On The Road again

High expectations were the name of the game coming into The Road (2009). It is a film that is based on a Cormic McCarthy, and it is coming off the heals of the great No Country For Old Men. Every still I had seen from this film and the trailer looked amazing, I thought it was going to be a sure fire Academy Award best picture nominee. It still may touch Academy voters, and we may be seeing this film come Oscar time, but to me it fell far from my expectations.

It started out well, showing us a world so desolate that you don't blame a Father for showing his kid how to commit suicide if he decides that is what he wants. With most Apocalypse movies there is some sense of hope that everything will turn around, that there is some sort of savior or safe zone where people have figured it out, you never got that sense in The Road, and I thought that was a nice touch. The problem then becomes, what is the point? Why are we watching these characters? The Road tries to solve this dilemma by proposing the question of what makes us moral when there is no society. I loved the concept, but for some reason just couldn't be executed in the film because it became too black and white (I tend to think that it is done real well in the book). Kodi-Smit McPhee plays Vigo Mortensens son, and he is constantly asking if he and his father are the good guys and who are the bad guys. It may have simply come down to his almost nagging tone that made this morality tale too simple, but it really got on my nerves and I had wished they tried to give some more depth to it.

So a lot of the faults could have come down to bad child acting. Mcphee wasn't horrible but he wasn't good enough to work, and I could see the veteran Mortensen struggling to act across from him. The combination of the incessant questioning of the good guys and bad guys, along with the lack of structure as to where the film was going, had me laughing at points towards the end, and there is no reason for anyone to laugh during this movie. And don't get me started on the final 400 Blows freeze frame shot at the end. It was stuck in there for no reason other to reference the famous film, it wasn't even conveying the same message.

The cinematography and set design were stunning and perfectly captured this realistic post-apocalyptic world. There was one scene in particular that was so suspenseful and scary I almost yelled in the theatre (would have been embarrassing). Viggo Mortensen seemed to do more for the preparation of this role than he did during the shoot. He looked the part, he was haunting, but his acting fell short of his aesthetic. Two good supporting performance came from Michael K Williams as the thief, and the great Robert Duvall as the old man. I think part of the fault has to go to the director John Hillcoat for not being able to make all these elements work together.

Unfortunately I think this film will receive a lot of acclaim solely because the movie screams to be recognized as a great peace of art. Looking beyond its pedigree The Road is a flawed film that can't rise to meet it's own ambitions.

**1/2

Best of the Decade

#20

I often times realize that maybe the most difficult thing to do in filmmaking is to make what is considered a great movie that is uplifting and genuinely inspiring without being cheesy or manipulative. Dear Zachary:A Letter to a Son About His Father (2008) is exactly that type of film. It is a documentary of immense power, that gives us two characters that should be considered modern day Saints. This is not an easy watch by any means because it will strike some sort of emotional chord, whether it be tears, anger or love, or as in my case all of the above. It is a film that tries you but leaves you feeling that even through tragedy there is a lot to love about life. It may be the most life affirming movie I have ever seen.

"My Precious"....Gollum

There was one point in Lee Daniels new film Precious where I was going to give up on it and was ready to walk out of the theatre. I have never been one for a happy ending but really what is the point of a film if there is no hope. To quote the great Andy Dufresne "Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things". I am glad I didn't walk out (I always threaten too, but never have) because Precious did not forget about hope, even amidst the hopeless of the surroundings.

This film is a hard watch, it is filled with depravity upon depravity, but like Precious's character every once and a while we get a glimpse of decency and it is enough to keep us going. I credit the watch-ability to the filmmaking and the screenplay, both of which deserve some recognition. Child abuse of any kind is a difficult topic to deal with in a film, but in Precious we have to live with it in every frame and so does this poor 16 year old girl, who wants nothing else in life but to be loved and appreciated.

Much is going to be made of the performances in this movie and deservingly so. Lets start with the hands down, sure fire, Academy Award nominee that will be Monique playing Precious's mother. This is why her performance is so impressive, she is playing a character so evil that I probably have more in common with Hitler than with her (not the Jew hate thing, just the power struggle thing), yet she makes this character believable to the point where we see her reasoning and thought process. Also the Academy should take a look at Precious herself played by the new comer Gabourey Sidibe. I often think people miss great performances that are not showy, and here Sidibe gives us a character that defeat is written all over her face, confidence has been drained from her soul. Sidibe may never be able to give another good performance again, and maybe this was the role for her, but people need not ignore that and give her the credit that is deserved.

