The Incredible Hulk
Speed Racer (***)
Wall•E

Best Sound Editing
Cloverfield
Iron Man
Speed Racer
Wall•E (***)
Wanted

Best Original Score
Cassandra’s Dream [philip glass]
The Happening [james newton howard]
Horton Hears a Who! [john powell]
The Man from London [mihaly vig] (***)
Towelhead [thomas newman]
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. The Life Before Her Eyes [james horner]
#7. Smart People [nuno bettencourt]
#8. Married Life [dickon hinchliffe
#9. The Unknown Woman [ennio morricone]
#10. Intimate Enemies [alexandre desplat]

Best Ensemble Cast
Mister Lonely
My Blueberry Nights
Towelhead (***)
The Trap
Young People Fucking
///////////////////the rest///////////////
#6. Married Life
#7. City of Men
#8. Jar City
#9. Definitely, Maybe
#10. The Band’s Visit

Permalink No Comments

Young People Fucking

June 27, 2008 at 6:55 am (Uncategorized)

Fairly uninterested in the film before seeing it allowed me to enjoy it all the more. I expected a very average film that only stood out due to its provocative title. Happily, I say it lives up to its hilarious title. Here’s the review:


Young People Fucking - a title that will amuse and intrigue most - is a comedy about how different couples do the dirty deed. Each couple is unique: the married couple; the best friends; the roommates; the co-workers; the divorced couple. All of the stories brought something great to the table; from the hilarious roommate section to the very sad divorce section, it works on many angles, but primarily the funny one. Martin Gero did a great job piecing together this five-storied perspective on sex. Rather than making each part of the story its own section, he divided the stories up into sections, which in turn spliced together all the stories. By this I mean that each story had the same six parts that would then be put together to create abstract story meshing. This is: i) Prologue; ii) Foreplay; iii) Sex; iv) Interlude; v) Orgasm; vi) Afterglow. Each part of these stories are hilarious and edited fantastically.

The writing of all of this - done by director Martin Gero and actor Aaron Abrams - was very realistic (well, never having been in any of the situations, I can only say it felt real) and no lines seemed forced. The characters are all likable in some way, and there are a few turns here and there. Some stuff you wouldn’t expect to be in the film is, which made for a rather exciting movie in areas. If you love your comedy, the married couple is the funniest story. So many great lines and pragmatic blunders, its hard not to laugh. The only two stories I didn’t really like were the co-workers and the divorced couple; the latter because it didn’t really give you a desolate feeling, nor was it all that funny (however, the person I saw it with found it both of those things, so it’s clear that my opinion on that scene is give/take). The roommate scene was the most fun to watch out of all of them. Its concept is unmatched by any other I’ve seen in a very long time - believe me, you’ll enjoy every second of this part. Well, that’s all I’ll say about the sections, without having given much away.

Alright, so the performances! The performances are the main reason why the film worked. Everyone was perfect in the roles; all the chemistry was fantastic and it made it appear to be a documentary on sex, rather than a fictional film on it. The performance I enjoyed the most out of the entire cast was Josh Dean as Andrew (in the story: the married couple). My God, he was hilarious and perfect. He embodied the typical sexless, bored male, but with a nerdy tweek to it. The scene ‘afterglow’ alone had me in tears of laughter because of his delivery of one line. The funniest line of the year. Everyone else was great, too; Josh was just sublime. Another outstanding performance in the group was Ennis Esmer, who dominated the roommate portion. Since the story is basically all about him, everything relied on Esmer’s performance. He suited the character brilliantly and hit home with his precise take on Gord. Everyone else was very good or great, they’re just not as good as these two. No one was bad, so don’t worry about a weak link in the bunch; no one was that - a surprise, because most films have that. Anyways, a perfect ensemble: check it out. ***½/****


Permalink No Comments

Stuff and Dough [marfa si banii]

June 24, 2008 at 8:30 am (Uncategorized)

Since Romanian New Wave Cinema is my new love, I went crazy when I found out that my “artsy theater” was playing this movie. I got tickets as soon as I could, and I am extremely grateful that I was able to. This is why:


Cristi Pulu’s first film - made in 2001, but released in America in 2008 - is a brilliant piece of independent cinema. If you appreciated his last attempt with the film The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, you probably will like this film, too. Though both films are structured differently, they both have Dardenne shooting style, as well as intense situations and some funny parts. Cristi Pulu is one of Romania’s best directors of the decade, and he proves it more so with this movie. His rough way of shooting such a simple story made it more captivating than one would expect a film about 3 people shipping a box of medicine to a house would be. He keeps the pacing remarkable, cutting the film down to a mere 91 minutes. Like independent Romanian films are, this one is no exception with the music involved; if you’ve seen 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days or any of these ‘New Wave’ Romanian Films, you know what I’m talking about - if not, this is what I mean: there is no music. What makes all these films so great are the tension created by the lack of music - just a lot of sounds that everyone would hear in their everyday life; cars passing, gravel being crushed by footsteps and the wooshing noise of moving around in a seat, among other things. What I’m trying to say is that with the gritty shooting style and the audio clarity of the film’s setting, that it creates a very realistic atmosphere for anyone watching it. No over glorification here, folks.

Alright, so you may be asking yourself “What the hell is this movie even about? I’m just reading this to be nice to Tyler”, well, here is the plot: The film is about a man, Ovidiu, about 20 years of age, that gets an assignment from Doncea, a customer and family friend of his family’s business - this being a convenient store that runs out the side of Ovidiu’s house. Unavailable to drive himself to the destination that Doncea provides for him, Ovidiu calls his best friend, Vali. Even though Ovidiu specifically asks his friend to not bring anyone along, he does. The person he brings is his girlfriend, Bety, for no reason other than she had nowhere else to go. Funny, no? Anyways, the film is quite plain as the rest of the film goes. They drive, and drive, and drive some more. They encounter a major incident that causes the film to become more thrilling than one would expect, which is for the best. So these 91 minutes of expect nothingness turn into 91 minutes of realistic and engaging storytelling. Cristi Pulu and Razvan Radulescu create one of the most pragmatic scripts I have ever seen. Fantastic dialogue between the characters, as well as a wonderful plot turn that made the film basically perfect. If you want to reflect on real life situations in the most true way possible, watch this film.

