Jon's Alphabet Marathon 2010

[Najemikon]

And with that... I'm finished!

[Antares]

Great review and a great film. As much as I liked No Country for Old Men, this was the better film that year and should have won for Best Picture.

As to the ending...I am one of those who found fault with it, because Dano's character is reduced to a babbling idiot of sorts. If Anderson had made Dano portray it with a bit less absurdity, it may have worked. But to have him appear as a petulant, whiny child with ADD , throws all sense of believabilty right out the window.

You mentioned Altman earlier, and I could see Altman doing something like this, just to throw the audience a curve ball, but as it would have with Altman, here too, it doesn't work.

[Najemikon]

Great review and a great film. As much as I liked No Country for Old Men, this was the better film that year and should have won for Best Picture.

As to the ending...I am one of those who found fault with it, because Dano's character is reduced to a babbling idiot of sorts. If Anderson had made Dano portray it with a bit less absurdity, it may have worked. But to have him appear as a petulant, whiny child with ADD , throws all sense of believabilty right out the window.

You mentioned Altman earlier, and I could see Altman doing something like this, just to throw the audience a curve ball, but as it would have with Altman, here too, it doesn't work.

Well...

[spoiler]You say, "throw the audience", but I don't think that's the intention. It's a shocking change of pace, but on this second viewing I found it to be a natural progression of the themes.

By the end of the film, Eli has left to go to a mission, to spread his word and his faith, apparently. Daniel meanwhile is alone and bored in a very large Xanadu-esque mansion. He is clearly very successful, but restless. He sits there like he is waiting. He dismisses the grown-up H.W. like he was nothing. "A bastard in a basket". He already said he doesn't like most people and now H.W. has ceased to become useful to him. The difference with Eli, is that he used Daniel to get where he is. And Daniel had to use Eli, and they've been locked in a perpetual game ever since.

Eli has been reduced to a whiner, you are right. A desperate one. But if they had both stayed the same, there would have been no ending. Their game with each other had to conclude, and that's what Daniel is waiting for.

But as soon as Eli reveals his money problems, he proves that he is inherently weak and utterly false. He has finally confessed to Daniel that he is nothing. After all these years, Daniel sees the opportunity to utterly destroy him; he humiliates him and makes him denounce his faith, he kills him mentally ("Paul was the one"... "you slithered out on your mothers filth", etc) and then he kills him physically. It's a systematic, cathartic and, in Daniel's madness, a justified execution of a pointless weasel who never made anything of himself that wasn't a lie. That's why the brief cameo by Dano as Eli's brother is so important. Paul came first into the world, came to Daniel first and made a lot of money first. Eli has always just been one step behind and finally is proved to be of no use to anyone.

Hence: "I'm finished!"

He had to be portrayed that whiny and weak, because that's who he really was, right from their first meeting. Essentially, Daniel could have happily destroyed him right then, but he needed to be in a position of absolute power.

I think their relationship was fascinating and the ending, once I saw it again, natural and fitting.
[/spoiler]

By the way, have you seen the Jesse James film? I call it the "Jesse James film", because it's easier than having to type "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"... oh. 

I reviewed it here: http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,886.msg73730.html#msg73730 and was pleased to see it gather some local forum support. I would have said liking any of the three (with No Country) would predispose you to the other two, but Eric shook that the other day. He happened to see There Will Be Blood the same night as me last week, but found it very boring. Shame.

In the interests of balance, Rick also reviewed Jesse James: http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,6526.msg118817.html#msg118817

[Najemikon]

Have you seen Kermode's positive rant on this film? I didn't realise the composer was in Radiohead, but anyway, this is funny stuff. Incisive and passionate too:

[Antares]

I guess what it really boils down to for me, isn't that he's whiny and petulant, but the fact that I thought Dano wasn't up to the task of making it believable.

I've seen TAoJJbtCRF a couple of times now, and the first time I watched it, I found to be laboring in its pace. But after I watched it a second time I really liked it. Would I rate it as one of the greatest westerns of all time, maybe not. But if you're in the right frame of mind for a western that takes its time and tells a good story, then I would recommend it, with that reservation about the pace.

[Achim]

The Road

I watched this last night and quite liked it. As you said, the acting is very good, the production design is marvelous and cinematography is also excellent.

