I just watched this today and I'm really fucking surprised...

I just watched this today and I'm really fucking surprised. You're telling me this is considered to be one of the best films ever made? By WHOM?

It was a total borefest. The movie has a fuckload of scenes where absolutely NOTHING happens (Not even dialogue). Like wasting 5-10 minutes into showing you how some unnamed carpenters build an oil tower or guys staring at a fire for 5 minutes without saying a word. This easily bloated the film's length, it could have been a 1:40-2:00:00 long movie, but they dragged it on way too much with these scenes. The pacing is all over the place. There is no rhyme or reason in the plot, no conflict or anything and there is 0 character development. Daniel started being an unscrupulous, greedy man with a short temper and ended up being an unscrupulous, greedy man with a short temper. The only change he suffers in the movie is that he goes from prospector to filthy rich businessman in the first 10 minutes.

That's also one of the issues and one of the reasons why the plot just felt stalled: It's not even a film about a man doing whatever it takes to become rich, because since the beginning of the film he's already filthy rich.

The only good thing about it was Day-Lewis performance. Does Sup Forums thinks this film is kino?

It's trash.

dude twbb is classic paul dano

The music was super foreboding the entire time too. Like over the top, like it was meant for a suspense horror movie.

hi is this pasta?

never seen it because it looks boring

Reply/10

Delete this thread and hang yourself

>Being this pleb
Consider suicide

That was my problem with Magnolia. The soundtrack was super intrusive and distracting.

>movie doesn't trigger enough dopamine in Sup Forumseddit's underaged brains with explosions and interracial BMWF sex scenes
>therefore it's bad

why do you ever watch anything without the mouse logo on it?

When did I said that?

There's a difference between "no explosions" and "literally nothing happened".

So many scenes in this film are literally useless that even the wikipedia plot summary jumps between intervals of like 20 minutes for every paragraph and it still doesn't misses a single detail

Sometimes the refusal to change when an opportune moment comes along is also character development because we, the audience, know what's best for him, and are pained to see him throw it away.

So in a sense, the character "fails" by not changing, but we and possibly even he knows that. Hence, "I'm finished."

>movie is 3 hours of nothing happening
>therefore it's good

How would you like camera work to be included in the plot summary? Are you retarded?

>Implying we even wanted him to change or thought it would be good if he changed.

There was never a single scene where I said "Maybe this guy shouldn't be such a dick". Mainly because the movie has no peril for the protagonist, he literally has no reason to change

>Movies are for exposition
Read books, moron

>Implying it was all camera work.

To give you an example of what I'm saying:

"In 1911, Daniel is approached by Paul Sunday, who tells him of an oil deposit under his family's property in Little Boston, California. Daniel attempts to buy the farm at a bargain price. However, Eli, Paul's twin brother and pastor of a local church, is aware of his plan. Eli demands $10,000 and states that it is for the church. An agreement is made and Daniel goes on to acquire all the available land in the area, except for one holdout: William Bandy. Oil production begins, but an on-site accident kills a worker and a gas blowout robs H. W. of his hearing. Eli blames the disasters on the well not being properly blessed. When Eli demands the $5,000 Daniel still owes his family, Daniel beats and humiliates him. At the dinner table, Eli berates his father for trusting Daniel."

That paragraph comprised about 50 minutes of the film and literally no detail was omitted

I noticed that too. The background music had that "crawling suspense" vibe even though it was just a guy and his son walking across an oil field in the desert.

I didn't really like TWBB. I feel like it's one of those movies, however, where if you say you think it's boring and full of itself, then everyone is going to stick their nose up and you and just call you a pleb for not appreciating its artistry or whatever the fuck.

>someone posts good arguments for why they don't like a movie, thus promoting Television & Film discussion
>Sup Forums spergs out
>someone posts low effort race-bait, mommy, or BLACKED thread
>post gets stickied and OP is made moderator

>I am superior not for my accomplishments in life, but because I watch superior motion picture entertainment

> Good arguments
Nice narcissism, op

It was an homage to Woman in the Dunes

>films need conflict
>films need character development

Hmmm

you're a pleb for not appreciating its artistry or whatever the fuck

WATCH IT CHRISSY

I honestly think this is one of PTA's strengths. The music carries from scene to scene, giving it a certain quality that blends everything and pushes the story along. In Magnolia it's unintrusive, but connects the various stories together.