Each actor is great; but as a collective group, they appear to breed together to make a ‘great’ ensemble into an outstanding one. Each performance is very plain, as the film is set up like “a day in the life of…” so we don’t learn anything about their past experiences in life, nor much of their mental anxiety and emotional problems, unless said problem starts during the course of their trip. This leaves for characters you can get to know based off of their routine lives, which baits you even more into enjoying the film. All three main characters are lead, but the character we follow the most of is Ovidiu, so this would make Alexandru Papadopol the most leading. He does a laudable job as your everyday, young-minded, bright-eyed shmo; as do his friends. All three performances are very similar in personalities, so you won’t be getting much awkward chemistry - like you would when a priest and a rabbi walk into a bar - but, what you will get is genuine companionship, which is always nice to see in a movie. Anyways, his best friend in the film, Vali (played by Dragos Bucur) does an even better job than Papadopol, as he is a more fun character, who is more easily irritated, while Ovidiu is more moderate in his expressions. Ioana Flora plays Betsy, who is really just there because she was just brought along for the ride. Since you’re so caught up in the movie, you’ll feel the same way as Ovidiu in your opinion of Betsy. You’ll be thinking “She’s just here to be annoying; she’s useless!”, so this performance, while could’ve been written out entirely (without any issues in dialogue or the script, really) does help you feel like you’re literal along with these characters for the ride. On a smaller note, Donu Ara, who plays Doncea, did a great job in his small time on the screen. He had such a vehement presence to him that you will be in awe whenever he speaks. Think Vlad Ivanov in 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. That type of performance. ****/****


Permalink No Comments

Towelhead

June 23, 2008 at 9:52 am (Uncategorized)

The final film I saw at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival was amazing. I thought I wrote a review before, but apparently I did not, hence the delay. So, without further adieu: my review for Towelhead (or as I like to call it, Nothing is Private)


Alan Ball is a genius, no? Well, at least this is the public consensus on the filmmaker. He’s written one of the most beloved films in the history of cinema, but only now - 8 years after that film was released - does he attempt to work on directing a feature film. I must say, this was one hell of an impressive debut. Ball takes a few ideas from Mendes’ work in American Beauty, especially the use of music in scenes; very clerical and standout, too. He also takes Mendes’ unique senses of cinematography. He gives suburbia an occasional tick of surreality, just to throw you off your game a bit. Ball uses some very edgy ideas, and it’ll go either way with you. So what I mean to say is that Alan Ball - while creating a film in similar light to American Beauty - does deliver the goods with his first film. You’ll either love his take on the material, or hate it. It’s that simple. This is the most polarizing film I have ever seen, and believe me, you’ll think so as well.

If you don’t know the plot, here it is. A teenage female named Jasira (played by Summer Bishil) moves out of her aggressive and careless mother’s house and into her father’s. Her father (played by Peter Macdissi), while a calm man, has a harsh demeanor to him. While living with her father, Jasira encounters many dilemmas all maturing teenagers encounter. The major issue in this film is its most controversial side to the film. This, of course, would be Jasira’s sex drive. Being on 14 years old and being seen having several orgasms is a taboo of some sort in all form of media, so to have it expressed on film in such a way is quite provocative. Apart from Jasira’s sexual maturing, she comes across typical high school issues - like boys and such - as well as small things like rude neighbors and babysitting children. Its not a glamorous film, nor does it try to achieve or create a sublime and fresh story - for the most part - but simply tries to dig deeper than previous films about minorities in suburbia cope with being different. Alan Ball adapts the novel perfectly, and in all honesty, I found this screenplay to be more intriguing than American Beauty, and around the same level of mental stimulation, too. It’s an extraordinarily dark film, filled with even more dark comedy. A lot of jaw-dropping humor in the film that will either captivate you or make you flat out angry. Hopefully it’s the former. It’s also one of the few films I’ve seen that’ll have you cheering for tertiary characters, rather than leading or even supporting characters. Quite the mind boggling scenario I was placed in during the film. Though Ball’s masterwork will always be considered to be American Beauty, Towelhead just adds a layer to Ball’s stack of talent.

The cast is unbelievable. In the past few years there have only been a few ensembles than can compare to the wonderful variety of performance as displayed by the cast of Towelhead. Unfortunately, Summer Bishil did not impress me with her performance. She did an alright job with the role, but seemed a bit too zoned out for the character: or perhaps that’s what she was going for, but a rewatch is in order to re-evaluate that opinion. So until further notice, Bishil was alright in the role, in my opinion. Some great scenes, but overall nothing special. What makes the film almighty is the supporting cast. From the amazing, amazing performance displayed by Peter Macdissi to the gut-wrenching performance by Aaron Eckhart, the film contains it all, emotionally. Maria Bello does quite a good job in her supporting role as Bishil’s mother. She doesn’t have much time on screen, but since when has that stopped people from loving a performance? She doesn’t do much in her 10 minutes on screen, but she does happen to steal scenes away from the people she’s with. A lot of the same in each scene, but the same is good, sometimes. And of course, all of you Collete fans would like to know how Toni was, and I’ll give you the lo-down. Toni Collete was great. Her character was annoying, but I guess that’s because I have a different view of the world than other people do, right? She’s a sweet character, but there’s something to her that just made me want her to just go away. I’m positive only a very limited amount of people will agree with that view, and that all Collete’s lovers will love her. If you were wondering who she plays, it’s Jasira’s ever loving and caring neighbour, Melina. On a smaller note, Eugene Jones III impressed me in his small role. He was very, very funny and had great comedic presence. I sure hope he picks some good films for the future - he could be the next Chris Tucker.

On a quick final note, the score, composed by Thomas Newman is a lot like Six Feet Under’s score, just more aquatic. So if you’re looking forward to Newman’s latest, this surely won’t disappoint if you liked SFU’s score. Very nice stuff, indeed. ****/****


Permalink 3 Comments

The Incredible Hulk

June 22, 2008 at 10:55 am (Uncategorized)


First, I would like to say that this is the definition of summer blockbuster, so if this is what you’re looking for, be sure to check this film out. Secondly, I would like to say that if you were disappointed by The Hulk (by Ang Lee) this film makes up for it, in some ways. For example, the film has a lot more ‘blockbuster’ qualities that the other did not. Bigger fights; a less tedious screenplay; fabulous acting all around, rather than a good performance here and there; and well, one of the best villains of the year.