The lack of a story, or I better say plot since there is a story, is a bit confusing at first.

[spoiler]I found it very interesting that there is only one short confrontation with bad guys, they always manage to escape. However, those escapes are done very intensely and had me on the edge of my seat.[/spoiler]

Why aren't people working together? How did all the bad guys find each other and get sort of organised, but the good guys don't?

Because it all goes bad eventually... The good guys turn bad when hunger, greed or jealousy gets the better of them. So, in overall they stick to themselves to be safe.

Some dismiss it as depressing, but they were probably depressed because they couldn't see past the lack of plot and set-pieces to find the genuine and substantial human drama within.

I think the "depressing" comes from showing that bleak world, where death can always be around the next corner. Everything is terribly grey; we only see bits of color in the flashbacks and with the son's blanket (). And then of course the seemingly open end of the film...

[spoiler=seriously]I take it from your review that you opted for the "good ending", that guy Pearce's character is a good guy who will help the son rather than provide him as food for the family? Which weaves into into my other question: Did you also find it a bit strange that Guy Pearce had followed them around for a long time? And for what purpose? And if he did, why didn't he help against the black guy who stole everything?[/spoiler]

I agree with your identification of the "carrying the fire" line being the key-point of this film. Two other great lines came from the son (I put some of it in spoilers, as it's best to discover the full extent of their meaning while watrching the film):
"I wish I could be with my mom."
[spoiler]Father: "So you wish you were dead?"
Son: "Yes."[/spoiler]
and
[spoiler]Father: "You are not the one who has to carry all the responsibilities"[/spoiler]
Son: "Yes I am the one!"

Especially the latter goes very close with what you said about the scene with Robert Duvall (his comment about the son being an angel).


[mr]4[/mr]

[Achim]

This is the only film of De Palma's I would rate so high.

I respect your opinion when it comes to film, but I feel that you do yourself a disservice by rating films in this manner. If someone joins this forum or reads your blog and you rate a film such as this (a film I would be hard pressed to rate above 4) with the same rating as Ikiru, Casablanca or M, and they watch and it doesn't live up to the quality of the films I've mentioned, then you lose credibility with that person in any further review you write.

I thought about this just a week ago myself. In fact, in order to use ratings from this forum for a purchase decision you must have been here for while, know what kind of films each reviewer likes and how he/she rates them. We discussed this in the past and agreed, that we want to make our rating personal.

If I were to use "real" ratings for the films I review I'd probably get more 3s rather than 4s and 5s. But, in the end it's about showing people how YOU rate the film, not how you think it should be placed within film history (which I think was the argument that let us to the result in before mentioned discussion). Actually, isn't that how you have to approach other reviews? Maybe you like films Ebert likes, but hate stuff Kael praises? Maybe films reviewed by Kermode fall in the middle? You still need to find a reviewer whose opinion matches yours.

Your reviews are clear on their purpose, as you use a different rating scale, which is placed below your reviews. Most of use our own scale, which is more about personal judgement. I guess your "complaint" is, that John uses a star rating (which indicates that he rates like you do) but then applies it in the same way the others use the smiley rating...

There Will Be Blood

[...]

Daniel Plainview and son are independent oil men,

Interesting. Is this a real-life character...? Or did Rockstar games pay tribute to the movie in Red Dead Redemption? (There is an oil-site in the game which is called "Plainview".)

[Najemikon]

The Road

I watched this last night and quite liked it. As you said, the acting is very good, the production design is marvelous and cinematography is also excellent.
...

[spoiler=seriously]I take it from your review that you opted for the "good ending", that guy Pearce's character is a good guy who will help the son rather than provide him as food for the family? Which weaves into into my other question: Did you also find it a bit strange that Guy Pearce had followed them around for a long time? And for what purpose? And if he did, why didn't he help against the black guy who stole everything?[/spoiler]

I agree with your identification of the "carrying the fire" line being the key-point of this film. Two other great lines came from the son (I put some of it in spoilers, as it's best to discover the full extent of their meaning while watrching the film):
"I wish I could be with my mom."
[spoiler]Father: "So you wish you were dead?"
Son: "Yes."[/spoiler]
and
[spoiler]Father: "You are not the one who has to carry all the responsibilities"[/spoiler]
Son: "Yes I am the one!"