Maybe in the beginning it sort of channels some scary Kubrick vibes, but otherwise it holds it all together.

>In Magnolia it's unintrusive, but connects the various stories together.

It's intrusive as fuck.

No peril? The guy is fucking crashing the entire film. He DISOWNS his son and MURDERS a guy. He's off the rails. The film isn't about making money. That's not the conflict.

>The only good thing about it was Day-Lewis performance.
That's why it's kino
this is also while it's kino

Put Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano in a small room with 2 chairs and film them for 3 hours. I'll pay to see it and enjoy every second of it.

The movie is held together well by the tense music and imagery of the american oil boom. Literally nothing wrong with the pacing, but maybe your attention span has been ruined.

Daniel, although lacks growth, is a very interesting character who cares about nothing but expanding his empire. Probably the type of character you see at the top of many companies today.

Dano is there to show Daniel's lack of empathy towards his fellow man (and christianity) when it gets in the way of his desires. I think we all took some pleasure in watching Daniel kick the shit out of him.

Truely one of the best films ever made.

>muh explosions
This movie actually does have explosions in it though...

Am I the only person who thinks that the young preacher guy sucked? He looked like a kid.

>He disowns his son

It wasn't even his son, he fucking admits he only adopted him because it would allow him to fake a good guy persona so that people would trust him easily. And he doesn't disowns him until the final act of the film when he's already an adult. There's also no moral consequence to it, he doesn't spend the rest of his film regretting or anything and it doesn't bites him in the ass.

>He murders a guy.

Yeah and he's even discovered, but there's still no risk at all when it happens. They never threaten to tell on him or try to blackmail, they just tell him "Lol ok just go get baptized".

Even by the end, he murders the pastor and casually tells his butler "yeah lol im already finished"

Did anyone else notice sexual undercurrents in this or was I just over analyzing?

>not recognizing a classic performance

you have to go back

Eli isn't exactly a paragon of empathy. He's a hypocrite who preaches the word of god for power and profit. He throws his beliefs out the window as soon as he thinks it'll get him some money.

He and Daniel were very similar. Daniel was just willing to kill people to get what he wanted.

really drinks my milkshake

I'm pretty sure PTA intentionally makes his movies boring and obtuse so that plebs will think they don't understand something and pretend to like them. He can make a pretty film, and they usually have at least one or two great scenes, but he never really figures out where he's going with the movie.

...

Daniel is impotent. It's more emphasized in the script. The film leaves it a bit more of a mystery, but it's very much tied to Daniel's entire character.

Even if it wasn't his son, he still cares for him very much. There's flashbacks of them enjoying their time together (or at least that's how I saw it). There is moral consequence to it, because it's the one thing Daniel is lacking: love. And his son is there offering it to him, but he rejects him, probably out of his own insecurity (impotence) or just out of his inability to accept love that doesn't come from him.

And he pays the price by not accepting love.

While I disagree with the OP, it's telling that every response is "lol nice bait". OP might not have understood the movie, but I guarantee everyone dismissing him as a pleb understood it even less.

Basically sums up my thoughts exactly.

Maybe I truly am not seeing something, but his movies feel like The Emperor Has No Clothes to me.

Yea you're the only one.

>he fucking admits

Yep, you didn't get it. They even gave you a montage of the good ol' times and the completely broken crazed old man he has become. And you still didn't get it. God damn. Stick to capeshit.

>Sup Forums says TWBB is boring
>Sup Forums says2001 is a cinematic masterpiece

Where did it all go so wrong?

It doesn't matter how much you want to metaphorically say that the character was affected by something..but only symbolically.

That's BS and you know it. The point is he loses absolutely NOTHING by disowning his son. He does not changes at all (inb4 this is actually a "sign of change" by not changing).

He doesn't becomes more miserable, he doesn't become angrier (he already killed another man in an autistic tantrum earlier on), he doesn't become poor and he was already an alcoholic before getting cucked by his son. So as much as you want to say "Ohh but he is lacking the power of love!!!", it wont change the fact that the character was still virtually unaffected by everything that happened around him

YOU DONT ENJOY LONG SCENES OF NOTHING HAPPENING? GO BACK TO TRANSFORMERS YOU ADHD CHILD

> OP spouts the pleb bingo
> Gets meme responses
Really activated my charcoal during this thread

...