Alright, so about the film. We all know the story about Bruce Banner, don’t we? Man goes into scientific experiment, gets radioactively blasted; lives; then hides away to try not become the monster he seems to be. Well, since we all know this, the film takes no time explaining all of this, with a very dreary interpretation of what went on at the Gamma Plant. Well, maybe a minute. Then we’re off to Bruce Banner in Puerto Rico. We see him trying to manipulate his life to fit that of one that won’t cause him to get angry, because we wouldn’t like him when he’s angry. The writing for this portion of the movie is very nice; it’s enjoyable and very learnitive. Though it may feel slow in parts, the ensuing action and minor subplot keeps it good enough for one not to have their eyes or minds drift away from the screen. After this part of the film, action picks right up. Although there are only two ‘fights’ before the main event, the intriguing storyline helps the dull parts move along smoothly. Think of the formula for the film Iron Man, just written a bit weaker. It has the story at the beginning; followed by the brief action scene; a little break; a bigger action scene; a break/break in plot/surprise; final battle; The Avengers’ prelude cameo. The action was done exceedingly well; especially the first major fight with the Army trying to take down the Hulk. Great visual effects in that scene, too.Anyways, that’s all I’ll tell you to spare you any spoilers. I will mention this though: the writing can get a bit lousy and boring, so unless you really like any of the actors or love The Hulk, you may find this film a bit less enjoyable than I did. However, if you go into this movie without any expectations and just want to have a good time, you’ll have that for sure. You’ve got beautiful scenes, beautiful people and beautiful violence to boot! So as far as summer blockbusters come, this has the formula down to a T.

The acting was good; for a superhero movie, great. Edward Norton leads the film in the right direction with his interpretation of Bruce Banner and The Hulk. The only issue with his performance is not one that is his fault, but rather the director’s. If The Hulk resembled Norton more when Norton was the Green Monster, he would’ve given a much better performance, as we barely feel how The Hulk reacts emotionally with anything. We only get an illusion of Banner’s state of mind while he is The Hulk, but that really isn’t much. Regardless, Norton did a great job as Bruce Banner, and I can’t wait to see him in the sequel. The main question is Downey Jr. vs. Norton, and I’d have to go with Downey Jr. based on his charisma alone. That and he story was much better to work with. The supporting cast of The Incredible Hulk were great. Tim Roth gives a deliciously villainous performance as Emil Blonsky, a KGB agent who is used to help fight the Hulk. (though, I think he was with America in this version…) . He out acted every actor he shared the screen with (he didn’t really share any of that time with Norton) and just owned his character. He was calm, cool and collective, and that’s what made this character so captivating. Tim Roth shows his chops, sure, but the character is written brilliantly. Well, adapted properly, at least. He is quite 2-D, but c’mon, he’s the Abomination! Tim Roth was excellent, and he led me to believe that he truly was Emil Blonsky. William Hurt was good, too. He plays Thaddeus Ross, Betty Ross’ father and head of the taskforce designed to basically kill The Hulk. Though he doesn’t have much to do other than bark commands and feel no sympathy for what he’s done, he did it very well. Gotta love Hurt, though. Liv Tyler wasn’t good. If you mixed and matched The Hulk and The Incredible Hulk to make a superior film, one of the very few things I’d take from The Hulk would be Jennifer Connelly. She destroyed Liv Tyler in that role.

All in all, the film’s major high point would be its acting. The cast really made you believe they were who they were portraying. Rather than seeing Tim Roth as a villain, I saw a villain that physically resembled Tim Roth. Same goes for Edward Norton, but protagonist in the place of villain. And of course the visual effects were great, too. They really changed Toronto around in the final battle. Although I saw my favourite pizza place in the world sported in the background, it looked nothing like the place I love.

A fine blockbuster for 2008. I’m loving these new ‘great actors starring as superheroes’ genre of superhero films. See it and enjoy yourself; it’s worth the 10 bucks. ***/****


Permalink 1 Comment

In Bruges

May 30, 2008 at 3:06 am (Uncategorized)


Going into the film expecting a slapstick comedy is not what one should expect upon entering into the film. Rather, you should embrace yourself for a very heavy drama with lots of comedy throughout, with some action sprinkled in occasionally. I saw the film with low expectations and this is what I got:


Academy Award winner Martin McDonagh starts off his feature film debut with In Bruges, a film about two hitmen sent to Belgium to cool off after a job gone wrong. Seems simple, doesn’t it? Believe me, the plot gets thicker and thicker, but the pacing is fantastic. So whilst the film is hard to get through like 40cm deep snow, we find that it’s highly to enjoyable frolic in what you’ve got. McDonagh’s direction - using the hand-held camera technique that the Dardenne’s perfected to a T - is overwhelming. Most would think that he’s going for a Guy Ritchie type flick, but it’s so much more in tune with humanity than any of his films. McDonagh is a director to be on the look out for in the future. This years Reitman, in my opinion.

Martin McDonagh also wrote the script. As funny as the film was, it was equally as emotionally draining. Any film that can go full circle in both spectrum’s is an amazing one without a doubt. Every character is three dimensional, leaving no room for someone to digress against the authenticity of the characters. Even the seemingly cartoonish villain turns out to have more to him than one would expect. All in all, the writing is some of the sharpest I’ve ever seen, and it certainly deserves all of the praise it’s getting as of now, if not more so.



As far as the performances go, all three main actors give some of their best work to date.

Ralph Fiennes plays the foul-mouthed, constantly enraged antagonist, Harry. Only as Fiennes can do, he creates a character not unlike one you would see in a cheesy action movie, but the difference is that Fiennes is diligent in his craft, and that the script was far from cheesy. With these two factors, the ‘cheesy’ role comes off as imaginative, leaving all the viewers loving the character for some reason; whether it be hate or respect, either way, you’re getting into a fun mess when you’re dealing with Harry. Fiennes plays Harry better than anyone else that comes to mind could, and pulls it off with better execution than most. Great performance.