Especially the latter goes very close with what you said about the scene with Robert Duvall (his comment about the son being an angel).


[mr]4[/mr]

Excellent use of spoilers there, Achim!

[spoiler]Within the context of the film, I didn't find it odd that Guy Pearce and his missus had been following them and not helping. It fits in with the rest of the film. Adults cannot and will not trust anyone. They focus on the children only. It isn't a perfect explanation, but then it isn't a perfect film and this is the aspect I found a little sentimental and naive. It's all to a purpose though and by being simple, it rams the idea home.

Where's that Whitney CD? All together now... "I believe that children are our future." 

[/spoiler]

This is the only film of De Palma's I would rate so high.

I need to take another look at Carrie and Scarface (though I definitely think it is overrated, despite it's classic icon status), but otherwise he's made some fantastic movies. I'm just making the point, contrary to belief, it isn't that easy to get a high-five from me!

I thought about this just a week ago myself. In fact, in order to use ratings from this forum for a purchase decision you must have been here for while, know what kind of films each reviewer likes and how he/she rates them. We discussed this in the past and agreed, that we want to make our rating personal.

If I were to use "real" ratings for the films I review I'd probably get more 3s rather than 4s and 5s. But, in the end it's about showing people how YOU rate the film, not how you think it should be placed within film history (which I think was the argument that let us to the result in before mentioned discussion). Actually, isn't that how you have to approach other reviews? Maybe you like films Ebert likes, but hate stuff Kael praises? Maybe films reviewed by Kermode fall in the middle? You still need to find a reviewer whose opinion matches yours.

Your reviews are clear on their purpose, as you use a different rating scale, which is placed below your reviews. Most of use our own scale, which is more about personal judgement. I guess your "complaint" is, that John uses a star rating (which indicates that he rates like you do) but then applies it in the same way the others use the smiley rating...

Yep, that's how I feel. I try to write in a manner that you can make your own mind up to a degree as well. I don't want you to agree with me, just so long as you do... understand what I say...

There Will Be Blood

[...]

Daniel Plainview and son are independent oil men,

Interesting. Is this a real-life character...? Or did Rockstar games pay tribute to the movie in Red Dead Redemption? (There is an oil-site in the game which is called "Plainview".)

A quick Google seems to find people concluding that this is just a smart reference to the film. It is as well...

The film is based on a book called Oil!, I believe to be a work of fiction.

[Achim]

Excellent use of spoilers there, Achim!

Well, thanks. I found that the sentences themselves only carry their true meaning when seen in context with the questions/responses...

[spoiler]Within the context of the film, I didn't find it odd that Guy Pearce and his missus had been following them and not helping. It fits in with the rest of the film. Adults cannot and will not trust anyone. They focus on the children only. It isn't a perfect explanation, but then it isn't a perfect film and this is the aspect I found a little sentimental and naive. It's all to a purpose though and by being simple, it rams the idea home.[/spoiler]

I watched it again yesterday with the audio commentary on.
[spoiler]It became clear very quickly that what you say is the actual truth; had you not said it, I would have now. In fact, apparently in the book the story continues somehow and it is made clear that The Boy grows up to bew an adult (from Hillcoat's commentary, well worth a listen, by the way).[/spoiler]

[goodguy]

The Constant Gardener
5 out of 5
...
I love it when this happens. I'd already seen The Constant Gardener and knew I liked it, but I had an urge to watch it again and it seemed to take on a whole new level. On this occasion, I found it achingly brilliant.

Just a short comment, I haven't made up my mind about it yet.

I'm deeply suspicious about commercial message movies dealing with contemporary issues of this scale. And the le Carré quote at the end just rubs me the wrong way - if the issue really matters to you, why did you end up making just a "holiday postcard"?

But I do like the visual style and I agree that Fiennes and especially Weisz are pretty good, but their love story feels a bit shorthanded and some of their flashback scenes together are just... not exactly too clichéd, but too suitable, I guess.

[Najemikon]

Whatever you conclude, thanks for trying it. I always felt you would get something from it, even if not as much as I did.

I'm deeply suspicious about commercial message movies dealing with contemporary issues of this scale. And the le Carré quote at the end just rubs me the wrong way - if the issue really matters to you, why did you end up making just a "holiday postcard"?

