Change Your Image
ibanezman6
Reviews
There Will Be Blood (2007)
There Will Be Stink...
First off, I'd like to say that I have enjoyed most all of PTA's films. I loved Boogie Nights, thought Magnolia was an ambitious, but not great picture, and thoroughly enjoyed Punch- Drunk Love. I, like many others have eagerly awaited Paul Thomas Anderson's latest film, There Will Be Blood. In fact, I drove almost 120 miles and waited 2-3 hours in line to see it, as that was the closest showing of it. I bought into all the hype, read almost every review, watched any and all interviews of it that I could, expecting a "masterpiece" as so many IMDBers put it. People even had the audacity to say it's one of the best films of the decade. Some big words and shoes for a film to fit.
Nevertheless, after the wait, I found myself disappointed and terribly bored with this film. The movie's pacing and editing was SO slow and too long (nearly 3 hours), I felt that the editor should have had another much needed run in the cutting room. For instance, certain shots in a scene went on forever as the camera stays with a character for 5 min or more, never changing angles, creating a needlessly slow pace. There were many scenes with little to no dialog adding another dull layer. Now I appreciate films with silence that present cinematic art ( "3-Iron" and "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...And Spring", two movies that are nearly all silence) yet here it granted the film unevenness. People are claiming this film had beautiful cinematography, yet I fail to see what was so unique. Perhaps the theater I was at had an inexperienced projectionist, bad print or something, but the shots, lighting, and composition were rather dull and the camera movements uninteresting. I mean how hard is it to shoot wide-angle barren landscapes and campfire scenes and follow actors with steadicam/tracking scenes? Although this wasn't a stylized movie, rather an attempt to take you into the 19th century, I thought the cinematography was mediocre at best. I've seen better work from Robert Elswit and other DPs.
Worse than mediocre however, is the music/soundtrack, which was so obnoxious and used out of place, that it just may have worsened the viewing experience. The horror-like, intense and unnerving score that was mixed way too loud in the soundtrack, doesn't even seem to match the images or the story. The music isn't "bad", but it does not fit well. The music, which attempted to create tension among the characters exemplifying greed and corruption, seemed extremely forced and vexing. Here is this rather slowly cut/paced movie displaying an ugly landscape or early America undeveloped showcasing a man being SLOWLY corrupted, scored side-by-side with this imposing, experimental, enormous, horror-like score that was woefully out of sync with the film and apparently wanted to call attention to itself, not assist the story.
Acting... Well, although there is praise left and right for Daniel Day Lewis and Paul Dano, I felt both performances were lackluster, Paul Dano's being much worse. There were many times that I felt like Dano was just reading from a script and not embodying the character, for instance, the first time we are introduced to him, his lines are weak and artificial with strange speech pauses and insipid facial expressions. DDL was also nothing special. His accent was, well... certainly not mind-blowing, and didn't make me think of anything uniquely "American" as that was what he was supposedly trying to portray. In many scenes he was overacting and Dano was underacting, or vice versa. I couldn't get into the two personality types as they were undeveloped. Although the audience is supposed to dislike DD Lewis, I didn't care for any of the characters and completely lost interest in the film about 40 min to an hour into it. DD Lewis is a great actor and that may be an understatement, but he certainly did not shine in this picture. Yet at the same time, he may have been the only redeemable thing in this movie.
I can only assume that since PTA is known for giving minimal direction and following his scripts closely (he has stated this during commentaries of his films) the acting was flawed and pulse nearly-dead, due to the weak script/adaptation. There were some major/minor holes in this film, but I didn't care. I was too bored, and couldn't care about any underlying tones of greed and religion since the characters neither really embodied either very well. Some characters appear, some disappear never to be seen again, certain scenes that were supposed to be climactic and intense came off as comedic (the audience I was with, laughed a great deal during these scenes) and I wondered if that was the way PT Anderson intended it, or it being the audience I sat with. I don't know. For example, during the final scene where DDL and Dano's "discussion" turns into a near fight, the scene comes off as if it were slapstick and had the audience busting out in laughs.
In summary, this film was a major let down for me as I had high hopes for it, and was a fan of all of PTA's films. The film's execution, writing, and direction was empty and flawed, resulting in an uneven, and painfully boring film. I suppose there are different strokes for different folks, but the film really stinks.
King Kong (2005)
The Biggest Problem with modern special FX films...
