digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

I drink your critics! I drink it up!

mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com — I have a question for anyone who can answer it: What the hell is so wrong about There Will Be Blood? Because I find the reaction from the critics perfectly maddening.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • starbabe, on 02/28/2008, -36/+8The film is overrated.
    • mediaphile, on 02/28/2008, -2/+21It's also underrated. And some people probably rated it just right.
      • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -2/+10Haha...right on. I hate when people call something overrated or underrated. Everything is rated based on personal preference. There is no damn universal rating system!
    • CoolWind, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1The story is kind of boring in the beginning, and then it gets depraved/sick. The acting was excellent, and that made the film watchable.
    • aidave, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5Critics are overrated.
  • NextGenXbox, on 02/28/2008, -3/+25I, myself, being a video game and movie critic can tell you this... My words don't matter. Much like we all look different, we also think differently. I may love a product a lot while you absolutely hate it.

    Why do you think so many people rush out to see horrible movies like Step Up 2 regardless of the review scores?
    • Cunninlynguist, on 02/28/2008, -3/+3BAAAAH
    • Dundasbro, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3Advertising?
    • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -0/+14***** and ass.
    • haterrade, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4A general willingness to throw away money?
    • NaziHatinChimp, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Things work funny. What's the worst Cheeseburger you can think of? McDonalds. What's the number one selling Cheeseburger in the world? A McDonalds Cheeseburger.
    • DrMonkeyLove, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2"Why do you think so many people rush out to see horrible movies like Step Up 2 regardless of the review scores?"
      Because the vast majority of people are dumb?
    • Robbothehood, on 02/28/2008, -3/+0Show some class people. Step up 2 is the equivalent of a live stage show on film. People go to see the dancing. It is fun to watch for them. "Good" films are made to engage the mind. "Bad" films are made with the intent to entertain. Too general, I know, some movies are just awful, but if you can't understand my point then you can't understand "There Will Be Blood." I think "intellectuals" need to reflect upon how they have hijacked entertainment medium for their own elitist tendencies. Movies can still be fun you know, without making a statement or being dramatically intense.
  • SA007, on 02/28/2008, -24/+7I have seen the film and honestly it's damn overrated!
    • mxmj, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1If you are talking about No Country then i agree with you. It did not deserve to win Best Picture.
      Your comment is very poorly worded; as this article is about TWO films not just one.
  • feebie, on 02/28/2008, -1/+30I saw the film and thought it was brilliant. You don't often see a horror movie in such a context as this.
  • lardoandkeg, on 02/28/2008, -3/+20there is nothing wrong with it. to hell with those who don't like it.
    • HenvY, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3So you disagree with the author of this peice? He says at the start no film is perfect, and I agree.
  • twitchr, on 02/28/2008, -24/+10No Country for Old Men totally sucked. That movie was nothing other than director masturbation. there was really no plot and one of the worst endings I've ever seen n film. And don't get me started on Javier winning best supporting actor. The guy had like 2 speaking lines in the whole movie and didn't do anything other than try to look scary. Casey Afleck should have one for "The Assassination of Jesse James". HE was brilliant.

    /rant
    • chris9902, on 02/28/2008, -3/+14The ending didn't suck you just didn't understand the point of the movie. (hint: it's about Tommy Lee Jones character)
      • twitchr, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2no. i got it. i just thought it sucked.
  • buildbyflying, on 02/28/2008, -8/+14There Will Be Blood was an excellent movie. It wasn't better than No Country. but then what's an opinion really.

    "and yet, they’d give a pass to the ending of No Country, an ending where a character talks about a dream that had no bearing whatsoever on the story. "

    If you didn't get the ending of No Country, then I don't understand how you could support the ending of There Will Be Blood. It's straightforward: The man's scared ***** of ***** with a man (or a world of men) he knows could be the devil incarnate. Literally or figuratively, we're only half sure as we see in McCarthy's novels.
    However, in There Will Be Blood, the ending is ambiguous -- the kind of ambiguity that looks back to the narrative for clues as to it's own resolution. The problem is, those clues are vague and poorly laid out, and in other points jsut plain weak. The Daniel character being a great example. He plays a stereotype -- the greedy hypocrite preacher -- and no stereo type is just without further elaboration. This is certainly a circumstance where further elaboration on the nature of the character would be necessary. how can you have a character piece with underdeveloped characters?
    • randomerratum, on 06/10/2008, -2/+5I agree, the No Country ending was absolutely perfect, it took me a moment to sit during the credits to realize the relevance and most of the audience was out the door before taking breath.
      (I didn't read the book so my thoughts are limited to the movie only)
      The dream seemed to also be about joining the ranks of his father as an "old man" he says something to the effect of "I'm older now then he ever was" - he's retired and afraid with this ever descending society being piloted by younger generations (going all the way down to the two boys at the end) - I think you always have to take a few minutes (at least) at the end of a movie to mull it over before snapping to a judgement.