On the other end of the spectrum I could have done without an ugly Mariah Carey, her lack of make up and attempt to be "normal" was just distracting, and the one scene she had with Monique did not bode well for her. The other performance that I was torn on was that by the beautiful Paula Patten. I have heard complaints by other critics (yeah I put myself in the group of critics) that her character was too one dimensional, that she was too perfect, nice, sympathetic. I would very much disagree with that assessment, I think she was just a normal decent human being and the film did a good job of not painting her as the savior for Precious. Now there was one scene specifically where I really felt Ms. Patten fell far short of the mark, and hurt the overall movie as Sidibe out acted her and the balance of the two characters didn't ring true.

Precious is a powerful and emotional ride that is not for every body. I think the worst thing you could do for your viewing experience is take this movie as a social and political message first and a film second. The movie stands on its own and deserves to be recognized for its artistry not for Oprah and Tyler Perry promoting it.

****

Best of the Decade

#21

Donnie Darko (2001) is a cult Sci-Fi classic that has spawned many debates, a sequel and Richard Kelly to continue to do movies. In this film Kelly manages to incorporate all his interests into one collage of images, sounds and Patrick Swayze as a pedophile, all of which manages to stay together as a coherent film that is not only interesting but entertaining. Donnie Darko may have been lightning in a bottle but I am glad it struck.

Insanity Reins!

Apocalypse Now will forever be remembered for its insane production, a slice of which was captured in Heart of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991). People don't understand how one production can lead to several breakdowns, a heart attack, 100's of days over schedule and millions over budget, it must have been the passion for the art that drove Francis and all these men to such extremes, right? NO! You take a bunch of young men in the 1970's, all of which are drunk and drugged out of there mind (on speed, pot, coke), throw them in the Philippine jungle with no real structure, no idea what your story is or how its going to end, and all that is an obvious receipt for the psychotic. Yes there is passion, there is drive, but honestly the film is a mess, and Heart of Darkness is a good argument against giving a director full control over a production. In the film Eleanor Coppola compares both her and her husbands mental state to that of the character Willard played by the great Martin Sheen. I almost tend to say that there experiences were more surreal and that those comparisons are not an exageration. I say this because at least Willard was in the midst of a war, here they are making a film, but nothing about this feels remotely normal or grounded.

I recently reviewed Lost In La Mancha another movie about a troubled production. Heart of Darkness makes Lost in La Mancha look like an elderly person who passed away in their sleep. La Mancha knew when to cut its losses, Francis Ford Coppola refused, and carried on. The reason this film is a much better documentary than La Mancha is because it made me ask questions, and it made me want to get out there and sacrifice to make a film. My desire to want to make a film following me seeing this documentary is interesting because the biggest question I kept asking myself is; what is the point that art is not worth pursuing it? I mean is it worth it at loss of sanity? Loss of love? Loss of life? Where is the line? Is there a line? Was what the filmmakers went through worth you popping in Apocalypse Now on dvd? Or worth me sitting in Panera Bread writing this blog? Should the final product even matter, was their journey the true art, and the movie just a by product? The fact that I would be willing to put myself through their ordeal just to produce something, would suggest that yes, it is worth all those things.

Let me say that all the crazy on this film was not Francis's fault. He was dealing with a government that kept taking back there helicopters to fight a war, actors like Brando who showed up on set fat and had not read the source material, or Dennis Hopper who was so drugged out that he couldn't remember his lines, or a Martin Sheen that was so unhealthy he had a heart attack at 36. But regardless the result, all this is fascinating and this is a documentary that truly explores what it means to be an artist on an epic scale.

***1/2

Best of the Decade

#22

Here is a film that contains not only one of the best performances of the decade, but of all time. Bruno Ganz is Adolph Hitler as the third Reich comes to a close. The film chronicles the last days of the Nazi party. The film some how manages to work while having its main character be Hitler. Downfall (2004) never sympathizes with the man, but manages to be fascinating. I urge anyone who hasn't seen this film to check it out in its original form (although there have been many funny youtube videos featuring a scene from this film).

Do you feel the heat breathing down your neck....if so, get out

I have mentioned on this blog before my respect and adoration for Michael Mann and his films. Heat (1995) is generally considered Mann's quintessential movie. I would agree with that in principal, in so far as Heat does incapsulate a perfect balance of everything one would consider a Michael Mann film. It is about men and their jobs and how that effects their relationships with loved ones and with each other. It has big gun fight scenes, it is filmed in that gritty Mann way, but back when he was still using film, so the cinematography is a bit better. It takes place in all parts of Los Angeles that we don't normally see on film. These are all staples of a Michael Mann film, but despite those qualities and the praise for the film, I don't think it is his best movie.

