There Will Be Blood

There Will Be Blood has been touted as the best film of 2007. Respectfully, I must disagree. That distinction should be awarded to No Country for Old Men. Since critics were saying There Will Be Blood is a movie that viewers will remember for a lifetime, I had to see for myself. That's high praise. My opinion: although not the best of '07 and certainly not a movie that remained with me afterwards, There Will Be Blood was a powerfully engrossing and flawlessly acted film.

Directed by Paul Anderson (Magnolia), Blood captures an early 20th century America that was still new and uncharted, in many respects. The opening sequence is a fascinating depiction of the painstakingly dangerous task of oil mining. We watch as a miner chips away at an underground wall of gravel, deep below the ground's surface. He plants dynamite and carefully climbs back up to the surface. Minutes later, there is an explosion. This process is repeated until the miner strikes oil. This may sound mundane, but it is an important scene because it sets the tone for the film and lets you know that men were willing to risk life and limb for "liquid gold." The oil business is a serious one (still today), and to the victor goes the spoils.

Enter Daniel Day Lewis (Gangs of New York) as Daniel Plainview, an enterprising oil man from humble beginnings. Plainview began as a digger, but the fruits of his labor soon afford him the luxury of power, and he is able to pay others to mine underground while he manages the operation. During a time in which many Americans carved out meager existences, Plainview's entrepreneurial zeal is palpable. As a viewer, I had to admire his seemingly honest, forthright nature. His simple, straightforward approach to business dealings reflected the appropriateness of his surname. However, the glimpses of his ambitious approach to oil mining belie a more nefarious nature that would be revealed later. An important focus of the movie involves the relationship between Plainview and his young son, R.W. Their relationship appears affectionate, with Plainview almost treating his son as his contemporary at some points. There is an uneasy atmosphere to the film, a sense of lingering foreboding that is hinted at in almost every scene. Hey, look at the title. Something's got to give eventually. The scene that reveals Plainview's essence is a quiet conversation he has with another character saying, (paraphrase) "I don't like to see other people succeed...I hate most people..." We see Plainview transform from an ostensibly loving father and businessman into a pathetic, hateful shell of a human being. Perhaps it is more of a duality than a transformation, as the same man capable of such paternal affection also proves to be guilty of cruel abandonment. Maybe it was the early 20th century American landscape that birthed this type of man, the sort of rogue individualist who views people with either apathy or contempt, never seeing them beyond the tangible purpose they may serve.

There Will Be Blood is a complex film that is difficult to describe but easy to appreciate. Lewis infuses Plainview with a carnivorous intensity, giving a performance that is so layered and nuanced that I'd be surprised if he didn't win an Oscar for this role. He is the most powerful, dominant figure in every scene, even when he doesn't utter a word. I think There Will Be Blood is a rewarding moviegoing experience, if you manage your expectations and go with an eye toward appreciating the performances rather than having a life changing experience.

Cloverfield

In the words of Public Enemy, "Don't Believe the Hype." The trailer for Cloverfield will undoubtedly pique your interest as you watch New Yorkers flee some unseen Godzillaesque thing. Curiosity is sometimes enough to get you to the theater, I can dig it. A lot of people were suckered, because I see that Cloverfield is #1 at the box office, but if you listen to me, I can save you a trip and a few dollars as well.

Producer JJ Abrams (Mission: Impossible III) brings us the "real" account of an attack on NYC shown from the perspective of a group of friends. The prinicpal character is Rob, and it is at his going away party where the real action begins. The party is videotaped by Rob's friend Hud, who wants to get an account of everyone's well-wishes. There is a little drama as Rob's ex-girlfriend Beth shows up accompanied by her new boyfriend. This is interesting because the movie begins with Rob filming Beth one month prior to the party, and they appear to be very much in love. Anyway, everyone is at the party having a good enough time until a thunderous boom brings the festivities to a jarring halt. Everyone goes to the roof, where in the distance they can see explosions and objects being hurled against buildings. In the streets, the scene is eerily reminiscent of 9/11, as pedestrians flee from huge plumes of smoke and ash, their faces masks of fear and bewilderment. Rob, his brother Jason and girlfriend Lilly, Hud, and a girl named Marlena all set out for the Brooklyn bridge. Rob wants to find Beth, who left the party eariler. Mind you, Manhattan is in a state of utter pandemonium. I do find the depiction of unbridled chaos to be strangely fascinating, but the movie quickly wears thin as it deteriorates into exactly what it is: a regular old, DUMB ASS horror movie, complete with stupid decisions made by the main characters. Hud does break up the tense atmosphere with funny commentary, but is isn't enough to salvage the movie.