>this assmad

who cares what its an homage to, its out of place and shitty

>borefest
>nothing happens
Stopped reading there. Go back to Sup Forums, kiddo.

I sometimes think this, and sometimes think that it's just subtle and life-like, rather than malformed. Some writers like to be more direct, I think he just likes to let it breathe. Since most his films are like this, I'd say it's intentional.

>He can make a pretty film, and they usually have at least one or two great scenes, but he never really figures out where he's going with the movie

I actually feel this way about most of his movies but I didn't get that at all with TWBB, everything felt very in place and delivered with no loose ends, and it all culminates in that ending. It's a really satisfying film imo.

hook line n sinker

>The guy intentionally adopts him because he knows he'll be useful to trick people into seeing him as a family man
>This is even in the script
>Almost 3 decades of playing to be daddy make him actually like the guy for real, but he was still nothing more than a tool
>So he admits the only reason why he adopted him, it wasn't even because of love or pity, he did it 100% thinking about how it would benefit HIM (daniel)
>And the SECOND HW becomes a threat to Daniel's empire, he disowns him with no second thoughts.

Yeah, I'm totally 100% sure he really for realies reality loved the guy deep down.

It seems you're the one who doesn't get it: Daniel was literally incapable of loving anyone asides himself

How was it an autistic tantrum when the dude assumed his dead brother's identity so he could make a buck off of him?

what are you supposed to get from strung out scenes with literally nothing happening? I can watch a long scene, but it has to be important.
not OP btw

Yup, they are both hypocrites. Selling bullshit to make a profit.

>"i can't sit still to watch a movie"

Thats pretty interesting, I got the sense he was connecting oil DRILLING (or just capitalism as a whole?) with erotic passion. Also some of Dano's preaching scenes seemed really sexual.

That's my point though. We recognize that's the moment where he could change, but he chooses not to.

Not all protagonists have to "succeed." That is only one way of writing. By the protagonist making a change from bad -> good, he succeeds and the audience understands that the change is a moral one (considered by the writer/director). Another method is the protagonist doesn't make a change, and then fails, and the audience understands that his failure to change makes is his flaw, and we know what the "correct" decision would've been. It's a film making a statement and we understand it by the protagonist not changing.

And yes, because the last part of the film shows him at the TOP of his wealth. Big mansion, bowling alley, top-bred dogs, etc. *He didn't have those before.* Now that he has them, we see he's still (if not more) miserable. Money was never the answer. Then we see him turn to religion one last time, but Eli throws his religion away for MONEY (which Daniel knows won't bring him happiness). If not RELIGION or MONEY, the only thing left is FAMILY/LOVE. And that's the one thing he never accepted, and thus continues to suffer.

I'd also like to have this much of an imagination so that I can trick myself into finishing the vague shit that the producers made.

Seriously they could give you a book that's missing 10 pages for every 3 pages and you'd still finish the story and say it was a masterpiece

They're not good arguments. They're the misapprehensions of someone too ignorant to know better.

There's literally no other way to explain it than to simply say: you're an idiot without the ability to appreciate good movies.

>A) Borefest
Wew so I guess establishing shots and cinematography are pointless, who cares about visual story telling and metaphors.
>B) PLEASE DICTATE THE CHARACTERS ENTIRE PERSONALITY FOR ME
>Bloated
Yes, because you're too stupid for the above reasons
>There's no conflict
Because you're fucking blind, and that's presupposing that a good movie needs conflict which it doesn't necessarily.
>0 character development
And yet your only way of attributing this is that the character's personality doesn't change for better or worse, which is actually different from not being developed: it just hasn't changed.
>The plot felt stalled
To you it did because apparently everything went straight over your head.


Stick to capeshit, its more up your ally apparently, not even like TWBB is complicated and yet somehow Sup Forums is just a magnet for retardation.

>using wikipedia summaries as arguments

Nothing left to argue now.

>THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH ACTION IN MY 19TH CENTURY CHARACTER STUDY ABOUT THE CANNABALISTIC SENSE OF COMPETITION THAT DRIVES MEN TO SUCCESS

Fagged up.

"cock" was a slang word as early as the 1900's?