As much is made of the De Niro, Pacino combination, this film is very much a mosaic that tries to explore the lives of both cops and criminals. It focus's in on their obsessions, their drives, and how their career choices have alienated them from loved ones. Unfortunately in trying to achieve all these aspects, the film over stretches itself and leaves a lot of the relationships feeling flat. I think Mann would have been better off to keep the wives and girlfriends out of this and to just concentrate on the relationships between the cops and the criminals. In fact, the De Niro relationship with his girlfriend played by Amy Brenneman was so unrealistic that I found myself yelling at the screen at one point, asking why she would stay with him. The movie is nearly 3 hours as is, and Mann just doesn't have time to flesh out any of these extra relationships and because of that they seem to distract from the main story, which is very interesting and well done.

Heat has one of the top 5 shoot out scenes in movie history. It is a captivating film, that is able to explore a side of the cop and robber story that is not normally explored, the human side of both. The film looks at all these characters, good or bad, and doesn't judge, doesn't differentiate it just gives us these people and lets us watch the drama unfold. De Niro's Neal McCauley may be a sociopath, but how much different is he that Pacino's Lt. Hanna? Both men have principals and they follow them.

No review of Heat would be complete without discussing the performances by De Niro and Pacino. I think it is pretty obvious who gives the better performance here; De Niro. Not only does he give a better performance than Pacino, I think he gives his last great performance. The subtlety in which he carries himself in this film is something to behold. It also doesn't hurt that his counterpart is chewing the scenery worse than ever before. De Niro does so much more with a look than Pacino does with a yell, there could be a class on acting based on this film. Now I don't by any means believe that this is the determiner between those two legendary actors as to which one is better. De Niro just happens to win this one.

Heat is a procedural and a character study before its an action movie and that is what makes it great. I would have liked to see Mann condense certain aspects like he does in his two best films Collateral and The Insider but overall this movie does everything that Public Enemies attempted to do but better.

****

I get it, men suck. Not gonna change, so....

As the Oscars approach you start to get films like Lone Scherfig's An Education (2009). It is a period piece, character, coming of age driven drama. If all that seems like a movie that was just made to grab some Oscars then maybe, but the film is able to balance all of that perfectly without falling into over-dramatic territory.

Carey Mulligan (despite her washed out Katie Holmes look) is getting well deserved Oscar buzz for playing Jenny an overly educated 16 year old with grand dreams of the outside world. She feels stifled by her fathers demands for her to go to Oxford, not because she doesn't believe in education, but because she believes the world has more to hold than books and papers. Although this premise is relatively cliched, we go with it because Jenny is so smart and she has a sophistication about her that makes her more mature beyond her years. Her characterization works so well when she is confronted by the much older and worldly David, played with such ease by Peter Sarsgaard. David seduces Jenny with the exact world she has dreamed of. The movie balances this line of wanting to go with David because he is so charming, but also realizing Jennies naiveté but understanding it at the same time.

There relationship is disturbing, but at the same time understandable. It reminds me of a time where ambition and dreams meet expectations and reality. In this point in a young person's life it really is up to those who are more mature to guide them in the right direction, even if that person sounds smarter than you.

The great thing about this movie, and especially from a guys perspective is that I don't know if women ever truly learn this lesson. As long as a women is single and believes in romance a man can always take advantage of that, no matter what the age (trust me I try). And sadly I could see myself in David, and I got the sense from the audience that Jenny got what she deserved, and that she is better off for having gone through this.

Both Mulligan and Sarsgaard deserve to be recognized by the Academy for their performances. Yes Mulligan will be an A list star within two years. Nick Hornby also deserves recognition for his screenplay. This is a well crafted anti-love story that should be seen. I know as a guy I was skeptical to see it because it was British and about love, but as the decent (500) Days of Summer touted itself as the anti-romantic comedy of the year, I think An Education does it better and less gimmicky.

****

Best of the Decade

#23

M Night Shamalamadingdong's (I made that up not Tarantino) Unbreakable (2000) is a film that has certainly grown on me over time. It shows why he should be directing movies (if you were wondering because of The Happening, see review below). It is a well crafted, and perfectly structured gem, that has his most satisfying end revelation. It is the super hero film reinvented, it was dark and gritty before dark and gritty was the way to do super hero's. If you need too, take a look at it again, you will be pleasantly surprised.

