As I sat down to write this post, I was accused of the same character trait I was about to condemn – haughtiness. After minutes of reflection, I realized that this statement is probably accurate. It appears that out of my fear of sounding stupid, I overcompensate with a lofty writing style. Since my spoken words are often such a meandering mess, I tend to inject a bit of formality in my writing in hopes of receiving a “well put” from time to time. Since the accuser is an English professor at SMU, I’ll do my best to adhere to her suggestion and avoid crossing into the tacky world of over-writing.
Returning to the original intention of this post, last night’s Academy Awards had me thinking about intellectual snobbery (as found in others). There Will Be Blood was one of the most critically acclaimed films (that’s what smart people call movies) of the year. Can someone tell me why? This movie is like the ugly piece of art that everyone loves for fear of not-seeming “cultured” enough to understand it.
-Matt
KITES
3 years ago
12 comments:
Good point mattwood. It's the same reason why I'm afraid to publicly bash the Scarlet Letter (and, therefore, must post anonymously). Every time I call that book what it really is-- a joke, I'm reprimanded by the "elites" (eg- Trevor) who like the book just because their superiors tell them to.
i don't have any superiors.
I thought the film was okay, but I don't know that I thought it was the masterpiece the critics seemed to think it was. I thought Daniel Day-Lewis gave a strong performannce, but it just seemed like Bill the Butcher goes into the oil business. I'd be interested in reading "Oil" since I thought "The Jungle" was an excellent book. It is my understanding that "Oil" is more management vs. labor, as opposed to the father-son relationship in the movie. Maybe the movie-makers should have just stuck with the original premise.
I think the movie is "almost great."
I agree that it falls short of great, but I don't think that's really disputed considering it DID NOT win best picture, and nobody was upset about it.
But in my view, the dualistic character of Plainview and Sunday, and the three conflict scenes between them, make it fair to raise the question.
It's not great, but it's close.
And I'm compelled to note that it was much better than American Gangster, which the author of this post raved about.
Feel free to overwrite a response.
We don't get those classy...what'd ya call 'em...films...here in Gulf Coast Texas. If we do they are here for a total of one week. That's right, before I could even consider seeing the movie it was gone. Guess I'll have to hold off on my opinion until it's on Apple TV. : (
Matt and I agree that our last anonymous poster is certainly Brannon.
I will concede three things: the acting was terrific, the cinematography was appealing, the score was unique.
But i still say it's all potatoes and no meat.
It isn't nearly as insightful as it thinks it is.
I agree, American Gangster isn't as good as I originally said it was. But Denzel is a bad A and the scene where he shoots that guy in the street and then goes back to his meal is cold-blooded, and worthy of my praise.
you're right about the acting and the cinematography, they were both brilliant. i just don't understand where the movie failed you. you seem disappointed in the film because it doesn't live up to the a self-importance you've created for it.
TWBB provided as much insight as No Country, and did so in a more beautiful and stirring manner. if any two films this year thought that they were delivering the audience some profound insight those would be No Country and (wretch) Juno.
if TWBB was all potatoes and no meat, then i'll take be eating a huge dallop of mashed potatoes, a side of fries and, of course, your milkshake.
I don't think I created the self-importance, the critics and the film did...
1) 2.5+ hours long - always a pretentious move by the director. I'm not saying all movies should be less than 2.5 hours, but I think this one had about 30 minutes of fluff in it.
2) A lot of critics say it's a great examination of religion and greed. I don't think it's either. It sets out to say something about both, but falls flat in making a true statement. Besides Plainview telling us he's a greedy s.o.b., he doesn't seem too hell bent on filling his pockets (except for one or two scenes). Maybe I just misinterpreted that aspect of the film. Also, it says nothing about religion that Family Guy hasn't already said.
3) A lot of critics say Plainview is personification of evil. I don't see that either. But then again, I didn't think the bad guy in No Country for Old Men was a socio-path, I just thought he was a dude set on getting the job done (and done well).
4) The milk shake bit. Sadly, after I saw the movie, I searched the internet for any kind of commentary on this, because a lot of people were talking about it. Maybe I'm just not smart enough, but I don't get it. Loved jc's reference though.
5) Abrupt endings. I fell for it at the end of The Sopranos, but it's being over-used now.
All that being said, I didn't hate the movie. I liked it well enough. I'd give it a 6.5/10. I just don't think it's worth of all these nominations or a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes - my guiding light on what movies to see.
I do think No Country for Old Men and Juno are also overrated though. I would have liked NCFOM a lot less if I hadn't read the book first and some of the dialogue in Juno is very ridiculous/lame.
Do you have a movie or two that you think fits the bill for the hype it received? I know you do...just curious as to what they are since you didn't agree with the buzz surrounding TWBB?
1st anonymous obviously Justin.
new post please
Post a Comment