MOVIES THREAD

Just saw Atonement and damn I was shocked. Easily makes my top five for the year. Also saw Sweeney Todd and easily in my bottom five

 

I took my nephew to see the new Veggie Tales movie Sunday afternoon. He loved it. I was trying to figure out how the vegetables could hold swords without hands. There's a Scarface reference which I didn't expect from a family film made by followers of the Jewish zombie.
Sunday night the maybe future Bad Gal Zero and I went to see Walk Hard and laughed hysterically throughout. And no, we hadn't been smoking reefers.

 

Let's not start sucking our own dicks yet....

Lewis is a slammer for Best Actor, I will not argue that point. I found the character utterly engrossing, despite some of my issues with the film.

But a lot of foundation for this portrayal was laid in Gangs of New York, IMHO.

I think No Country for Old Men was the better film.

I will see Atonement today.

 

A minor point of clarification here. I meant to say that There Will Be Blood had elements and influences steeped in films like Giant, Citizen Kane, perhaps Gangs of New York. It played visuals of solitude and vastness against deft music and sound design ala a Sergio Leone film (the score was done by Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead, btw).

Fantastic film, still.

 

I had been thinking that 'No Country for Old Men' was the best movie of the year.
However, I friend reminded me last night that 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley' was released this year.
That's definitely No. 1.
'No Country for Old Men' drops to No. 2.

 

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

IF YOU DO NOT WANT PLOT DETAILS OF THERE WILL BE BLOOD REVEALED, DO NOT READ FURTHER






Loved the ending, in a weird way. But here's a question I had.

Were Eli and Paul really twin brothers, or was there a trick in the plot somewhere?

My take on it was that Eli was trying to swindle Daniel just as much as Daniel was trying to swindle Eli. So, at the end, we learn that Daniel has been paying Paul all these years, but we never see or hear from Paul after the opening scene. Was there a Paul? After the oil starts coming in, Eli re-builds his church, he leaves on his mission and at the end he seems like he's fairly well-heeled. There's a particular shot of his shoes in there that indicates he's come into some money. Then he starts talking about investments and the stock market crash. Yet he wants the original $5,000 that Daniel promised him plus interest in their conversation at the end.

Did Eli create Paul as a way to extract the most out of Plainview?

 

RESPONSE TO THERE WILL BE BLOOD SPOILER POST

One of my questions... well-posited.

The utter disappearence of Paul, without a single mention I can recall after their meeting, felt off

 

I saw 'Wind That Shakes The Barley' and thought it was a hauntingly beautiful film.

 

From the Onion's A/V Club:

There Will Be Questions

My boyfriend and I recently saw There Will Be Blood, and we've had a bit of a debate ever since. [Warning: spoilers ahead.] Early in the movie, Paul Dano comes to Daniel Day Lewis' character and introduces himself as Paul Sunday. Later, Day-Lewis meets Eli, also played by Paul Dano.

My question is, did Paul Sunday exist, or was Eli simply crazy? I, personally, thought his existence was made clear when Eli attacked his father and blamed Paul for the problems the family had been having. The boyfriend, however, thought that Eli was simply crazy and that near the end of the film, when Eli tells Daniel Plainview that his investments dried up, he's talking about the money Plainview gave Paul at the beginning, in exchange for the information about the oil on the Sundays' land. So which is it? Does Paul Sunday exist? Or is it never made clear either way?

Brian

There Will Be Blood superfan Josh Modell responds:

The first time I saw it, I thought that Paul and Eli were the same person, at least until later in the movie, and that there was some sort of wink when Eli and Daniel first "met." On subsequent viewings, I think they're definitely different people, brothers. Though it is a little confusing, I can't imagine Paul Thomas Anderson doing that on purpose, leaving us hanging about the question of whether Paul Sunday is real.

Here's support for your theory that they're two different people—a Hollywood.com interview in which Anderson explains why Paul Dano plays both roles:

HW: Originally Paul Dano was only supposed to play the role of Paul Sunday, and then it was expanded for him to play Eli Sunday. Can you talk about expanding that?

PTA: We had an actor, and it didn't really work out; and we had Paul—and he was in a small part. We thought, "God, why is he in such a small part?" And then, better yet, maybe because of my obsession with East Of Eden, I thought, "Well, they've got to be twins, right?" I had actually been talking to a friend at the moment that all of this was happening, who was also telling me about his twin brother. I thought it was too good to pass up.

In addition, it's worth noting that in the official script, available online, Paul is introduced as "A YOUNG KID (Paul Sunday aged 16)," and Eli is introduced as "…a very skinny man/boy, the son: ELI SUNDAY (aged 18)." So as interesting as it is, I can't subscribe to the "Eli is crazy, there is no Paul" theory; they clearly started out as different characters, and there's nothing specific in the movie to suggest that Anderson decided otherwise.

And incidentally, the money he invested would've been the $5,000 that Plainview gave to the church after being "saved"—the promised but long-owed "down payment" on the $10,000 that Eli initially demanded for his church. (At the end of the film, Eli demands the other $5,000, with interest. You probably remember where that leads.)

 

Jesus... Anderson really should have found another actor then.

 

I guess it gets people talking about the movie in the "zomg did you hear about the way the Crying Game ended?" fashion.

I saw this movie tonight, and I'll openly admit to not being a movie critic or someone who can enjoy cinema at a higher level. Not that I can't watch a good movie, but I have no "great movie" palate in the way that most wine tastes like crappy tequila to me. But this confused me. The ending was so abrupt and disjointed, and really a lot of the plot points seemed to develop and conclude without the right setup (to me at least). Great performance by Daniel Day Lewis, and it was certainly a well-shot movie, but I don't quite understand the "best film of the decade" buzz I keep hearing.

 

Went to see Bucket List a couple of days ago. Fantastic movie and Nicholson/Freeman were a great combo in the movie.

Highly recommend it.