Was it only a Dream?

Now that I have embarked on doing my best films of this past decade I take a look at the film Roger Ebert called the best film of the 90's Hoop Dreams (1994). The best film! In a decade that included Goodfellas, Magnolia, Three Kings, The Matrix, Schindlers List, Pulp Fiction and these are just the movies I came up with off the top of my head (not to bad). There is no way I could justify putting Hoop Dreams number one on that list, but on the same token I would have a hard time in arguing against Ebert. This is one amazing documentary.

Hoop Dreams is a film where the camera follows two inner city basketball players from the summer before 9th grade all the way through High School as they try and achieve there biggest dream which is to make the NBA. If this were a scripted drama, the film would end one of two ways, the characters would either achieve there goals, or learn a great life lesson about the power of sports and teamwork that would make the journey worth while. Those overly cliched topics are the reason I don't like scripted sports movies and also why this film shows us the true potential of the relationship between sports and the individuals pursuing them.

I don't know how much I want to say about the specifics of what happens in this film. The movie unfolds like a Shakespearean drama, the depth this movie explores is amazing. It is about basketball, it is about dreams, its about expectations, its about inner city society, its about money, family, loss, love and it just goes on, and its all wrapped up in a plot that if scripted would have won an Oscar. Sometimes I felt myself wanting to yell at the screen "It's just Basketball", and I am a sports enthusiast that has played all my life. But I got so caught up in the lives of these young men that I almost felt protective of them. I felt the weight of all parts of society coming at them, all wanting different things. What keeps everything together is that ultimate goal of the NBA, and this film shows you that skills alone are not enough to make it to the pro's there is so much more that has to go right.

This film is so expansive in both its themes and having taken place over so many years that when things like having unexpected children happen, fathers leaving and reappearing, we as an audience just go with it without the filmmakers having to try and manipulate those moments. The movie has an amazing ability to not overemphasis those points one would think to be monumental, but keeps its eye on the bigger picture.

I guess this film could be considered long at almost 3 hours. I kept looking at how much time was left, not because I wanted it too end, but to see how much story was still to be told, hoping it wouldn't keep going on. Despite the films nearly perfect structure and dramatic threads William Gates and Arthur Angee are not characters, they are not larger than life. In this film they were two young men with dreams and goals and flaws all of which we can relate too.

The timing of this review is interesting because it comes on the eve of the release of the fictional film The Blind Side, about the true story of Michael Oher going from high school to making the NFL with the help of MILF Sandra Bullock. The previews of this movie make me puke a little in my mouth, how about everyone skips The Blind Side and rents Hoop Dreams instead, trust me you won't regret it.

This film may not be my number 1 movie of the 90's but it certainly would be on my top 10. This is a great, great film. And deserving of my second 5 star review.

*****

Best of the Decade

#24

Grizzly Man (2005) is a film that moved me deeply. I know people like to simplify this story and talk about how bottom line Treadwell was an idiot and deserved what he got, but in this film Herzog is able to tell a deeper story about love, nature, loneliness and how they all relate to the human condition.

It was a marathon

John Schlesinger's Marathon Man (1976) is one of those quintessential 70's paranoia thrillers that has been spoken about and referenced so much that I had felt like I had already seen it. It had the unstoppable 70's combination of a popular novel, Schlesinger as the director, Robert Evans as its producer and Dustin Hoffman as its star. Also add into that mix an individual who many consider the best actor of all time in veteran Sir. Laurence Olivier and you have at least an interesting film no matter what the result.

I can't profess to completely understand the marathon connection to the film. Hoffman is running toward his future or away from his past, maybe something like that. Nonetheless as the film starts we see Hoffman running and that is inter cut with an old man going to a bank and grabbing something from a safe deposit box. The questions start there and we really don't get any answers for at least 45 minutes and I don't think we ever get everything answered. Nonetheless you don't really acknowledge your questions because most scenes are so well put together in and of themselves that you are enjoying the ride.

Watching Marathon Man now the film does feel a bit dated. It has everything a thriller needs, but some things seem implausible or too expected. Every other person is not who they seem, and nothing is what you think it is, which in a way makes it hard to care about anything. In fact some of the paranoia gets lost because how can you be paranoid when you don't know what the threat is and its hard to see where your main character fits into everything. The climatic scene of the film seemed very contrived and out of place, and it is too bad because the film really needs that ending to hit. Despite its flaws Marathon Man is quintessential 70's filmmaking and it understands the genre it is working in, and maybe tries to hard to exceed the expectations of the genre that it things get a bit messy.

