* "I, drink, your, milkshake!" Now
I get it. (I'd managed not to hear anything about its context until seeing the film. I only knew that writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson had taken the bit from the transcript of a 1920s government hearing.)
* Starkly beautiful. I appreciate places that have stark beauty, and the bits of Texas and California the crew used fit that bill. (George W. Bush also likes stark places, like Crawford, Texas; wow, one thing he and I have in common!)
* Maybe my favorite moment? The wedding. I like weddings. Maybe I should have one.
* Kevin J. O'Connor seems to have gotten a Michael Biehn
infusion. (I'm more familiar with O'Connor from Deep Rising
-- yes, I actually liked Deep Rising
, and by "liked" I mean "was darkly, darkly amused, especially by the last line" -- and The Mummy
; nice that he got something more substantial here.)
* There Will Be Blood
succeeds in conveying a type of melodrama similar to what Martin Scorcese's Gangs of New York tried and failed to do
. Gangs of New York
is, I feel, ultimately too confused a film to work (its year of re-editing at the hands of Harvey Weinstein, I also think, hurt it further). As modern and cutting-edge as the filmmaking technology and skill is in both films, Blood
manages to feel of its turn-of-the-century era; Gangs
feels like the huge set-bound exercise it was. Scorcese's cast (as good as it is) feels like actors dressed up; Anderson's cast feels like people, with all sorts of faces you don't usually see in movies. Gangs
's tone is inconsistent; Blood
's is consistent.
* I left the film feeling a little sad and affected. Another sign the film succeeded.
* Good film. I said that already, but wanted to be sure this review said it, too.