You're complaining because a movie doesn't throw exposition at you? If the "I'm finished" line doesn't tell you anything there's no helping you.

you're right, you're not supposed to think about movies when you watch them :')

Rogue One shill detected

Eh, at least Boogie Nights was fun and Magnolia was interesting.

Holy shit I've never seen anyone get so assblasted over a Sup Forums post. Are you one of those guys who has to vent his frustrations for being an underachieving virgin by tricking yourself you're some sort of connoisseur who is intellectually superior because he can assign more imaginative value to pieces of art?

I'm not the guy you're arguing with btw, just think it's funny that you're blaming the fact that you're a guy who never achieved shit at life onto the rest of society and you're having an autistic episode on an imageboard because a guy didn't appreciated your movie

Google it. It goes back to 1600s.

There's a difference between thinking and when the director makes a half assed work on purpose so that "deep thinkers" such as yourself convince themselves there are gaps to fill.

I can think when I watch Taxi Driver, when I try to figure the logic behind Travis' actions, but in this shit film we're talking about there's really no hidden superior motive for anything. Everything is exposed, and it's a very small piece of information. You're just tricking yourself into believing there was something greater to feel intellectually superior.

This is like how writers like Lovecraft would deal with writer's block by making "indescribable" parts such as "TOO WICKED FOR A MORTAL MIND TO COMPREHEND!!!"

Also, no Rogue 1 was shit

How is any of that vague or 'missing'? It's anything but - instead of having a bad character go good, he stays bad. That way, instead of the audience thinking "This is what happens when good prevails, this is a good thing", the audience is left thinking "This is what happens when bad prevails, this is a bad thing".

>No character development isn't actually "no character development" if I like the film!"

>guys staring at a fire for 5 minutes without saying a word
I know that what I'm about to say has become a shitty Reddit meme, but scenes like this are supposed to unironically "really make you think" so to speak.

The million dollar mine blows up, people die, countless resources are lost, lives are ruined, the environment suffers, etc. Everyone standing around staring at the raging inferno is lost in thought about something related to it. The goal of the scene is to get you at least somewhat lost in thought about it too. Is it pretentious? It sounds like it when I put it that way, but I don't think it is. Interpretation is a form of story telling as old as story telling itself. Most of the idle scenes in There Will Be Blood are supposed to let you do some storytelling of your own in your head.

I can see why you didn't enjoy it as everyone has different tastes. It doesn't mean you're a plebeian or a patrician and it doesn't mean I'm a plebeian or a patrician. We don't all have to like the same stuff.

Dude. A character doesn't need to change. They don't have to overcome the inner conflict. That doesn't mean they aren't developed, it means they haven't progressed, and that's fine

god forbid movies could be his passion

you are a buzzword juggling clown, now sit the fuck down and let people with opinions argue because that's about the only thing that makes humanity progress as long as your violent cousins don't impede it

>I want to earn enough money I can get away from everyone

He even states outright that he cares only for himself and wants to be left alone

speaking of being an assblasted, projecting faggot lmao

stay mad, pleb. maybe one day you can hump a stray dog.

>The million dollar mine blows up

The "mine" didn't blew up, it was a gas leak that would be stopped later on, if anything the raging fire was just an indication of how fucking huge the mine actually was.

>people die

Nobody died in that scene. Daniel loses exactly 2 workers on screen by the same cause: A piece of equipment falling on their heads(And the film doesn't mention anyone else died)

>countless resources are lost

But they weren't? Only the wooden tower blew up, it was literally just wood, they could easily build another one (And they did) in a day

>The environment suffers

A very small petrol well catching fire won't do anything for the environment.

Hell, in that scene, Daniel says something like "Why are you looking so sad? We're standing above an ocean of oil!"

Oh I'm pretty sure movies are his passions, you gotta have one when you fail absolutely everywhere else in life.

Don't even try to pretend otherwise, one doesn't become so mad and self-righteous about such a trivial matter unless it's the only thing one has.

>He's only debating xd!

Yeah there are ways to debate, the one where you call everyone who disagree with you a "pleb" and try to claim that you're smarter than everyone else because you somehow understood a film is certainly not the mature way.

People are stupid. People don't know what the want/need. People lie.