Cloverfield comes in a slick package, but in the end you will be disappointed as the unique premise does not remain plausible. For example, why the hell is Hud still filming everything, is this believable? I don't know, I guess you can never underestimate the human capacity for stupidity, but still. Catch it on Netflix.

The Great Debaters

I’m going to make more of an effort to broaden my horizons and step outside of my comfort zone with my movie choices. For example, “feel good” movies are NOT my thing. They’re fine, but I prefer darker movies. I don’t really go to the movies to be inspired. Maybe that makes me a screwed up person, I don’t know. I was reluctant to see The Great Debaters, Denzel Washington’s second directorial effort, because I knew it was one of those tear-jerk happy ending numbers. After watching it I feel embarrassed for having been so hesitant. It was inspiring, but there’s certainly nothing wrong with that.

As you probably know, the movie is a fictional account of the true story of the debate team of Wiley College, a tiny Black school in Texas. Set in 1935, the film shows the courage, intelligence, and tenacity of the young debaters and their instructor, portrayed by Washington. It culminates in the team’s historic victory over Harvard. I haven’t given anything away, and if you have a TV you already knew everything I’ve relayed thus far. Comprised primarily of newcomers, the cast was very impressive, and there are some faces to watch for in the future. Denzel Whitaker and Nate Parker star as James Farmer and Henry Lowe, respectively. Farmer is the youngest member of the team, a sweet, smart young man whose affection for teammate Samantha Brooke (Jurnee Smollett of Roll Bounce and Eve’s Bayou) is both comical and endearing. Henry Lowe is the most confident, headstrong member of the team, and he and Washington’s character briefly clash as Henry learns just who is in charge. Jurnee Smollett continues to show that she is no flash in the pan, and gives a weighty performance. As a matter of fact, with the inclusion of Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland) and Kimberly Elise (John Q), this cast was truly amazing. It’s nice to see a movie based on true events that inspires hope and leaves room for the possibility of wonderful things in life. The Great Debaters accomplished this without sugarcoating the racial atrocities that took place during the time period. It is this authenticity that makes the movie more than a cutesy, “feel good” flick, and for that reason I recommend it without reservation.

Charlie Wilson's War

Although Tom Hanks (The DaVinci Code), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote) and Julia Roberts (Ocean’s Twelve) are accomplished actors, their presence in Charlie Wilson’s War wasn’t enough to erase my skepticism about the movie. Oh sure, with these three I knew it couldn’t be bad, but I wasn’t exactly sold on the subject matter. Seemed like there’d be ample opportunity for a case of heavy eyelids. I like being wrong sometimes. To state it simply, this movie was great. I have no shame in admitting that political movies sometimes leave me stupefied, but I was able to keep up with this one, LOL.

Directed by the acclaimed Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Closer) the film is set in 1980. In 1980 I was a year old, so there was no personal recollection of any events for me. A brief plot synopsis: Hanks is the title character, a congressman from TX who secretly becomes involved in helping the people of Afghanistan fight the Soviets after they invade their country. Julia Roberts plays Texas gal Joanne Herring, a salty southern belle and old friend of Charlie’s who wants him to take a stand. Up until this point Charlie’s main activities consist of cavorting with women and doing small favors for other congressmen. He’s a lovable hound, but now he has a chance to do something meaningful. And he does. Along with Gust Avrakatos (played by Hoffman), Charlie begins to outfit the Afghans with the weaponry they need to defend themselves. I feel like my description hasn’t done much to convince you to run out and catch this movie, but it was damn good. Funny, entertaining, and uniquely heartwarming. There was never a dull moment, actually. It is definitely worth checking out, and probably the best movie for Hanks and Roberts in quite a while.