      TWBBs ending I thought was more simple, and would be easier to digest (apart from the shock of it)
      • TheRedNewt, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1I saw No Country the day it came out in my city, and everyone just sat in stunned silence when the movie faded to black. Sitting there, letting it all sink in with a packed theater added to my enjoyment of the film. Honestly, I don't know if my experience with the movie would have been remotely the same without that moment.
    • Vic333, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9I thought There Will Be Blood was the best film I've ever seen. I had seen No Country the week before and thought i was pretty damn good until I saw Blood. I thought Blood blew No Country out of the water. But, since both films do leave a few issues open, I suppose each will play to the idiosyncrasies of each individual viewer.
    • jmchez, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3In the ending to NCFOM, he Sheriff did exactly what any thoughtful man, who had just experienced what he had, would have done. You may end up with nightmares and a sad sense of loss looking at a society that had changed so much from the way it was when he was growing up; even if his uncle tried to tell him that men had always been violent.

      On a personal note the dream of watching your father, who died young, go by you and knowing that now that you are old he doesn't look like your father should look like, hit me the minute the movie ended. My father died at 33, and to me now he looks like a younger brother would look like. Pretty soon he will look like a son instead of my dad.
  • randomerratum, on 06/10/2008, -1/+16I absolutely loved There Will Be Blood - it's the kind of movie that gets me going, it's a totally unorthodox film that at first glance looks like your standard oscar reaching historic epic. But it's so twisted and unnerving (given the ending especially) that I think it seems strange and incomprehensible to a lot of people. This is fine, but I think films should be judged on their execution rather then weather it follows the standard story arch and hits all the plot points perfectly.

    If you haven't seen TWBB, I suggest you do, with an open mind and drink it up!
    • siszam, on 02/28/2008, -6/+1I loved the movie but think it has the worst musical score I've ever heard though. The music didn't fit the scenes at all. In fact, it distracted from the movie.
      • royalwcheese, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7I disagree I loved the soundtrack.
      • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3I, too, disagree. I feel that the soundtrack really built up the tension.
    • jfujita, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7I thought the score was what really made the experience unlike any other. Jonny Greenwood should have gotten an oscar for that soundtrack.
      • LexisNexis, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3I cant believe it wasn't even nominated, the soundtrack was original and set the mood perfectly.
        • randomerratum, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1It couldn't be nominated because Jonny Greenwood used samples of pre-existing music (I don't know of what or if they were just licensed from software or what), part of the criteria is that the music has to be COMPLETELY original.
  • GorfTron, on 02/28/2008, -3/+11I think Fargo was vastly superior to to No Country.
    • Cunninlynguist, on 02/28/2008, -3/+6best Coen film = The Big Lebowski
      i thought Fargo was overrated, probably because I just saw it for the first time a few weeks ago... aren't opinions great?
      • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Being from Minnesota, and seeing all sorts of landmarks I grew up with kinda biased me. I LOVED Fargo. In fact, I bought a car at the dealership that Jerry worked at, and spent a LOT of time growing up in Brainerd. And I used to watch the "Good Company" show that was on the TV set during the kidnapping scene, too.

        And I laughed my ASS off with all of the offended people saying "We dont' talk like that!".

        Yes. You do, you bet'cha. ESPECIALLY the Minnesotans that live in the northern half of the state.
  • HCviolence, on 02/28/2008, -20/+7"films will never be perfect"

    The Godfather was a perfect film. The Godfather is the only perfect film. That is all I have to say.
    • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -2/+8Hated it!

