Holy shit this was _______good___

Holy shit this was _______good___

Is Daniel Day-Lewis, dare I say, the best current actor?

Attached: 1508344544634.jpg (532x798, 30K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bT_XjcdgT6g
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Well hes officially retired so, not the best current actor anymore.

fuck. since when?

As soon as filming for Phantom Thread finished.

i liked him better in gangs of new york, but this was pretty good too

that was only last year right? never saw it, was it any good?

classic paul dano

>kino plot
>kino cinematography
>kino acting
>KINO AS FUCK soundtrack

Dare I say it, the best film of the 00’s?

He'll be back. Give it a decade or so

This movie was a piece of trash. DDL was good tho.

DDL is untouchable, but partly because he gives himself a ton of time to prepare for roles. He apparently read over 100 books and worked closely with historians in order to play Lincoln.

quite possibly, it's up there with No Country For Old Men IMO

It had one of the best film scores i've ever heard: youtube.com/watch?v=bT_XjcdgT6g

Same director and composer of There Will Be Blood

Both movies are not even top50 in 00' - mediocre flicks.

I didn't like it, not one bit.

didn't Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead compose There Will Be Blood? Think he even won an oscar for it.

He composed both movies, but he wasn't eligible for an Oscar for There Will Be Blood. A certain percentage of the movie's score was used by Jonny in something else, so he couldn't be nominated.

what would you say the top 3 films from the 00's are then?

I'VE ABANDONED MY MILKSHAKE

>movie’s tittle claims there will be blood
>no blood until the last final five minutes

Prettttttty gay

I like the ending but I totally get why most don't

THE LORD SOMETIMES CHALLENGES US, DOESN'T HE ELI

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 7.39.43 PM.png (1750x772, 720K)

there's a tiny bit of blood in the first 10 mins when H.W's dad gets crushed by that part of the well I guess.

LOL I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH XD XD XD

Who's this "most"? I've never spoken to someone who disliked the ending. You're thinking of No Country for Old Men

Idk if I liked the ending of No Country For Old Men, haven't seen it for years. I need to rewatch it.

I actually think this might be it senpai.

Hes old as shit now and cant seem to keep up with his own method acting anymore.

>“No!” is the first word spoken in There Will Be Blood, and it should be the last said in response to Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest pretend epic. That obstinate “No!” is Daniel Plainview’s refusal to accept the fate awaiting him when he falls on his back and breaks a leg in his California silver mine in 1898. “No!” startles our concentration on the mystery of who he is and what he’s doing. The lonely willfulness of an American pioneer is also the stubborn tenacity of a born isolate and naysayer.
As Daniel Day Lewis plays the part, Plainview is also a ferocious psychopath. His curious position as There Will Be Blood’s central character makes one recall the question Paul Newman asks in his soliloquy in Robert Altman’s Buffalo Bill and the Indians: “How come you took him to be a hero?”

>The key problem of There Will Be Blood is that Anderson takes Plainview to be a hero—personifying everything that’s wrong in American character: greed, selfishness, stinginess and unchecked ambition. He’s a shock-and-awe hero who reduces all to shame. Mounting a large-scaled epic around such a characterization would be unthinkable before the 2000 presidential election unleashed the Left’s rage, and yet Altman-acolyte Anderson isn’t asking sympathy (like Altman did in his Richard Nixon movie, Secret Honor) because Blood is a guilt-soaked epic. Americans are meant to identify with Plainview for the worst aspects of themselves.

Attached: White Man's Burden.png (300x207, 49K)

>That makes the movie an oddball showcase for Day Lewis. His twisted charisma and commanding skill galvanize the 30-year plot developments and the parade of sketchy subordinate characters: a charlatan preacher, Eli (Paul Dano); an estranged brother (Kevin J. O’Connor) and a loyal but deaf adopted son (Russell Harvard). Plainview’s family-narrative tree suggests what Pauline Kael said about Days of Heaven: You can hang all your old metaphors on it. It’s never clear what Anderson intends these characters to mean—for Plainview or us. The movie’s interest lies simply in how Plainview reacts to them. Day Lewis digs deep into primordial madness—evoking Western culture’s most memorable freaks from Prospero to Captain Ahab to Gordon Gekko.

