'There Will Be Blood' Excitement Thread! (1 Viewer)

[Jill Hives]

Eli didn't age one bit... he was exactly how Plainview would've remembered him as all those years earlier. And it's not difficult to age an actor... grey hair, beard, wrinkles, make-up, thin hair wig. If they just didn't bother, it seems like a silly mistake.

That bugged me too.

 

[cephalopod]

Does anyone think that in the last scene, Plainview might be dreaming or something?

Just cos Eli didn't age one bit... he was exactly how Plainview would've remembered him as all those years earlier. And it's not difficult to age an actor... grey hair, beard, wrinkles, make-up, thin hair wig. If they just didn't bother, it seems like a silly mistake.

That said, I don't know what the point of it being a dream would be.

???

Yeah but surely he wasn't that much older? It's 1911 when he meets ELi, who is probably in his early 20's yeah? and the end scene is fairly soon after his son gets married (1927) I'd reckon might even be 1927? his son looks the same as he did in 1927, so Eli is still a young man by my reckoning, and would not be showing major physical signs of ageing, basically, the gap isn't long enough to argue that he should be all grey and wizened or what not.

 

[Gambra]

Yeah, Eli was pretty young to begin with too. He would have been no more that 18-20 when Daniel first met him too. He'd just taken over from the father as the new preacher.

 

[bloopitybloop]

well, he should be around 40 then, but he doesn't look a day older.

and lots of people have been going on about the change in tone of the last scene. might explain it?

o i don't know!

 

[cephalopod]

I don't think Paul Thomas Andersen wants to trick his audience into thinking a dream is reality. If it were a dream the indicators would be stronger than the lame evidence presented so far. Now, on the other hand, if this were instead that heap of shite lost, then you could speculate away..cos, woahhh...nothing is as it seems at first glance, or second glance or third glance, why? because there is fucking nothing but hot air and bullshit there to start with.

 

[bloopitybloop]

I don't think Paul Thomas Andersen wants to trick his audience into thinking a dream is reality. If it were a dream the indicators would be stronger than the lame evidence presented so far. Now, on the other hand, if this were instead that heap of shite lost, then you could speculate away..cos, woahhh...nothing is as it seems at first glance, or second glance or third glance, why? because there is fucking nothing but hot air and bullshit there to start with.

hahaha



and i just found this.


and this:

 

[Jill Hives]

well, he should be around 40 then, but he doesn't look a day older.

and lots of people have been going on about the change in tone of the last scene. might explain it?

o i don't know!

I don't think it was a dream but it bugs me that he doesn't look older....even slightly. Looking at how young his sister was and how old she looked when getting married....there should have been some difference. Even a mustache would have helped.

I would have thought he was still living with his mother and taking her to Jens Lekman gigs.

 

[Unicron]

Yeah but surely he wasn't that much older? It's 1911 when he meets ELi, who is probably in his early 20's yeah? and the end scene is fairly soon after his son gets married (1927) I'd reckon might even be 1927? his son looks the same as he did in 1927, so Eli is still a young man by my reckoning, and would not be showing major physical signs of ageing, basically, the gap isn't long enough to argue that he should be all grey and wizened or what not.

1930 I think, Eli made reference to his investments and the crash took place in October of the previous year.

 

[Wilbert]

Eli is supposed to be around 15 or so when we first meet him and it's about twenty years later in the final scene. I don't think they could have aged him really, except maybe thinning his hair out or something like that.

 

[Mitchum]

THis film is so good it's made everybody very aware of good film. I love film. Film is great. Especially this film.

Good film?

Hmm. I enjoyed this but ye know...it's not THAT great.
It's territory that's already been explored: cf Citizen Kane, Treasure Of Sierra Madre, Fitzcarraldo, the heightened style of Kubrick blah blah blah. It's only DDLs presence that elevates into something worth noting. Imagine it was that Michael Cera cnut?

If PT Anderson was a band he'd probably be The Coral.

 

[cephalopod]

I need an ORLY Owl but I'm too lazy to search one.

 

[Mitchum]

I need an ORLY Owl but I'm too lazy to search one.

Ditto re: 'self-aggrandizing middle-brow berk'.

I don't think Paul Thomas Andersen wants to trick his audience into thinking a dream is reality. If it were a dream the indicators would be stronger than the lame evidence presented so far.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Good film?

Hmm. I enjoyed this but ye know...it's not THAT great.
It's territory that's already been explored: cf Citizen Kane, Treasure Of Sierra Madre, Fitzcarraldo, the heightened style of Kubrick blah blah blah. It's only DDLs presence that elevates into something worth noting. Imagine it was that Michael Cera cnut?

If PT Anderson was a band he'd probably be The Coral.

Dead wrong Mitchum.

Sure DDL is a big part of what makes it great but even aside from him it's still a great film.

 

[Mitchum]

Ah too harsh there etc. Yeah it's a good film.

I wish people would look beyond BIG FCKING AMERICAN MONEY when talking about 'film' and 'new cinematic language'.

Christ. It reminds me of the 'Fight Club' hype.

No Country For Old Men is a better 'film'.

TWBB is soooooo indebted to film history it's embarrasing. At least PT Anderson knows this with his winks and nods.

 

[Gambra]

No Country For Old Men is a better 'film'.

Hooray. I'm not the first to think this! Day Lewis was good but was just a bit too "much" sometimes to the point of being plain annoying. Again, it's a good film but not 'the greatest film ever'. No Country is far better imho.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

The final scene is not a dream.

For me, it was the fulfillment of when Standard offered him all the money and he asks "What would I do?" had he great wealth. Nothing.
So he's down in a hole (gilded basement) again, stretched out on his back again, hammering away and getting blood from a stone.
This is all he knows.

You really see the hollowness of the "What would I do?" boast in the restaurant scene, he has the money but it's of no comfort to him.

I think you can read as much or as little as you want into it.
I'm just accepting it as a good, possibly great, movie with subtexts galore that you can take or leave.
If The Godfather was essentially about Macchiavellian maneuverings, this is essentially about capitalistic avarice. With fecking great music.

 

[Mitchum]

Ditto re: 'self-aggrandizing middle-brow berk'.

I don't think Paul Thomas Andersen wants to trick his audience into thinking a dream is reality. If it were a dream the indicators would be stronger than the lame evidence presented so far.

I regret this post. Sorry fella.

 

[Corey]

Good film?

Hmm. I enjoyed this but ye know...it's not THAT great.
It's territory that's already been explored: cf Citizen Kane, Treasure Of Sierra Madre, Fitzcarraldo, the heightened style of Kubrick blah blah blah. It's only DDLs presence that elevates into something worth noting. Imagine it was that Michael Cera cnut?

If PT Anderson was a band he'd probably be The Coral.

Are you in bed with Cosmo Landesman?

 

[Mitchum]

Are you in bed with Cosmo Landesman?

Pah.

I suck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Rosenbaum 's cock

 

[Mormon Nailer]