      /2 snaps in a circle!
    • da_bradler, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5Godfather was FAR from a perfect film.
    • raoulduke87, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I like The Money Pit...that is my answer to that question
    • feebie, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2It INSISTS upon itself.
  • DoubleClickAlex, on 02/28/2008, -0/+13I loved "There Will Be Blood", and I don't care what critics rated it. Don't forget, many great movies had their detractors when they first came out, 2001: ASO and Vertigo for example. Now these movies are renowned as some of the best work ever on film.
  • SydneyHopper, on 02/28/2008, -6/+1Let it go Daniel Day Lewis- you got best actor, no need to show any loyalty to the director now
  • pyrix86, on 02/28/2008, -20/+3This movie was boring. I'm sorry, but I don't make a habit of paying $8 to see some tosshead with a moustache say 'I like to think of myself as an oilman' for THREE ***** HOURS!
    • Spymodhf, on 02/28/2008, -9/+1Thank god someone else out there doesn't proclaim this movie as genius. This movie should run for mayor of boresville. I fell asleep 4 times. If it weren't for the horrid, ear shattering, and utterly pointless musical score I probably would have slept through most of the thing. SO disappointing.
    • da_bradler, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9Did you guys see the same movie? how was it boring? It never dragged in any places, the story continued to move and there weren't any drawn out dialog scenes... it was a story and it was told in an entertaining manner. not every movie needs a plot twits ***** or something blowing up every 10 minutes, although a fair amount of stuff blew up.
    • jamesdew, on 02/28/2008, -9/+0i also uh.. did not enjoy this film.

      I mean come on nothing happened, there were a few good scenes but in between were long loooooooooooong periods of pointless nothingness

      I thought no country for old men was much better, but then I actually enjoyed juno more than both of them
      • chevyorange, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5Wow. I really think this goes to show that you must have a brain in your head to enjoy this movie.

        • jamesdew, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0How does that show that I must have a brain in my head to enjoy this movie? I enjoy many character driven high brow movies but this wasn't one of them. I personally did not like this film, if you did perhaps you could give a better explanation that branding everyone who disagrees with your opinion as stupid. its not like I said OMFG blade 2 > TWBB.
    • tehdanish, on 02/28/2008, -11/+0I completely agree. I spent most of the movie waiting for something to happen.
      Wrote a 'review' for it on my whingy blog: http://movies.boredprogrammers.org/2008/02/24/ther ... which pretty much says exaclty what you did.
      • chevyorange, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4Something was happening the whole time if you were engaged with the movie. If "something happening" was bombs, gunplay or sex - probably the only things that you can connect with - then I guess you're right. But you're wrong.. wow what a dynamic movie.
  • nynety, on 02/28/2008, -5/+9I thought TWBB was kind of a hollow epic. It just seemed manufactured. I was in constant awe of the technical masterclass of the crew. Throughout the movie I kept admiring the acting of Daniel Day-Lewis and his supporting cast (especially H.W.), Paul Anderson's direction, the cinematography etc. so much so that I didn't get involved in the movie at all. The only parts that I found stirring were when H.W. went (SPOILERS) deaf (/SPOILERS) and the first ten minutes. Still, a brilliant movie, Day-Lewis totally deserved his Oscar and the movie the nominations it got. It's just not the classic that some people are calling it.

    /opinion
    • da_bradler, on 02/28/2008, -5/+4Not to mention the ending which was surprisingly light hearted... well about as light hearted as a oil tycoon beating a failed paster to death with a bowling pin could be. But the last line of the movie had me almost on the floor laughing.

      And who cares about the production and who was in it and how it was made, I simply enjoyed watching a movie with great acting a great story and a subject I knew little about.
    • shmatt, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2(SPOILER) ***** (/SPOILER)
      Hey *****. did you notice the word in between? Next time, make your spoiler warning cover the whole sentence, at LEAST.
  • DickyT83, on 02/28/2008, -0/+25The movie was ***** great. I'm sure a lot of people didn't like it because it can easily be translated into today's terms. ***** all of them, Daniel Day-Lewis tore that ***** up.
  • JoEBlack982, on 02/28/2008, -9/+2In the Valley of Elah was better than There Will Be Blood IMO.
    • DesertSquirrel, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Remind me not to listen to yours then.
    • HenvY, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2While I don't think TWBB was amazing, it was certainly better than In the Valley of Elah. That was just a pretty much standard crime investigation film with some good cinematography.
  • nynety, on 02/28/2008, -4/+10To the author of the article, what Ebert meant by "perfect" was that there wasn't a single scene in the movie that felt unnecessary. He couldn't find anthing in the movie that was lacking. He wasn't talking about continuity errors. Plus, did this guy make the movie or something? He's ranting like some fanboy who's pissed that his favourite film didn't win the precious Oscar. Instead of saying how TWBB was good, he keeps talking about how No Country was worse. I mean, Ebert even gave it 3.5 stars. What more do you want? Grow up!
    • daborg, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1Exactly. "Whine whine whine." Get a life.
  • docCdav, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5And this is why I find fault in attempting to decide which film is the "superior film." Opinion differs so widely based on personal experience and preference, two films which, when taken in the larger context of the entire historical library of film, can be considered great, cannot be put side by side and weighed against one another.