Brendan Gleeson plays Ken, the other piece of the hitman duo. Unlike Ray, Ken is a much more sophisticated and laid back character. His wit and dry humor are perfect for the film, because while he does bring a big dramatic vibe to the film, he is used for a lot of great humor as well. The role seems tailor made for Gleeson, in that his appearance is perfect for the role, and his calming demeanor only adds to that testament. Sadly, the only downside about this entire role is that the character isn’t very deep for most of the film; he’s just kind of there. Fortunately, when something occurs to said character, the film really gets interesting, as does Gleeson in the role. Such a realistic performance. Nonetheless, very well written character played by an underrated, yet amazing actor.

Onto the best part about the movie, Colin Farrell. He plays Ray, the hitman with a terrible emotional disturbance. Not only is Farrell key in his dramatic scenes, but he is also so hilarious that he can bring tears to your eyes. On first glance, you’d think Farrell wouldn’t be right for a role with so much emotional range and humor, but he was beyond perfect. Honestly, I don’t know how to express my views on his performance without having many thoughts bottled up in my mind and the only thing I can say is perfect. Well, that and “Fucking Bruge”


Rating: 9.5/10

Permalink No Comments

War, Inc. [review]

May 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm (Uncategorized)


War, Inc. ***1/2/****Joshua Seftel’s first film - a satire of memorable proportions - is about just as the title suggests: The corporations effect on War.

The film is about a mercenary (John Cusack) traveling to Turaqistan (not a real country, fyi) to help the American government ‘get their message across’ to Turaqistan’s leaders. He meets a reporter (Marisa Tomei) and we all know what will ensue with a lonely man + a hot reporter. Somewhere in the mix, a pop star named Yonica Babyyeah gets thrown in. As Yonica is marrying one of Turaquistan’s most important people (a son of the president), a subplot is created where the mercenary must watch over this star, well, somewhat. The film starts off with a lonely Cusack in a bar; no more than fifteen seconds later, the film hooks you. With it’s amusing and intriguing insight on terrorism and politics, the film’s running time blows by you. The film has a lot more action than I expected, with the occasional scene of war, well choreographed fights and just sporadic scenes of murder. Though the story isn’t much deep, the simplicity of it all makes the film perfect for both the common man and movie critics alike.

In the final act of the film, the simplicity of it all turns very hostile and jumbled. I thought it was executed very well, but other may disagree, and I could understand why. Twist after twist is what the ending is all about, and like most films, it is a true hit/miss situation. Regardless, the three writers on the film (Mark Leyner, Jeremy Pikser & John Cusack) did a fantastic job creating a realistic and entertaining satire on today’s situation overseas.

Joshua Seftel does an excellent job insuring the film’s integrity; not reducing the material to the most redundant of films (which I was afraid would happen). Seftel crafted the film as perfectly as one could: he created a vibrant atmosphere, one that is both examines harsh reality and cartoonish falsities; - contrasting them perfectly - as well as making the film feel as if you were watching it all. Seftel really gets you involved in all of the action and it pays off completely. No missteps here. Hopefully, he takes on more directorial jobs, for he is one director to look out for.



The cast was superb; a top contender for a year end ensemble nomination.A small note: Ben Kingsley isn’t in it much, but he is great, as usual. Joan Cusack plays one of the most annoying character I’ve ever seen. Thank God she isn’t important to the film at all. Ned Bellamy is very good. Lyubomir Neikov is great. In fact, if you love small, untalked about supporting roles, Neikov’s performance is one of the best of those I’ve seen in awhile.

Marisa Tomei plays Natalie the reporter. She doesn’t tread much new water with this performance, but I did like her a fair bit. Sure, she starts off a bit irritating at the start, but as the main character warms up to her, the viewer does as well. All I feel like talking about is the finale of the film, which was where she really stood out. In 1 minute flat, she goes from shell-shocked reporter to… something else. Trust me, if you love it, you’ll love her.

Hilary Duff plays Yonica Babyyeah. As everyone is/was, I just assumed this would be an overblown, cheesy, annoying performance by another teeny-bopper of this decade. I’ll be the first to say (well, perhaps not the FIRST, but the first I’ve seen) that she was great. Her role is basically ‘woe is me, get me some caviar, I am rich, bitch!’ but because of the great writing, there is much deeper meaning to all of her actions. She throws out an almost Russian accent, which is well done, and since we don’t know where she comes from (though, I have a suspicion that she comes from Turaqistan. If you’ve seen it, confirm it for me, please) The best part about Duff’s performance is her energy in the role. She plays a total pop-star perfectly, and although she is a TV/Pop-star, this character is so far off what she’s played before and how her personality is, it isn’t even fair to put her persona and the character’s persona side by side with ‘oh god, it’s just the same thing, no effort involved at all!’ in mind.

John Cusack stars in the film (as you probably know by now) and he is perfect. Honestly, I was skeptical, as this role seemed quite opposite to his usual role. He pulled it off with such intensity that when he felt ‘hurt’, I felt ‘hurt’. He plays the mercenary named Hauser, and he really throws himself into the role. His fight scenes are some of the best one-on-one combat scenes I’ve seen as of late (excluding Jason Bourne’s explosions, of course). I guess when an actor writes his own material, he knows what he is doing. Brilliant performance; if you love Cusack, check it out just for him.



On a small note, there are three technical aspect I’d like to discuss.The first is the cinematography. Although the cinematographer, Zoran Popovic, isn’t very known, he does an excellent job. His work on the film just misses my top five of the year, but there are some scenes that reminisce Elswit’s work on Jarhead. Hopefully he takes on some more war films.

The second is the editing of the film. The pacing is a main reason why the film worked so well. Without Berenbaum’s great work, the film could’ve been a disaster. Also, I love a lot of the transitions between scenes. His style is so unique and cool. Good stuff.

The final note are the songs. We get a glimpse of three of Yonica’s songs; two as a star. Oh man, the lyrics are so funny. I believe I Want to Blow You Up will stay in my top ten till years end. It’s such an odd song, but it’s just so funny.


Permalink No Comments

Funny Games U.S.