>Plainview is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta. One must recognize that Day Lewis’ is also a postmodern comic turn. He gives Plainview the insinuating growl of John Huston’s Noah Cross in Chinatown—a Biblical allusion already tied to both Hollywood dynastic history and the corrupt pioneer spirit. And because Anderson anxiously pitches himself into American cinema tradition, Day Lewis’ flinty characterization resembles the same obdurate old man that Jason Robards Jr. etched so magnificently in Anderson’s overweening Magnolia—only Day-Lewis has two and a half hours to do it. A thousand times better than his Gangs of New York butcher, he keeps coming up with actorly surprises from his own British theatrical tradition. The way Plainview shames his son by calling him an “Oooorphan” combines cruelty and self-dramatization in a way that recalls the hammy grandeur of Olivier and Charles Laughton at their best.

Attached: 1520285199417.jpg (315x450, 95K)

>the movie is bad because it disagrees with me ideologically, boo hoo
No different than the feminists who constantly attack great work for its representation of women

>There may be no contemporary director more self-dramatizing than Paul Thomas Anderson, always attempting a true epic and this time coming close. But Blood is an insipid epic. Anderson adapts Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel Oil, partly in response to the blood-for-oil arguments about the Iraq War—as if going back to Sinclair’s fictionalized history of the U.S. oil industry explained anything about Americans’ dependence on energy and exploitation of their natural and spiritual resources. But Anderson’s argument isn’t muckraking or cogent. Plainview’s robber-baron immorality and atheism—the way he cheats a family out of its oil-rich land, his cut-throat competitiveness and inability to express love—do not represent the essence of American culture or industry. It’s just nihilistic reaching.

>Ironically, Anderson enjoys unearned good will among today’s film nerds. Since the silly Boogie Nights sentimentalized the porn industry with a fake rubber penis, Anderson has been the small white hope for Gen-Xers wishing there was a Griffith, Stroheim, Ford, Wyler, Vidor or Stevens among them. It reveals the naive cynicism that infects today’s movie geeks. (Embarrassingly, There Will Be Blood won IndieWire’s online poll of real and wannabe critics yearning for a film that depicted America as land of the greedy and the home of the great Satan.) Yet, There Will Be Blood isn’t a unifying American epic like Giant or The Best Years of Our Lives; it’s the Worst Years of Our History, a post-Iraq War Termigant.

Attached: White expresses disgust.jpg (600x560, 14K)

>Plainview is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta.
LMFAO How can anyone read this sentence and tack the rest of the review seriously?

>Anderson’s grandiose narrative gives the impression of depth when there’s only jumbled, surface breadth. It’s strange to watch a confidently-made film by a director who doesn’t know what he’s doing. Each dramatic segment is impressively paced—as if Anderson was showing Stevens how magnanimity ought to be done—but the result is piddling; inexpressive of universality. Have Anderson’s boosters noticed, there are virtually no women in this epic? No single contradiction to Plainview’s masculinist cruelty? None of the richness found in Gone With the Wind, Giant, The Sundowners, Sounder?
Yes, Blood has photographic detail. Cinematographer Robert Elswit records nature more tastefully than the great Roger Deakins’ show-offy work in the fake-epic Jesse James/Robert Ford, instilling genuine visionary heft. And Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood provides a wondrous emotive score, as eclectic as Carl Stalling and expressive as Max Steiner. Musical wit disguises the story’s incoherence—its meaningless siblings, silences and opportunistic sadism.

>Yet, Anderson’s story becomes stupidly fashionable in its stacked contest of Plainview vs. Eli, capitalist ruthlessness vs. religious fanaticism. The shabby set-up of Plainview and Eli’s ultimate confrontation in a bowling alley is so confusing and slapdash that their symbolic clash—where one forces the other to confess his shallowness and deny his beliefs—comes across as just secular-progressive prejudice and loopy, unconvincing drama. Each man is a thesis position, not a character. Is There Will Be Blood an undeniable expose of American ruthlessness, or a formidable dramatization of the struggle between power and faith? No!