But I do like the visual style and I agree that Fiennes and especially Weisz are pretty good, but their love story feels a bit shorthanded and some of their flashback scenes together are just... not exactly too clichéd, but too suitable, I guess.

I too am suspicious of such stories and I think any plot that relies on one is instantly handicapped, hence my comments that you have to subscribe to the writers point of view to get the full benefit of their idea. What I found with this film, at least on a second viewing, is that it mattered less how convinced we were by the conspiracy and more how much we believed in Tessa. We can accept that she is dedicated to this thing for us and so we can concentrate on her. If anything, we are like Justin, not paying attention to what she does, we're more interested in who she is.

I don't want to undermine that main plot, because the film certainly doesn't, but still, I think Fernando Meirelles was sharp enough not to make us rely on it...

[spoiler]In the end, Justin's apology (not sure if that's the right word, but you know what I mean) to Tessa is focused on the resolution of their relationship. There's a postscript scene about the drugs, but the emotion still sticks with the central characters in the films big showdown. The scene at Justin's memorial is silly, but functional, and it concentrates on what happened to Justin and Tessa, essentially accusing Nighy's character of plotting their murder.

We the audience can be reassured that Tessa's work will continue because of Justin, but it's more important we feel closure about them. [/spoiler]

One thing worth bearing in mind concerning the end quote, is that Le Carre said the film bore little resemblance to his book. He meant that as a compliment. I read a couple reviews of the book and get the feeling he did do exactly what I don't like and made the drug plot front and centre. Critics seem to feel he fell into the authors trap of doing a "Flavour of the Month" where all his research and indignation came out too obvious. So maybe his original book did justify the quote more.

I'll admit the flashback scenes did come across too brittle to me, but again, that was the first time. I know it's cheap to keep saying "second viewing", but it is true for some films. This is a very nostalgic story, so it works best when you already know it!

[spoiler]It's no surprise that Tessa turned out to be faithful to Justin, but the film could have gone either way and been all edgy and ironic. It was perfectly feasible for Justin to find out she cared little for him. On seeing it again though, his memories are allowed to take on more substance and we can commit to them fully. [/spoiler]

[Antares]

Junior Bonner
3 out of 5

I finally got to see this film last night, courtesy of TCM. I thought it was a very entertaining film and quite a departure for Peckinpah. 3.5/5

On the other hand, the director did surprise me with occasional clumsiness, including the dated split screen titles that make it look like a TV movie and a cheesy freeze frame montage at the end.

You have to remember Jon, that the split screen imagery was still quite fresh in 1972, being only 2 years removed from the seminal documentary of Woodstock.

Plus the lighter hearted "Milking" event is both very funny and impressively staged. Add in a classy cowboy barroom brawl, a lively cast, a poignant story and you have a passable couple of hours. And the film might keep coming back to you, despite its humble nature. Another overview I read claimed this was Peckinpah's favourite film of his own. While I think it is far from his best, I can well believe it. It has a good heart.

It is definitely a film that I will revisit from time to time in the future. I wish Peckinpah would have made more films like this in his career.

[Najemikon]

You have to remember Jon, that the split screen imagery was still quite fresh in 1972, being only 2 years removed from the seminal documentary of Woodstock.

That's true, but I've never liked it and it has dated the film more than would be expected. I'm not fond of the freeze frames at the end either.

It is definitely a film that I will revisit from time to time in the future. I wish Peckinpah would have made more films like this in his career.

Me too. He brought considerable experience to a small story. Some of the rodeo scenes were incredible and I really wasn't expecting that.

Plus McQueen had such style. Have you ever seen The Hunter? Quirky, but really good. I reviewed for the last Alphathon.

[Antares]

Have you ever seen The Hunter? Quirky, but really good. I reviewed for the last Alphathon.

It's an OK film, but I've never thought it was that great. The reason for my  attitude toward it is the fact that the real Ralph Thorson could have been a stunt double in John Huston's Moby Dick for the white whale. He weighed over 400 pounds.

The story just rang hollow for me because of that fact.

[Najemikon]

I heard he was a big fella and the story bore little resemblance, but I also picked up that this was probably faithful to his memoirs, which were probably largely fabricated by him! So I liked the atmosphere. And McQueen's performance is great, especially when he can't drive...