April 8, 2008 at 4:35 am (Uncategorized)

Wow, almost three months without a review! I saw the original film - Funny Games (1997) - two months ago. Once I saw it, I knew I’d have to see this cut. Since Haneke stated it was going to be a shot-for-shot remake, I knew it would be great.


Wow. For those who haven’t seen the original Funny Games and want to see this version, please make sure you see this one first. Even though both are the exact same - just spoken in different languages - I believe this one may have a greater impact on you. Michael Haneke’s vision does not only mimic Argento’s Suspiria in it’s use of color and shades to emit a horrific vibe; but he is able to twist the film to make it funny; in a sick and deprived way, of course. His direction is simply excellent. He gets some great performances out of the five main actors, and it truly makes for a terror induced evening. He had perfect vision from day one, and I’m glad he decided to remake the film using the exact same vision. It was not a money grabbing ploy in my mind, but rather an attempt at expanding his fan base to those who do not like foreign language films. I’m happy to say he created one of the most memorable films with his twisted mind, and I wouldn’t have the film any other way.

Michael Haneke also wrote the script for the film. A lot of the humor translated more laughs from me, because sometimes jokes can get lost in the translation, so to speak. The dialogue was still extremely strong, and is still one of the better written films in general. The story of two guys basically torturing a family for fun seems sadistic – which it is – but it works on many levels. It will sicken some and intrigue others. This is the true polarizing film of this and last decade. The characters aren’t exactly well written – they all come off as simple people – but what occurs throughout the film is something special. They all transform from simple folk to either people you care about or people you hate (in the viewing of the antagonists). Regardless, the film will certainly stick with you; whether it be in a good way or a bad way.



The performances in the film are excellent. Considering the cast basically consists of five leads – as all the characters are in it for about the entire length of the film – I will stick with the performances I liked the most. (so basically all the stars minus the kid)

Tim Roth plays ‘George’, the husband of Anna. His performance would be considered slightly supporting to me, as he has very little dialogue compared to Pitt and Watts. Anyways, his take on the character was very good. Most of his role consisted of having great facial expressions – which he did have – but for some reason, I felt he wasn’t right for the role. Throughout, I was constantly hoping he’d do something more with the role. Unfortunately, that never happened. I was hoping for him to be as good as Ulrich Mule, but not everyone can accomplish such a feat. He did well with what he had, but he could’ve done a lot more, in my opinion.

Brady Corbet plays ‘Peter’, the sidekick – so to speak – of Paul. Corbet really impressed me, as Frank Giering (the Peter in the French version) was a lot less charismatic and unique in the role. Also, I felt that Mr. Corbet couldn’t be as good as Giering, with his limited acting ability (in my opinion). Surprisingly enough, he erased my former opinion of his work, and really let loose in the role. His character is mainly the lacky that does everything Paul says, but he had so much range that it was just pleasant to watch; in a sick kind of way.

Michael Pitt plays one of my utmost favourite characters in the history of cinema, ‘Paul’. He is basically a homage to Alex from A Clockwork Orange. Considering the character is a sociopath in every aspect of the word, it’s hard for me not to love anyone who plays him. The actor always has a lot to work with when they’ve got such amazing levels to work with in the character. From doing some of the hardest things to sit through to breaking the fourth wall to make you feel more uncomfortable as you laugh nervously in your seat, the character has it all. Michael Pitt is one of my favourite actors to come out of the 21st century, but surprisingly, I didn’t love this performance. Arno Frisch made the character in ’97, but I thought Pitt could at least touch the brilliance that Firsch was. Though, Pitt can play a psychopath as best as the rest of them, he missed the mark – but only by a slight margin – with his interpretation of the character.

Onto the brilliance that is Naomi Watts. Watts plays Anna, the wife of George and mother of George Jr. Think of a Lars von Trier film – more specifically, think of Nicole Kidman in Dogville. Imagine, if you will, a woman being put through the most grueling psychological torture imaginable. Watts’ performance is the most real performance of the film, and one of the most real performances to date. Throughout the film, she struggles like any normal person. The only exception is that she endures superhuman situations. Too bad she isn’t superhuman, right? Otherwise, she’d be able to overcome these feats… but then again, that would eliminate the entertainment of the film… and “we can’t forget the importance of entertainment”, can we?


9/10

Permalink 4 Comments

There Will Be Blood [review]

January 5, 2008 at 12:28 pm (Uncategorized)

therewillbeblood-poster.jpg
Finally, I’ve gathered all of my thoughts on the film and am ready to express them. Just to give you a little retrospect of my condition going into the film, I’ll tell you what went on a bit in the day. I got downtown at 3:00pm, the film started at 10:30pm. For most of the day, I listened to the score by Jonny Greenwood, and when I wasn’t listening to it, all I was looking forward to was seeing the film. When I got to the theater at 9:15pm, there was a lineup of 150+ people. I got into the theater, and it was packed. Not a seat unfilled. There was something wrong! It was 10:25pm and there were no commercials playing on the screen - all the lights; on. As the audience grew worried, at 10:30pm the film suddenly started. My anticipation for the film was at an all time high.

Paul Thomas Anderson is back after a five year halt on his film making. His last film wasn’t very good, and since most of his films have been dramas about life, I was worried he wouldn’t be able to handle this periodical material well. Considering from the trailers the film looked like an overlong, ‘look at the scenery, but the film has no substance’ type flick, I was really terrified I wouldn’t enjoy myself, nor find any type of value in the film. Fortunately, the film is not like this at all. From the wonderfully thought out fifteen minute scene without much speech, showing Plainview’s life as a young adventurous man, looking to prosper by mining for oil and diamonds, to the stunning, yet darkly comedic ending, the film has it all. Anderson’s take on this film is that of epic proportions, showing his full talent and also showing he doesn’t need a fantastic ensemble to prove his merit.Going into the film, I forgot P.T. Anderson was a chameleon of art. From his first film about a criminal teaching the tricks of the gambling trade to a hitchhiker with nowhere to go, to his awkward romantic comedy about trying to find happiness in life, he can do it all. For some reason, I felt he could only do ensemble pieces, and completely forgot about his other two films.