    As an above poster mentions, critics words do not determine the greatness of the film, nor should they determine your reaction to it. A film is only great if the experience you take from it is one you consider worthy of a great film.
  • yellowsnowcone, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Although I liked both films and you shouldn't really compare the two, I thought "There will be blood" was better than "No Country for Old Men". The arc of Daniel Planview character was the strongest thing we've seen in film for a long time. The characters in Old Men, though interesting, didn't arc as much.
  • da_bradler, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Drainage is a wonderful thing
  • hobbitsareneat, on 02/28/2008, -3/+9Seems more like an attack on No Country, and less a defense on TWBB.
    • daborg, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1Yeah... "Why does everyone like this OTHER movie that has nothing to do with my movie? Oh I know, I'm going to write a long whiny article about how my movie is better than this other movie, because I'm hurt that my movie didn't win some lame competition over this other movie. Whine whine whine. Whine."
  • JamesKeenan, on 02/28/2008, -8/+1How about this. TWBB was boring and slow. The best scene was the end and it felt like it took forever to get there, and in the end nothing was really accomplished. I couldn't care less for the characters, and the turnout of their lives was wholly inconsequential. Whatever personally unquantifiable attribute that No Country had that Blood didn't mattered. No Country was actually intriguing and interesting the whole way through.

    "Who's this guy?"

    "What's the can for?"

    "What's the drug bust about?"

    Blood?

    "He's in the ground... ok he's out... his leg's hurt... he's back in... Eli's a bastard.. ok..."
    • royalwcheese, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Seems like you only watched the first ten minutes then got up to get a tasty beverage.
    • mxmj, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah, you are probably right. Next time you should just go see some trash like 'Vantage Point' or 'Jumper'. Those are probably right down your alley.
  • demonsnake69, on 02/28/2008, -3/+17There Will Be Blood got a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes, or 15 out of 174 critics didn't like it (whereas 159 did), and this guy is crying about those 15 people. This movie was pretty awesome, but not everyone is going to like it, so what's this guy's problem?
    • hobbitsareneat, on 02/28/2008, -2/+6Seriously! It was nominated for Best Picture and Day-Lewis won for his performance. This guy is ridiculous.
    • jcroweall7, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2I dugg your comment, but actually in the article he's crying about Ebert giving it 3 1/2 our of 4 stars (and I guess anyone who gave it a less-than-perfect rating), which, to me, is even more trivial. Actually, I think his problem is that Ebert invokes No Country for Old Men in his review of There Will Be Blood... Whatever the issue is, it's a petty issue.
    • ubitendo, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I wish someone would write an article like this about Eastern Promises, but since no one saw it that's never going to happen.
  • ffttoteof, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6Forget the critics. Remember a few years ago when they were calling "Magnolia" pretentious while at the same time whacking off over "Eyes Wide Shut"?

    Like Fitzgerald said: A writer should write for the youth of his generation, the critics of the next, and for the schoolteachers of following generations. That applies to movies, too. There Will Be Blood wasn't made for Ebert. Let it go.
    • HenvY, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1Eyes Wide Shut was much better than Magnolia, and Kubrick is a superior director. Kubrick himself said Eyes Wide Shut was his masterpeice.
      • deadsanchez, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0He didn't exactly see the final cut did he. I personally liked Barry Lyndon of Kubrick's
  • Carraway, on 02/28/2008, -2/+10Rotten Tomatoes - 91%
    Metacritic - 92%
    Oscars - 8 nominations; 2 wins.

