Bloody bad movie
I didn't like There will be Blood and was disappointed by Daniel Day-Lewis's performance in the film. I thought that the film was too long and boring and very pretentious. It's based loosely a novel by socialist author Upton Sinclair and indeed, its "message" is that the so-called Robber Barons who helped establish the economic-indutrial foundations of this country -- it wasn't TR who did it -- were not only ruthless and greedy; but as reflected in the the character of "Daniel Plainview," played by Day-Lewis, they were either sociopaths, pyscopaths or both. I don't think so. The Aviator where Leonardo_DiCaprio played Howard Hughes did a better job in terms of portraying the fascinating and complex characters of the risk-taking American entrepreneurs who were the driving forces behind America's greatness.
Comments
There are a few certain reviewers out there of whom I read occasionally to see if they like a particular film. If they DO like it, I know NOT to see it. Film Criticism lost my faith for good and all back in roughly 93' or so when the second sequel to Batman came out and Gene Wyatt gave it 3 and 1/2 stars (out of 4!!!!!). I sat through 45-55 minutes thinking that it was a mere half star from being "Casablanca", so why not. It was so stupid, so dog-awful, that I didn't even finish my popcorn.
I could think of example's of liberally biased critics being unfair to movies, but one stands out. Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, which was much better than the dreary and painful Passion of the Christ, was given a "zero" by Rex Reed. I ventured to see it based on the hope that it would bring the ancient Americans to life on screen to some extent, not expecting much. It was a rollicking chase movie, actually pretty exciting with no hidden messages, etc. Everyone in the theater with us seemed to enjoy it. It wasn't high art, but it was a popcorn-munchin'-summer movie that was actually pretty suspensful. To give it no stars or rate it as zero was just plain intellectually dishonest, despite what Reed might have thought about the kooky Gibson.
Its gotten so bad with movies for me personally, I often just go to Wikipedia two weeks after a film has been out and read the damn plot to decide whether I *might* have enjoyed it. The really promising things get rented. You know you are old when you honestly look forward to watching documenturaries and reading books more than you get excited about the next blockbuster. What is it about being an old fart that has caused me to lose my ability to suspend disbelief? Maybe that is what is making my hair turn prematurely grey, but I digress.
The movie seemed to me to have dropped or pushed way into the background almost all of Sinclair's social, economic, and political context and concerns, and to be much more intensely focused on one man. I didn't see anything prompting me to take Plainview as representative of oilmen or entrepreneurs or capitalists in general; I saw a lot prompting me to take him as an extremely -- pathologicallly -- idiosyncratic and atypical human being.
But hey -- if your first priority is to fit everything into the culture wars, I guess everything's a skirmish.
Yes, W.R. Hearst's life inspired Kane, and yes, Welles undoubtedly had some artsy-liberal axes to grind. But I'm pretty sure that most people remember the movie as a great portrait of a driven personality rather than as social commentary on the newspaper industry.