First, I’d like to discuss his wonderful use of silence. Not even in No Country for Old Men have we felt such captivation in scenes basically on mute. The opening fifteen minutes are a perfect example. It seems like a particular way to open such a periodical film, but it does work very effectively. Unlike what one would expect - which is to be turned off by such a scene - it really ensnares you. You shouldn’t be bored from the get go, but thrown back more or less. It conveys the Daniel Plainview’s mindset so perfectly in those minutes. Such a wonderful way to start off a film. I’m sure if I’d seen 2001 : A Space Odyssey beforehand, I could compare the two seamlessly.

His choice to make the film long was also a fine one. Well, more than fine actually. With him helming the film, the pacing was off the charts. At 160 minutes, you’d expect to be bored because it’s a film about oil, but it is not boring in the least. While some scenes will be kind of boring, it’s only a matter of a few minutes until the film gets back on track. While you’re watching the tragedies that occur throughout the film, you feel as Plainview feels. Anderson’s direction is very sharp in this aspect. You’ll see one thing, and know that it’s wrong, but Anderson’s ideals were much different from a drama with fluff. Rather than this, Anderson decides to make you feel as the main character feels, and considering the main character in this is an insensitive and self-absorbed individual, his direction reflects upon that. In another film, you may cry when you see something terrible happen. In this, you feel the need to hope that it will blow over and he’ll be on his way again.

As the film works it’s way to a close, it’ll only feel as if an hour had gone by. With all the beautiful scenery, with all the glorious chemistry Anderson created, and with every scene riddled with the potential to throw you back, you will never get tired of the film. One of the best directorial jobs of all time… this is Anderson’s Mona Lisa, and to call it anything short of that is absurd.



Onto the beautifully structured screenplay, adapted by Paul Thomas Anderson. Alright, he must’ve worked out all of the kinks in his mind when he read the book, because the screenplay is flawless. Every line is meaningful to the plot, and no line seems out of place. His strong points in both the writing and direction were the Church scenes. He made every scene that involved the Sunday family or any scene in the Church of the Third Revelation so wonderfully intense, that you’ll literally be drawn into the scene so much that you’ll be gazing at the screen in disgust and awe. With these scenes come big opportunities to shine for all the actors because the writing is so strong but yet malleable enough for the actors to make the great… greater.What the screenplay is all about, is it shows Daniel Plainview’s morality decay slowly, as he loses his once prosperous mind. While the whole film is about Plainview’s life and his problems - over shadowing is the peculiar, haunting whisper of evil running it’s course. Not only does it add another deep layer to this onion of a script, but it also grabs a hold of your mind and won’t allow you to think about anything else throughout the whole film. You grow to hate Plainview, but yet he has this charm to him that makes it really hard to see into the villainy of it all. Is he evil, or is what he is doing just? Either way, you’ll be engrossed by the film.

In my mind, the script also excelled in story building. As time passes, tension builds among the characters; creating a realistic and vibrant atmosphere. While some will say the plot is tedious beyond no ends, coming up with an argument opposing that statement would be easier than blinking. The script is constantly occupied with wonderful scenarios and attentive dialog - the writing is simply brilliant. With this, the character’s all have inherent qualities, only built up upon slowly but masterfully; leaving no room for doubt in Anderson’s writing.

Some people may also be thrown off by some of the black humour that circulates as the film progresses, but please don’t think that it tries too hard to be funny. It flows perfectly with the cryptic rhythm; thickening the plot and wowing viewers. None of the comedy seemed out of place, mainly because it was woven and meshed so flawlessly with the story it seemed natural.

All in all, the script works on so many levels; emotionally and mentally. It will astonish you, makes you angry, drop your jaw, have you on the edge of your seat, laugh and possibly cry. As far as period pieces come, this is the most epic of this generation, mastering every angle such a piece can work on. From it’s unique opening to it’s fascinating and abrupt ending (in the best possible way), Paul Thomas Anderson’s diligent effort seemed surprisingly easy. To compare this film to Citizen Kane is a fair assessment, but in my eyes, Citizen Kane only wishes it were as astute as this spectacular film.



Onto the tremendous effort the cast put forward to achieve such a spectacle. From praised veteran Daniel Day-Lewis to child actor Dillon Freasier, the film sports many great performances; everyone fitting their role amazingly. Anderson did a nice job casting very few faces for the film, giving you a real feel for the characters instead of reflecting upon other performances throughout and after the film.David Willis plays “Abel Sunday“, a very quiet man, but a very religious one. While his character is very calm, we hear different things about him, giving the audience a weary and varied opinion on him. On the screen, he comes off as a gracious, peaceful fellow. Off the screen, we hear of him as some monster. Willis plays this character very well. With the cinematography and art decoration behind him, it brings out his dark side well, but his voice and body gestures tell us a different story. While at times the story hints that his evil is of another person’s doings you never find out, leaving you to make up your mind. Willis’ portrayal reflects this. The role isn’t large - in fact, it’s quite small, but David Willis does a great job nonetheless. His chemistry with Paul Dano is remarkable, and the character will stay in your mind, regardless of how powerful everyone else was.

Ciarán Hinds plays Daniel Plainview’s long time partner and friend “Fletcher Hamilton“. Though he is more or less just the man Plainview consults, he does shine at times. His part isn’t large, vocally, but it is pretty big given the length of the film. A lot of his dialog is composed of feedback towards Daniel Plainview, but the performance stands strong, even with little dialog. In fact, he steals one scene away from Daniel Day-Lewis, and considering how strong Day-Lewis’ performance is, and given how small Hinds role is, that is remarkable in and of it’s own. I found that this role was perfectly cast, because Hinds face fits the period the film is set in, and he held his own against his cast mates; playing off of Day-Lewis very well.