Hoffman is very good as an annexed ridden 40 year old grad student (although he is playing mid twenties). Why he is so annexed ridden I am not entirely sure, something to do with his father, the film touches on it several times but never gets into it. It is very interesting to watch Dustin Hoffman's method acting going up against Olivier's classical trained acting. The difference is palpable, but they are both very good. There is the famous embellished story where Hoffman stayed up nights because he wanted to look tired for his character, and Olivier just looked at him and said "why don't you try acting my boy, it's easier". Olivier was the one to deservingly get the Academy Award nomination for this film. I am sad to say that this is my first exposure to Sir Laurence and he truly is brilliant. I hope to catch up on his hole cannon eventually. My favorite performance of the film is the always brilliant Roy Scheider as Hoffman's older brother. Scheider is high on my list of top underrated actors, he really commands the screen here and you feel safe in his presence.

If you like to read I am sure the book is better and fills in the gasps of the plot. But just for a classic 70's thriller Marathon Man is a good watch. Just don't expect the famous torture scene to make as much of an impression as it did to audiences when it was released.

***1/2

Best of the Decade

#25

Alfonso Cuaron's Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001) is arguably his greatest work. His 2006 film Children of Men had great potential but despite its amazing cinematography fell short. Y Tu Mama Tambien is a sexual road trip film that both enlightens and scares those characters involved. This is a simple character driven movie that is both funny and poignant with a strong revealing ending and it certainly deserves a place on this list, as it sits at number 25.

Top 25 films of the past decade

2000-2009

So I guess it is that time and a sign of my age but I can finally write with some sense of knowledge a best of the decade list. Although the decade is not completely over I figure I better get started with this list if I am to reveal the movies one at a time over the coming weeks. If a movie comes out in the next couple months that I believe deserved a spot on this list (no film this year has) I will certainly make a note of it. Some people say I am much to stingy with my rating system (I do only have one 5 star review on this blog) but you can consider every film on this list a five star movie. Most all of these movies I have seen at least twice, but of course my opinion and the order is subject to change.

Let the great debate begin!

Invincible except still needs a tetanus shot

Werner Herzog's Invincible (2001) has a look and feel like it was made in the mid 80's. It is a period drama that takes place just before WWII, but it doesn't have the sharp look of other movies of this past decade like an Atonement. Instead it has a glossy, washed out look, that evokes a style of filmmaking that seems as old as the time period it takes place. This was obviously a deliberate choice on the behave of Herzog and cinematographer Peter Zeitlinger, but I do think this decision drew more attention to the problematic parts of this film (to be discussed later).

I love the concept and the simple moral code of the film. It takes place before Hitler and the Nazis seized power in Germany, it surrounds Zishe Breitbart an incredibly strong Jewish blacksmith who is summoned to Berlin to perform feats of strength for the German upper class. Zishe comes from a family of very strict moral and religious principles and has to adapt or chose how he is to implement his values while entertaining those who we know will soon come to persecute his people. Zishe is played by real life strong man Jouko Ahola. Ahola is simply not a very good actor, but somehow manages to work here in creating (or simply having) an innocence that works so well for his character. Herzog may not have casted a lead that can act but he did find someone who's face never lies and with whom we can sympathize.

On the opposite end of the acting spectrum is an unforgettable performance by Tim Roth as the owner and operator of this circus type show. Roth is so convincing as a man who is desperate for power and can manipulate most any in his path to get his own means. There is one scene in the film where he hypnotizes a women, it is said that during this he both hypnotized the women and the camera man. I believe this because I found myself coming close to falling in his trance. It is quit a remarkable and look over performance by Roth, maybe the best I've seen of his.

Where Invincible fails to deliver is in its execution. There is way to much on the nose dialogue being delivered by very poor actors. Any scene in which a crowd gathers is very awkward and it seems like everyone is just yelling out the obvious, at points it is laughable. In the end the story even fails to deliver on its potential and you're left wondering, what's the point?

There are so many movies in the world, I don't know why Invincible showed up in my Netflix queue but I am glad I saw it. And despite its pretty significant flaws I would recommend the film.

***

Who Killed Don Quixote?