    Even Roger Ebert, the first critic he cites and disputes, gave the movie 3 and 1/2 stars. This guy is arguing with no one.
  • kds405, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2This movie got great reviews. Not every reviewer is going to like it , so why a big article?
  • WanderLink, on 02/28/2008, -5/+3Burried. The damn movie was nominated for an Oscar and most critics loved it. This dumbass is whining pointlessly. I didn't care for There Will Be Blood OR No Country For Old Men.
  • cogitocogito, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1There's a middle ground between "ratings are objective" and "ratings are just opinion".

    Ratings, when done well, are objective assessments according to criteria which have been laid down by social, historical, or individual preference. Thus, there is room to disagree about whether a rating is "correct", even as it is granted that this correctness is relative to an ultimately contingent standard.

    This goes for movies, wines, Shih-tzus, etc. Wittgenstein had a lot to say about this.
  • JustJoe4Life, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1So this blog uses the opinions of critics to disprove the opinions of other critics in discussing why the opinions of critics are flawed. Good work.
  • Andr3w29, on 02/28/2008, -5/+0Am I the only one that thinks Atonement should have won? I thought TWBB was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen... aside from the milkshakes scene and a few others where Daniel Day Lewis was just insane, I just couldn't handle it.
  • Deanblackoak, on 02/28/2008, -7/+1This guy is just pissed because HIS favorite film didn't win. Don't get me wrong, NCFOM's ending sucked and it should not have won either. But to use 7 trivial continuity errors as proof? He's grasping at straws. TWBB was a boring film at best. It's the kinda thing that traditionally wins, I'm glad it didn't this year.
  • akatsuki, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1I found both movies overrated. It doesn't take much to play a one-note Terminator like Bardem did in No Country. Snoop from the Wire is far scarier and far more real than Bardem ever was. Nihilism is a cheat, an adolescent, easy to do fantasy that just doesn't really impress me in any way...

    Then again Daniel Day Lewis from No Country just seemed to be channeling a narcissistic Al Pacino for the most part. The disjointed storytelling and focus on just one narrow aspect hardly represents a biopic as it so wants to be.
  • hijinksensue, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1I eat your pop-tarts! I eat them up!
    http://hijinksensue.com/2008/02/28/an-oscar-calibe ...
  • PathmarkPolice, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3There's a rule with, of course, some exceptions about any media, whether it be literature or film: if people are carefully criticizing it and discussing it, you know it's something special. There's nothing to DISCUSS about step up 2, or the latest blockbuster thriller novel other than, "That was cool, this was cool". Films like "There Will Be Blood" spark these discussions that make people deeply think about the significance of the movie, so that's what makes it awesome.
  • daizy82683, on 02/28/2008, -2/+0Daniel Day Lewis is perhaps one of the best male actors of all time and his performance was more than oscar worthy. I say that because the Oscars just like the Grammy's are usually BS. I mean a song about how hard it is to be a pimp from "American Gangster" won? WTF? Yeah it's difficult keeping track of how many hoe's you pimp in one day. Very stressful profession.
  • rlbond86, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1I thought Daniel Day-Lewis did a fantastic job, but the pace of the movie was too slow and the plot was just uninteresting at times. I came out of the movie and just said, "what the Hell?" I don't actually know if I liked it.
  • daborg, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1Oh my God... This guy has way too much time on his hands.
  • shauncorleone, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I'll agree it was better than NCfOM and Daniel Day Lewis was spectacular, but parts of the score seemed a bit off and a few scenes tried a little too hard to be gripping and dramatic. All that aside, I'd estimate there was about 25 minutes of "I'm PTA and I'm a visionary!" that could have been cut out, and I would have loved it unconditionally.
  • aceakm, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2A critic is a legless man who teaches running.
  • Yage2006, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1critics are obsolete. IMDB FTW.
    Last time i checked it had a 8.8 score. So really ***** the critics I have never followed there hollow advice.
  • lolo2007, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Daniel Day Lewis is perhaps one of the best male actors of all time and his performance was more than oscar worthy. I say that because the Oscars just like the Grammy's are usually BS. I mean a song about how hard it is to be a pimp from "American Gangster" won? WTF? Yeah it's difficult keeping track of how many hoe's you pimp in one day. Very stressful profession.

    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12620.html
    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12616.html
    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12615.html
    http://xn----ymcae0df5a6fo.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.