Friday, December 18, 2009

Drill, Baby, Drill

Couldn't agree more. Absolute masterpiece.

Gawker: There Will Be Blood Voted Best Movie of the Decade by Critics/12.18.09

As opposed to what might be the worst movies of the decade, those God-awful Twilight films -- which could've been called There Will Be No Blood.


Thanks for coming out to the Catskills, folks. I'll be here all week.


Bunche said...

Hey! What about BLACK DYNAMITE???

Alanna said...

I'll drink your milkshake. (Cmon, I had to, yep I'm "that girl" now).

L. said...

I just watched There Will Be Blood for the first time last weekend.

You rarely get to see a movie where the main character is a ruthless asshole and remains one throughout. In the end there was no last minute redemption, no comeuppance, just him laying down the law (with a bowling pin). I loved it. Possibly more than I should have.

Anonymous said...

I'd have to vote for The Departed as the top film of 00's. I probably would have enjoyed There Will Be Blood more if he had gotten around to bludgeoning the preacher dork to death a lot earlier. Then maybe a few more times over just for good measure.

Michael J. West said...

I didn't even think There Will Be Blood was the best movie of the year when it came out - No Country for Old Men was, and to my mind that's the one that takes it for the decade, too. And I'll stand by it.

Anonymous said...

Assessments such as these take time for context and consideration to become clearer. TWBB is no doubt a compelling film, but to call it the best of the decade is premature, at best.

Aside from all that, there ought to be a problem with a film that has no redeeming characters in it at all (with the possible exception of Plainview's adopted son) as the best of the decade. . .unless said decade had no redeeming features at all. Now I know you're a smartass, Chez, and might suggest that the 2000's were JUST that, devoid of redeeming features. . .but I think deep down you'd have to admit that's the easy (and inaccurate) way out in terms of assessments.

And aside from that, your own self-identification as an anti-hero makes your attraction to this film apparent. Anti-heros win out in the end, nihilism triumphs.

Depressing. And beneath one of your intellect.

Chez said...

Sorry, but an identification with Daniel Plainview as an anti-hero has nothing at all to do with my appreciation for There Will Be Blood.

The movie is positively biblical. It's epic, uncompromising movie-making -- the kind of thing that's so oddly original (and originally odd) that it's almost like Paul Thomas Anderson comes from a different planet. I'm not sure I can even put my finger on it or really put it into words, but maybe that's the power of the thing -- it's ability to wallop you over the head (no pun intended) while leaving you not exactly positive what it was about the film, if there even was one singular aspect, that grabbed you and wouldn't let go. The response to it was visceral.

That, to me, is the definition of a masterpiece -- and I've seen very few of them in my lifetime. There Will Be Blood was like the Kubrick movie he never got around to making.

Anonymous said...

I will give you oddly original. B But "Biblical". . .that's verging on hyperbolic.

I will cheerfully endorse the notion that Anderson's unusual screenwriting combined with Day-Lewis' sweeping range and power (shall we discuss the most powerful/best actor of the last quarter century? I vote Day-Lewis. The man has no peer.) results in what may eventually be seen as a masterpiece. I still hold to the notion that the immediate impact -visceral it may be- hampers our ability to objectively measure it full value.

Obviously, I'll agree with you that it's one hell of a film.

Anonymous said...

And I'm NOT sure, contra L., that Plainview is a ruthless asshole from start to finish. He's driven from the beginning. But I think his ruthlessness and assholery wasn't finalized till he hit the gusher that also deafened his adoptive son.