Based on various reviews from critics and friends, King Kong was suggested to be an excellent, updated remake of the 30's classic. Having viewed other special FX blunders such as, "Star Wars 3: Revenge of The Sith, & War of the Worlds (2005)" just to name a few, I was still fearful of a "Once-talented" director going over to the dark side (no pun intended) and serving me turds on a silver platter. The dark side being that of a film with little to absolutely no story, no direction or creativity, atrocious acting, and a mountaintop of special FX that engulf the movie and audience. These types of films/film-makers expect the movie-goers to be wooed by all of the CGI work and treat you as if you have an IQ of 50.
Well, despite my fears, I went to see Kong anyways. Well...if there's any one element that this film lacked right off the bat, it would be an editor. I found myself asking why this movie HAD to be 3 hours, as if it wasn't bad enough. It had many subplots that literally added nothing to the story and only served to give this movie enough holes to become Swiss cheese.
The first hour of the film could've easily been summed up safely in about 20-30 minutes. Next, the acting simply put...unacceptable, so I'll spare some time pinpointing specific details on individuals since they all sucked! Finally as the characters get to the island, they are greeted by the natives (which reminded me of orcs from LOTR). In the original they were all fearful of some "creature". However in this remake they were savages looking for human flesh. Clearly, acting wasn't added, as Peter Jackson tries to "enthrall" us with his large perspective shots of these massive landscapes throughout this bomb of a film.
The dinosaur scenes were pretty ridiculous, as Kong battles three T-Rexes, while holding on to Ann and keeping her PERFECTLY intact (come on!). Then Brody and Watts later grasp onto the wings of bats as they escape the clutches on Kong (this is outrageous and clearly insulting as is the scene where Jimmy shoots bugs off of Brody with astounding accuracy, and many more). More annoyances come at the turn of every nook and cranny as some CGI nerd's little monster creation crawls all over the actors. These little CGI creations had absolutely 100% no bearing on the story and were a pathetic attempt to try to create this sense of "adventure", but rubbed off as Peter Jackson trying to impress the audience with his computer.
The worst scenes are easily the ones with the interaction between Kong and Watts. As they glide and tickle one another in Central Park on the ice. I expected them to kiss, and I nearly busted out laughing, but I restrained myself as people next to me were nearly crying.
This was yet another film that goes to show how special FX can utterly destroy a film. These directors are given MASSIVE budgets to work with, and therefore they have no room and no need to be creative because many people love special FX and the "High on action, low on plot" ideology. A story, should one exist, is completely drenched in SFX, which takes over the movie. In fact, it shouldn't be allowed to be called special, since it is in every single scene and used over and over and over....... You don't go to a fancy steak house and order steak with your Bearnaise sauce. I'd say the same applies to these types of films. I honestly believe that this was hardly any break-through for special FX, although they were good on certain aspects (Kong himself). If anyone is just looking to go to the theater and say "Ooooooo," & "Ahhhhhh", this is your film. For those people (not putting anyone down), you will certainly get your money's worth.
The Final Cut (2004)
A complete Disappointment, and waste of time!
Well, I was looking forward to a suspenseful thriller, as the movie was suggested to be. What I got couldn't have been further from the truth. While the plot seemed interested at first, it was SOOO slow as I DESPERATELY waited for something interesting to come about. Robin Williams was nothing short of dull and showed only the most insipid emotions. The story was very weak and the conflict almost pathetic.
In the distant future, micro-chips are planted in a person's brain to record their every waking moment with video and sound. Williams plays a "Cutter", someone who views people's lives and edits them to show only the high points for a memorial service viewed by their loved ones after they die. As we see in the very beginning of the film, Williams is a child, and watches his friend die (or so we think), and then feels responsible for this accident. After that, he has no life of his own and spends the rest of his time involved in editing other peoples lives.
The earlier accident haunts him for the rest of the movie. Anyway, while he is working on editing the life of a big time CEO who was in charge of the corporation which designed the micro-chip, he surprisingly notices a man that looks exactly like his friend who supposedly died years ago. Williams also finds out that the CEO molested his daughter. This is where Caviezel greets us with his "powerful" presence.
Caviezel, an old acquaintance of Williams, finds the idea of "cutting" immoral and is desperately in search of finding any "dirt" on the corporation to stop what they have done. As you might be able to guess, WIlliams is chased by Caviezel while searching for a way to forgive himself. Basically, this film goes nowhere and leaves you wondering if you could have spent your time more effectively. Mira Sorvino and Jim Caviezel served absolutely no purpose in this film. While this movie had the potential to be an exciting and enthralling story, it wasn't! Please, I urge you not to bother with this, and find something else to do.