There was something lacking in Daniel, and being alone in a big mansion didn't solve it.

anytime a person includes "boring" as an argument you can disregard everything they say

>no one ever interprets the well starting on fire as hell coming to earth through Plainview

That seemed like such an in your face metaphor when I first saw it in theaters. Maybe I was just looking for meanings where there weren't any.

TWBB is a character study type of film.

It's not meant to make you think or question things or whatever thing you think every movie should follow to please you.

We follow Daniel's life -- or parts of it -- and that's it.

He's an interesting character in an interesting setting.

Don't like it? Oh, well, it's not for you.

Why is TWBB a good movie?

You guys are forcing OP to argue against the movie, but it's always more difficult to prove a negative. You need to explain what is so great about it.

PTA is a fucking wannabe.

Have a free (you) on the house

You are a pleb. Go back to enjoying capeshit and vouge 1

The movie
=======>
_________
Your head

Most people can take a lot of shit and sometimes the buckets just full and someone gets it dumped on their head. Nothing you said has any value because you assume the same position of superiority that you are accusing him of. You weren't polite, why do you demand the same then?

You're saying we're not allowed to question a character's motives, choices, and actions? That's the point of a character study. It reflects life. When we can understand this character in this setting, it allows us to understand humans and ourselves better.

He was not polite in the first place so I just assume he wouldn't care if somebody called him out on his shit attitude.

And you know why he got so worked up and elevated? Because the guy is most likely completely powerless in real life. He is most likely a very fat, or very skinny man with no considerable physical prowess, so everyone always pushed him aside. Now that he's at an anonymous board, he can feel powerful by acting all tough and calling people names. But he does it because he is weak, and this is the only place where he can feel strong. That plus everything I said earlier. He is OBVIOUSLY an underachiever who is venting because he somehow blames society for his failure.

You may not like what I'm writing, but deep down you know it's true.

You just don't get so self-righteous over the internet unless you lead a very unhappy and unsuccessful life outside of it.

this thread is autism

I don't mean to be rude but you greentexted the little details that don't really have any relevance to what I was trying to say. Something bad happens in the scene that results in losses of various things. The people are staring at the destruction and wreckage, somewhat in awe and somewhat and sadness. That's exactly what happens in real life too. When I watched the movie I got pretty lost in the destruction too, and it made me sad because the thing being destroyed was something that a lot of people helped create, and the wreckage left a blight on the land.

What I'm trying to say is that I I genuinely couldn't tell how long that scene was, because I was really invested in it until it was over. Scenes in which people >reallythink are supposed to >reallymakeyouthink

I don't know what you expected from this thread honestly man. Your tone from the beginning was hostile and reaffirmed, like you've already convinced yourself that it's a pretentious movie for pretentious people. And coming to Sup Forums with a thread and tone like this is going to bring out the worst replies naturally. I'm trying to give you proper heartfelt discussion.

What's with the uptick of "There Will Be Blood is a Shit Movie" threads in the past 2 months?

Are you new? Where do you think you are? Its standard

>OP starts thread with incendiary remarks about a movie whose good quality is almost ubquitous hoping for (you)s
>is completely fucking oblivious of his own arrogance.

If I was so defensive about the movie I'd be trying to explain things better. The main point is that OP is a pleb and should refine his pleb tastes.

People think that they're entitled to respect and that their opinion is infallible when they haven't even gone to the extent of self-analyzing their opinion, rewatching, or even looking at some deeper stuff.

seeThe point is that a character doesn't need to drastically change in order to be developed. A lot of great villains are like that : they remain "evil" but we learn more and more about them in order to understand their motives, etc.

Nah, just triggered by Sup Forums autism. People that are so fucking entry level and yet so fucking arrogant. The kind of people that re responsible for the cancer that is typical hollywood blockbuster schlock and then turn around and criticize a genuinely good movie despite not even taking time to understand its merits.

I've been on this site too long, so ofc this jadedness is perhaps a bit strong. After so many threads trying to explain a movie at length and then being dismissed, you end up with the same exact dismissiveness. So perhaps that's my failing.

Do you lift though?

Millenials recently discovered it on top imdb lists and oh boy do they think it's overrated and dumb just like that fucking witch movie.

They cant wait till the new WWII Nolan memefest that will release next year though.

PTA is a hack
>only just now realizing this