Lost In La Mancha (2002) is the documentary film about Terry Gilliams failed attempt to make The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. Obviously the filmmakers didn't start out the process knowing that this film would so disastrously fall apart and one would think that this turn of events would have catapulted an average making of documentary into a great one, but I don't think that ever happened.

The film starts as an introspective of Terry Gilliam and tries to convince you of how unconventional he is as a director, but I don't think that comes across. In fact it portrays Gilliam as a normal creative guy and in no way was it his demands or expectations that doomed the film. It was injuries, flash floods, low budget and just the difficulties of filmmaking in general, and they all proved to be too much.

Even though this film takes a turn toward the disastrous for all those involved in the making of Don Quixote the documentary itself never reaches a level where it reveals some sort of greater truth or realization. It is just a making of documentary who's movie never gets made. We don't learn anything about the loss of important art or commerce in filmmaking.

If anything Lost In La Mancha gave me a greater respect for Terry Gilliam and his work (and his string of bad luck in his productions even since). But the good news is it looks like we are eventually going to get a Terry Gilliam directed Don Quixote film as it is in pre-production.

**

Lend money to old ladies!

Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell (2009) is a film that knows exactly what it is and really has fun with it. It is amazing how well it works because it has some pretty cliched characters (again though, the film is aware of this is and uses it), and typical horror scenarios (but again it uses this to its advantage) and cheesy special effects.

Drag Me To Hell surrounds Christine Brown a loan officer who in an attempt to impress her boss and put her in a position to earn a promotion denies a very creepy old women a loan. This old women curses her and that is when the haunting begins and so does the countdown for Christine to figure a way to get this curse off of her before she is literally dragged to hell.

The film navigates genuine scares and some unexpected laughs. Justin Long is good here as an apple using professor and the boyfriend of Christine. Christine is played by Allison Lohman who falls flat as she does her best Drew Barrymore impression (but Raimi still is able to utilizer her).

Where Drag Me To Hell works, where other horror films fail is it realizes it is a movie first and a horror film second and because of that balance it can deliver serious scares. Don't go into this movie expecting The Exorcist and you will have a good time.

***1/2

There was some blood, not as much as you would think

So this is the third time I have watch PTA's There Will Be Blood (2007). I saw it in the theatre when it came out and was disappointed, but like all of Anderson's movies, the film lingered with me, calling me to see it again. So as soon as I could I rented it, appreciating it much more the second time, but still couldn't articulate why. Then I bought the DVD, watched it again, and now have the perspective and understanding to sit down and write a review of this modern American classic.

Why was I so hesitant to really like this movie? I think its because while you are watching it you are to aware of its emptiness. This is not a plot driven movie, all the action sneaks up on you and in some way is contrary to the vastness of the landscape. When thinking back on the film, you realize that the moments are huge to the characters and yet the characters are very representative of uniquely American traits. It becomes like a black hole caught in a vacuum. It makes it hard to wrap your mind around yet impossible to forget.

There Will Be Blood is about Daniel Day Lewis's, Daniel Plainview and his journey to American riches by drilling the vast open spaces of the West. Much has been made of Lewis's Academy Award winning performance and whether or not it was over the top. It was a bit over the top but it worked and it really is one of the best performances of all time. You never want to look away from Plainview, he is absolutely captivating and his character is more complex than a lot of people give him credit for. I have read a lot of reviews that talk about the pure evilness of Plainview, I never just saw evil, I saw a guy who did care about his child at one point, but got caught up in his ambitions and eventually did become the antithesis of what the American dream is really about.

There is no opposite end of the spectrum to Plainview. The other character of interest is Paul Dano's, Paul Sunday. He is the films American religion, a Christian minister of the church of the third revelation. As Plainview's wealth grows, so does the church, and all this happens despite the fierce rivalry and hatred between the two men. Dano plays sunday as weak, a con man, selfish. It is a very good performance that does well to balance against Plainview. Dano didn't get the credit he deserved because he is dwarfed against Lewis here, had his opposition been someone else I think he would have seen an Academy Award nomination.

The world created here is outstanding, you get the feeling that this is what it was really like at the turn of the century. The cinematography by Robert Elswit is majestic. The score from Jonny Greenwood is original, but at times really draws to much attention to itself. However, the real star of this movie has got to be Paul Thomas Anderson for taking all these elements and making them work together. Anderson really is one of the great American directors and has created a film that despite the fact that not everything about it works (I think it should have expanded at the end but contracted) There Will Be Blood is if nothing else enchantingly captivating.

****1/2