[ilduclo]

I thought it was real good until the end. Then got real "fanciful" and not in a good way.

[Severian]

I hated the end the first time I saw it. Mainly because the kid who plays the preacher was NOT convincingly made up to look like an adult. He had wrinkles and shit, but his voice still sounded like a child's.

When I re-watched it I found this much less irritating. Not sure why. That ending really speaks volumes about the entire "moral" of the story, which is that our society has been forged by the equally corrupt worlds of religion and industry, and drives the point home that there is no such thing as man overcoming sin, and that God simply has no place in the day to day dealings of human beings.

Quite nihilistic. Quite dark. And of course our fucked up demon of a protagonist is unphased and ultimately triumphant, which is pretty much how things work in the real world.

 

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

Why's that? I've only seen it once, and haven't been moved to see it again, but I'm curious why you think this is the case.

damn my phone i meant to say the opposite!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

I hated the end the first time I saw it. Mainly because the kid who plays the preacher was NOT convincingly made up to look like an adult. He had wrinkles and shit, but his voice still sounded like a child's.

When I re-watched it I found this much less irritating. Not sure why. That ending really speaks volumes about the entire "moral" of the story, which is that our society has been forged by the equally corrupt worlds of religion and industry, and drives the point home that there is no such thing as man overcoming sin, and that God simply has no place in the day to day dealings of human beings.

Quite nihilistic. Quite dark. And of course our fucked up demon of a protagonist is unphased and ultimately triumphant, which is pretty much how things work in the real world.

 

the fucking ending was brilliant! i don't think it was anti-religion or anti-God but rather anti-charlatan and while i can understand why folks from atheist background could see it as such as atheists tend to see all religions as charlatans BUT i felt There Will Be Blood was criticizing the bogus charlatans who were particularly active at that time in American history

also i thought that it made Daniel Plainview's character as being a charlatan of sorts the way he played the game with the feigned conversion and the bastard in a basket

[Torn Curtain]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

I certainly wasn't as impressed with There Will Be as many others. I thought the story was poorly done at the end.

I agree, I hated the ending.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

what ending would y'all have expected?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

i disagree that the moral is that "no one can overcome sin" but it definitely was highly critical view of the sins of some kinds of people. i also disagree that it says God has no place in day to day life, i think it was again critical of charlatans no doubt but i doubt it intended to say all religions are charlatans as certainly there is a difference even if God turns out to be omagined. charlatans like daniel plainview or Eli willfully manipulate people religious sentiments while not believing, that is different from sincere piety in people or religious ministers who might sincerely believe even of God turns out not to exist

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

the fucking ending was brilliant! i don't think it was anti-religion or anti-God but rather anti-charlatan and while i can understand why folks from atheist background could see it as such as atheists tend to see all religions as charlatans BUT i felt There Will Be Blood was criticizing the bogus charlatans who were particularly active at that time in American history

also i thought that it made Daniel Plainview's character as being a charlatan of sorts the way he played the game with the feigned conversion and the bastard in a basket

That's pretty much what I meant.
I'm not an atheist. But I do think that evangelical Christianity is totally warped, and is basically nothing more than a long con.

But yeah, charlatans of any stripe. Be they manipulative religious zealots, cheating people out of money and into political action, or big industry types like Trump and the dudes at Enron. I think TWBB was about exposing the truth behind the lies that these two groups tell the world, and showing a terrifying picture of what hides behind the façades of "progress" and "faith" that the two primary characters represented.

Plainview telling these townspeople that he wanted to make them rich, make their lives better, when all he really wanted was power. And the preacher kid selling anger in response to Plainview's Puritan unfriendly sensibilities, also making a power grab, selling a lie of equal proportions to the masses searching for a leader, and a person to blame. A God and a Devil, I guess.

Really i agree with what you're saying completely. I just went about saying it in a different way, I guess. I don't think it was anti-religion. I'm not either. But I'm totally anti-charlatan, anti-phony ass conman, anti-greed, anti-power. And the film is a goddamn masterpiece because it presents such awesome/horrifying examples of two of the primary means by which evil is brought into the world: corrupt religion and corrupt commerce.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

i disagree that the moral is that "no one can overcome sin" but it definitely was highly critical view of the sins of some kinds of people. i also disagree that it says God has no place in day to day life, i think it was again critical of charlatans no doubt but i doubt it intended to say all religions are charlatans as certainly there is a difference even if God turns out to be omagined. charlatans like daniel plainview or Eli willfully manipulate people religious sentiments while not believing, that is different from sincere piety in people or religious ministers who might sincerely believe even of God turns out not to exist

Yeah, again, I agree. I just said it wrong the first time around I guess.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

what ending would y'all have expected?

I only had an issue with Eli's make up. I got past it, and by the second time I watched it, I just thought it was a perfect movie. I like the ending just fine.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

That's pretty much what I meant.
I'm not an atheist. But I do think that evangelical Christianity is totally warped, and is basically nothing more than a long con.

But yeah, charlatans of any stripe. Be they manipulative religious zealots, cheating people out of money and into political action, or big industry types like Trump and the dudes at Enron. I think TWBB was about exposing the truth behind the lies that these two groups tell the world, and showing a terrifying picture of what hides behind the façades of "progress" and "faith" that the two primary characters represented.