Dillon Freasier plays “H.W. Plainview“, Daniel’s son. As you should know, Daniel Plainview is quite the character, so his son is obviously one as well; just not in the same sense. He takes abuse from his father day in and day out, so psychologically, this child is tormented. Freasier plays the role of angered, lonely son perfectly; conveying his depression and rage through very few words. His body language is used very well in the sense that it does most of the talking for him - a hard thing for any child to do properly. While the rest of the cast is spewing lines that are dirty and may even make you recoil a bit, Freasier brings innocence and warmth to the table. While the warmth isn’t as warm as it could be - thanks to his character’s upbringing - he shows less depravity than the rest of the characters. This shows that there is humanity, even in evil, we just need to find it. In this character’s life, something bad happens, which changes him forever. Dillion Freasier uses this to his advantage, showing that he isn’t just a cute face, and that he can act. Despite the fact his age disables him from bringing a lot of depth to this character, he does the role as best as anyone else could’ve. He does this by using his body language more fiercely, and it works. He upstages Day-Lewis’ on occasion; a feat that isn’t easily achieved. Hopefully he prospers into a fantastic actor when he’s older. If this performance foreshadowed his potential, he will go far.

Kevin J. O’Connor plays “Henry Brands“, a unique individual indeed. He comes off as a nice guy, but though not-so-deep psycho-analysis, we discover there is more to this man than meets the eye. O’Connor delivers every line with great emotion. He does a great job going though the motions and character development. Personally, I loved when we first see his character, and he is nervous and delivers his lines very emotionally. As the film picks up, he loses these mysterious and peculiar qualities. Then suddenly, it seems as if it’s a completely different character we’re seeing. He goes from mysterious to overly expressive and somehow says peculiar. How did such a quiet, shy man turn into such a bantering fool? O’Connor gives some of the films best lines deliveries from the get go, and even though his role isn’t very long, he does leave a lasting impression upon you.

Onto one of the best aspects of this basically perfect film, Paul Dano. While many will disagree with what I have to say about his performance, I’m sure a minority will agree with me in saying he was simply brilliant. He plays twin brothers “Paul & Eli Sunday“. Paul Sunday is a nice young boy. Curious in getting money quick, and getting his foot into the door to start his own business. Though Paul Sunday is in the film the least out of everyone I mentioned, it gave Paul Dano a lot more room to create a more of an assortment of emotions to work with. He goes from a calm, seemingly fragile man into an overly religious enthusiast, bordering freak. I am, of course, referring to his performance as Eli Sunday. If there is a performance that will grab as much attention this year as Paul Dano as Eli Sunday, shoot me now. He was all over the place with this role. Though the character is fairly two-dimensional, his performance makes him seem deeper than anyone else in the film. Always quick with his tranquil, bordering emotionless speech, Dano grabs not only your ears but eyes. At times in the film, he will jump from this composed, peaceful fellow into an over zealous, intensity filled preacher. While some may call his attempts at pervasiveness laughable, I was completely and honestly stunned. You’ll be both in awe and about to laugh; but not because it’s bad, but because it’s so well executed it will bewilder you, and cloud your former perception of Dano’s performance in this film. In fact, Paul Dano’s best scene will come to some as over the top, but I called it over the top for the sake of bringing another level of intensity to the film. He does it so well that you’ll be convinced he is actually there to fight off demons. He comes and goes, but more often than not, he steals scenes from Day-Lewis. Even when Day-Lewis is at his most furious, Dano somehow manages to make you listen elsewhere, dragging you ever closer to his beliefs and angst ridden youth. By the end of the film, you’ll be puzzled about how wonderful his performance. Was it good or was it over the top by accident? Either way, his execution of this role was beautiful and uncanny. This film was complete thanks to Dano, and not another actor out there could’ve fit the bill so wonderfully.

Alright, now we’re onto the aspect of the film everyone - and I mean everyone - is talking about. This, of course, is Daniel Day-Lewis as “Daniel Plainview“.

As we all know, Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the best method actors to have ever lived. Whether or not you appreciate his performances, you have to respect his dedication to his roles. From not leaving a wheelchair or character for the entire production time of My Left Foot to living in the wilderness where his character might have lived, having to hunt and fish for food, for his role in The Last of the Mohicans. This is a very peculiar individual. Knowing how earnest he is, you could only expect the best from him in his performance in There Will Be Blood.

To start off my review of his magnificent performance as Daniel Plainview, I will say that if you’re hearing things like “It’s just Bill the Butcher rehashed” or “It’s nothing new”, please do not listen to these people. His performance is similar to his performance in Gangs of New York, but this performance is so much more intense and so much more enticing.

Alike the direction, from the silent, yet intense beginning of his performance to his manic expressions and alliteration closing the film, he does it all. The look upon his face alone would garner him a nomination. He goes from a worrisome, lonely man to a mentally imbalanced, “off-his-rocker” type man, and his expressions alone slowly transition his mindset. No one else could’ve done the role with half of the precision or intensity Daniel brought to the role.

Throughout the middle of the film, we see Daniel Plainview encounter many, many issues. Basically all scenes involving the derrick are acted exactly as one would hope. From being gleeful and possibly friendly to an inane, berserk man, hell bent on inducing pain to others, Daniel Day-Lewis delivers it all perfectly.

Some may say he was miscast for this role because his voice and face don’t fit the role properly. Well, I’d have to disagree. His voice is of a withered and raspy, and come the end of the film, this is the exact type of voice needed to complete the dramatic effect. He also alters his voice to make Plainview seem slightly insecure; especially in the scene involving his first encounter with Henry Brands.

The scenes where Daniel shined in the most were the scenes involving the Church of the Third Revelation. Yes, while Paul Dano does excel in these scenes, quick three second glimpses of Mr. Day-Lewis added to the beauty of these scenes. His countenances were mostly comedic, relating to the audience in these scenarios. You’ll laugh when you see his ‘what the hell is going on’ face because you’ll wonder the same thing, and you’ll see that somewhere inside Daniel Plainview, he has somewhat of a sense of humour. (The scenes in the church were my favourites because the actors really brought these scenes to life.)