Attached: armond_white_0.jpg (1047x1572, 908K)

My Left Foot > Other performances

>can't argue so results to namecalling
The typical response of PTA fanboy pseuds

Attached: Armond-White.jpg (585x400, 87K)

>No Country for Old Men
>There Will be Blood
>The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Was 2007 the greatest year for film of the 21st Century?

ACTING! the performance

This postpretty much is the end-all argument against most of White's reviews. He's a bitter man who's so against what he perceives to be Hollywood's ideological signaling that he attacks every movie the industry chooses to heap praise on. He's a critic primarily concerned with politics, and less so with form and aesthetic. Hard to take him seriously.

yes

all of those films are top tier, didn't even realise they were the same year. Assassination is a personal favourite.

You mean to say you liked one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the century? Wow.

Well you can't really play a cripple with subtlety, can you now?

Eddie Murphy in Norbit was amazing, and I doubt you've even seen Norbit.

Paul Dano's performance always annoyed me. He's not bad, and I get that he's supposed to be young and weaselly, but I wish they picked someone with more presence. Ed Norton would've nailed that role so hard

yeah Norton seemed perfect for that role, he's not young and weaselly enough for it, like you say. He'd definitely ace the preacher aspect of the role though.

Well, well, nancy and I, well, economics, well,

Underage just b7 yourself.

Yeah, the Triple D Man Daniel Day-Lewis is pretty much the greatest actor of all time, but he's not a current actor anymore because he's retired now. Phantom Thread was it.

>compares it to older movies
>analyzes the performances
>analyzes the puddle-deep themes of the movies
>examines the cinematography and music
>dislikes it because of those accounts
>"BWAAAH HE'S JUST AN SJW, I CAN'T DEFEND THE FILMMAKING PERFORMANCES CHARACTERS OR STORY BUT HE'S AN SJW"

Attached: armondwhite090223_250.jpg (250x375, 12K)

Didn't they have the different guy first but something happened with his involvement in the film so instead of reshooting they just hired Dano and made it so Eli had a twin

DDL retired after Fantom Fred

Dano originally just played Paul, but the other guy quit so Dano took up the role of Eli as well just 4 days before shooting began.

Great job not actually reading the review you're posting. He praised Daniel's acting
>Plainview is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta.
He praises Jonny Greenwood's score
>And Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood provides a wondrous emotive score, as eclectic as Carl Stalling and expressive as Max Steiner.
And he praises the photography
>Yes, Blood has photographic detail. Cinematographer Robert Elswit records nature more tastefully than the great Roger Deakins’ show-offy work in the fake-epic Jesse James/Robert Ford, instilling genuine visionary heft.
His dislike of the film is clearly coming from an ideological perspective. No one says "the composite parts of the film are great, but I still hated it" if they aren't coming from a place of ideological baggage.

The rumor was that he quit after being intimidated by DDL's performance, but the real story was that he was fired. He's barely acted in anything else, so I think that he was just too inexperienced for the part

Attached: keloneill-filmfestival-2.jpg (300x495, 20K)

White liked Green Inferno and said liberal women deserve to be knifed in their vagina in so many words Happy international women's day

The scene where he is addressing the town about a potential drilling site is some of the best acting.

DUUUUUURAINAAAAAGE

WHY DON'T I OWN THIS?

I'm an oil man

Attached: 1406429586475.gif (300x237, 2.66M)

I TOLD YOU I WOULD EAT YOU

Attached: tumblr_mj5sxgIPDM1r3d8abo2_r4_500.gif (500x245, 989K)

He played brilliantly in My Left Foot

The oil was the earth's blood.

A lot of interesting symbolic imagery in the movie. Like the blood of Christ; or the first scene with Daniel being him underground with a pickaxe, having drag himself to success, both literally and metaphorically.