Plainview telling these townspeople that he wanted to make them rich, make their lives better, when all he really wanted was power. And the preacher kid selling anger in response to Plainview's Puritan unfriendly sensibilities, also making a power grab, selling a lie of equal proportions to the masses searching for a leader, and a person to blame. A God and a Devil, I guess.

Really i agree with what you're saying completely. I just went about saying it in a different way, I guess. I don't think it was anti-religion. I'm not either. But I'm totally anti-charlatan, anti-phony ass conman, anti-greed, anti-power. And the film is a goddamn masterpiece because it presents such awesome/horrifying examples of two of the primary means by which evil is brought into the world: corrupt religion and corrupt commerce.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Severian again

[Severian]

Think I'd have to go with Coen Bros. over Tarantino, simply because they have more 5-star (in my opinion) films to their credit than Mr. T.

Coens have:
Blood Simple
Miller's Crossing
Barton Fink
Fargo
The Big Lebowski
O' Brother Where Art Thou
Burn After Reading
No Country for Old Men

Tarantino has:
Reservoir Dogs
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
KILL BILL (counting both volumes as one movie; get over it )
Inglorious Basterds
Django Unchained

8-6 Coens.

Of course, the Coens have more shitty (Intolerable Cruelty), and meh/so-so (Hudsucker Proxy, A Serious Man) movies than Tarantino, who has... well, none. I haven't seen Death Proof, but I doubt it's outright shitty (probably quite fun, but not likely a 5-star work or a masterpiece).

I also haven't seen a couple Coens films (Hail Caesar!, Llewin Davis), but even if they're total shit, it won't take away from the cinematic mastery of their best films. I think Tarantino is a bit more singular... he's synthesized a style entirely his own out of Scorcese, Shaw Brothers, Coppola, Don Siegel, the spaghetti westerns and Blacksploitation films of the '70s, and a host of other stylistic and narrative elements from the history of film. With this he's managed to become more than just a revisionist, bringing an ultra-modern, often meta flare to "classic" filmmaking. He's more iconic and iconoclastic than the Coens.

The Coens are probably more adept at nuts and bolts filmmaking, having mastered black comedy and quiet tension on both script and screen. Despite being equally oddball when they're just being themselves, I'd say the Coens are more "mainstream" -- they're utterly absurd, but they also have a knack for making more generalized *movie* movies, if that makes sense. Like No Country and True Grit. Just total crowd pleasers that anyone can appreciate. I'm sure Tarantino has this in his skill set somewhere, but he's clearly not interested in making that kind of film.

The Coens are more masters of a craft than flippers of a script. The opposite is true for Tarantino, though he is certainly a master as well.

Blech. Not sure who I outright prefer, but statistically I'd have to go with the Coens. For now.

... 'Cause I know you were all just dying to know.

[ilduclo]

Another thing about the Coens. You don't have to see all of what they're doing, movies like Fargo and O Brother are also pretty solid for their entertainment value. I think Quentin is a bit more "sledge-hammery" with his stuff, although Jackie Brown just rides both rails, too

[Severian]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

Another thing about the Coens. You don't have to see all of what they're doing, movies like Fargo and O Brother are also pretty solid for their entertainment value. I think Quentin is a bit more "sledge-hammery" with his stuff, although Jackie Brown just rides both rails, too

Yes, I'd agree. Tarantino can be subtle — I think the script for Pulp Fiction will be studied by film students for centuries, unraveling the mysteries of that perfect dialogue — but he comes from a different angle completely than the Coens. Again, I think the Coens are heavily influenced by Hitchcock, a bit by Davud Lynch, and, odd ad it may sound, perhaps Woody Allen too. Their take on gangsterdom is heavy on the "radio days" ambiance, and very suspenseful and haunting. Tarantino's gangsters are a much louder, more motley crew. Scorcese would (should) be proud.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

severian i did what you did to make an earlier post. i went through both filmography and determined overall the Coen brothers have a superior body of work though i admit my fav Tarantino films are like my all time fac films by any director

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

severian i did what you did to make an earlier post. i went through both filmography and determined overall the Coen brothers have a superior body of work though i admit my fav Tarantino films are like my all time fac films by any director

See? Lookit how alike we are when all is said and done!

[_slavo_]

I watched the Hungarian movie Son of Saul yesterday.

It made me physically sick. It's a very very powerful movie, yet not for the weak-hearthed.

[ilduclo]

High Rise, newest one by Ben Wheatley......can't rightly say, had its moments, but nowhere near as good as Kill List or A Field in England. I did note that Wheatley had no writing credits for this one, instead his spouse, Ms Jump was responsible.....also, many of the stable of actors he's used were not in it, eg Mike Smiley...instead the box office gold types, Miller, Irons....so, it's sticking with me, but it's not on my recco list

[Severian]

Another Director-Director match-up that I think may be worth exploring:

Christopher Nolan v. David Fincher.

Obviously I'm a Nolan man. Dude's never made a film I haven't loved. But Fincher's had his moments, and at one time I thought he'd be a decent choice for a Batman reboot (before Nolan proved to be the only choice). But Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Social Network, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and Gone Girl were all good to great.

[Severian]

Nolan and Fincher really don't have a hell of a lot in common, I guess. I just think the comparison is rather apt, based on the dark/gritty and or surreal/epic qualities both directors bring to their projects. But what the fuck do I know? Not a ton, that's for sure.