Another reason why Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance is among the best of the decade and possibly all time; his beautiful play off of other people. His chemistry with Dillon Freasier was par none. He doesn’t give a fatherly type performance when near Freasier. Rather, you feel a cold, distant magnetic force pushing them apart emotionally as they get closer together physically. This is wonderful in every meaning of the word. Daniel Plainview is a monster, Daniel Day-Lewis makes him one of the most despicable characters for that reason alone. His scenes with Kevin J. O’Connor were brief but outstanding. From the get go we feel a cosmic pull bring them together, and for once we feel that Daniel Plainview’s life long void is filled; if in fact he had one. He becomes almost human for the first time since the beginning and his life isn’t all about oil. Well, that is for a brief period of time. Something bad happens, and well, he becomes more depraved than ever. Day-Lewis’ play off of O’Connor was lovely, and vise-versa. There’s this scene at a brothel basically and the intensity in the air is so vibrant you’ll be shaking because you can foretell things are going to pick up, all because these two did a wonderful job together. By far, Daniel Day-Lewis’ best chemistry in the film was with Paul Dano. While Dano was over the top for the greater good, Day-Lewis was composed for the same reason. When these two collided, all hell broke loose. From rage filled hatred disposed into frantically spewed banter to the bizarre looks they each gave each other in a vehemently agitated setting, they played off each other extremely well. I would even call their chemistry perfect. Without their chemistry being as strong as it was, both performances would’ve been frail and not as outstanding.

Through and through, Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance is the best of the year and one of the best of all time. Sure, I may just be over enthusiastic to some, but it’s been almost a week since I’ve seen the film. This meaning in order for something to sink in so deeply that I feel the same as I did on initial reaction, it must’ve been powerful.



Alright, onto the technical elements; which were wonderfully used in this film.

The sound editing was beautiful. The opening fifteen minutes were especially great. All you hear is the clanking of pickaxes against rocks, and other very lovely sounds that are only special if given full attention to. It only gets better as the film progresses, with singled out explosions, footsteps quickening, thuds and other lovely noises singled out. It really helped bring out realistic qualities in the film, rather than have every scene be overly dramatic with an underlining score beneath every single scene.

The sound mixing on another hand was great as well. By mixing some key scenes with the vibrant, fierce score made them breathtaking. Also, the scene at the derrick had great use of this aspect. When the sound mixing team decided to mix the grainy sound of the ever outbreaking fire with the explosion, they created one of the most memorable scenes of the year. The beauty of it all, from the sounds to the photography was just perfect.

The art decoration was great. While it isn’t what the film was made for, the settings and rooms for this period piece fit the time frame very, very well. From looking into the building of the derrick, to the interior of a high class house, the look of it all got better and better throughout the time frame. It just added to the fantastic atmosphere created for the film to prosper.

The costume design was alike the art decoration, only better. It ranges from high class suits, to torn attire to ‘the working man’s clothes’. Thanks to the wide variety of clothing in use, elegance and crudeness worked together in harmony. Again, it only added to the befitting atmosphere.

The makeup was wonderful. Since it is a film about oil, you’d expect the makeup department to have a field day on this film. Yes, they did a fantastic job with the oil splotches on faces and clothing, but they did a much more intriguing job with the blood. There is not much blood in the film, but for what it’s worth, the scenes with it are done amazingly. Imagine, if you will, A History of Violence. Compare the diner scene’s makeup to the work on this film, and it’s basically linear. The barbaric, coarse violence is so well conducted you’ll be staggered in your seat. Indeed, it was some fantastic work.

The film editing was wonderful. While the film clocks in at 158 minutes, not a single scene seemed out of place. The pacing was incredible for the length, always keeping the viewer interested, and even if you get bored, wait a minute or two, and you’ll be enthralled once again. There are a bunch of lapses in time, and the film continues from these periods. As I’ve said before, all of this is beautifully done. The film spans over a couple of decades, and you take it all in as if you’d lived all those years. The film is magical, in that you really feel as if you were there, and not just outside looking in. There are plenty great transitions and you never feel the need to see more of any particular scene; everything is timed perfectly. The film contains plenty of character development and allows you to grasp at what it means, rather than puzzle you with random, inane shots to confuse you unintentionally. As it’s known, the film is long and I am not by any means saying it feels shorter than it is. It does feel long… just in the most magnificent way possible.

The score was great. To be fair, I can’t really get into the score on it’s own, but in the film it was used so perfectly. Now I can understand why people want it to win the Oscar so badly. It is the most innovative score of the year (yes, more innovative than Atonement’s) and fit the film perfectly. With only stringed instruments playing in the background, the sharpness and deepness of it all really sinks in. It’ll have you’re heart pulsating and in another instance it’ll have to shaking in your seat. It was used as a great emotional device, which is where it really counts in the end. It’s not easy to swallow, but neither is the film. For the patient come the benefits, and if you can ‘get into it’, the score will enhance your experience with the film plenty. As for those yet to see the film but are head over heels for the score already, get ready to be blown away.

Onto the one thing that made the film beautiful in an actual sense of the word and not just a way to express the out coming result. This is, of course, the cinematography. Done by accomplished photographer Robert Elswit. As far as his work is concerned, he’s done some miraculous things in P.T. Anderson films. From his lush photography in Magnolia to his glamorous and sparkling photography in Hard Eight, he’s done it all. All but a periodical piece set in many different plains. So obviously with all of this potential, what would you expect a cinematographer to do? He makes this film ever the more memorable with his stunning overcast of shadows and freight inducing darkness. He uses very few colours, and I’d go as far as to say his photography is basically in uniform. This is perfectly fine, because it creates such a haunting and chilling atmosphere; which is exactly what this film is about. For the most part, there is no negative space, but when there is, the standout in the scene really stands out. His vision was daring and it will really be hit or miss; like the film. He gives a lot of peaceful turned disturbing by way of settings, which should be beneficial to the film, but some may be turned off by it. As far as I’m concerned, he contributed to the overall brilliance of the film with his widely atmospheric photography, and it is his best work to date; let alone the best work of the year.


Nominations for There Will Be Blood
Best Picture - (#1!)
Best Actor in a Leading Role - Daniel Day-Lewis (#1!)
Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Paul Dano (#4)
Best Director - Paul Thomas Anderson (#1!)
Best Adapted Screenplay - Paul Thomas Anderson (#2)
Best Cinematography - Robert Elswit (#1!)
Best Costume Design - (#3)
Best Sound Editing - (#4)
Best Original Score - Jonny Greenwood (#4)

9 Nominations with 4 Wins

Rating : 9.5/10 — Bordering 10/10

Permalink 1 Comment

« Previous entries