MoFo Nostromo's Picture Show Reflections

→ in
Tools    





will begin with one i watched over christmas. this was a first-time viewing. i've gotten so wrapped up the last few years in doing my best to familiarize myself with the classics, that i've slacked on some of the more recent ones



i like to think of myself as an oil man

There Will Be Blood
(Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

A story of family, religion, hatred, oil and madness,
focusing on a turn-of-the-century prospector
in the early days of the business

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469494/?ref_=nm_knf_t1


had to let this one soak in for a few days before posting about it. finally got around to seeing this Paul Thomas Anderson - Daniel Day-Lewis triumph. the viewing was long overdue, and due to that, much of what i say may have already been said and repeated a thousand times by those who have discussed and reviewed this film. for this i apologize in advance. i am admittedly way late to this party

Daniel Day-Lewis truly dominated this picture. Together with Paul Thomas Anderson's writing and direction, they both pretty much drink all our milkshakes. I was amazed at how Daniel Plainview's calm salesman manner of speaking almost sounded like oil filtering through his rig

There Will Be Blood stands plenty well enough on its own. That said, a lot of it oozed Kubrick to me. That shot of the bowling alley transported me instantly to something you'd see in the Shining or a Clockwork Orange



on top of that, some of the broader themes also remind me of the Shining. Daniel Plainview is corrupted by the oil, Jack Torrance is corrupted by the Overlook Hotel. HW, Plainview's adopted son, is the lone source of hope and optimism in the film. He overcomes his limitations in hearing by learning sign language. HW manages to escape Daniel Plainview's murderous wrath to start his own oil rig in Mexico. & i believe HW learned a lot from watching Daniel's oil drilling over the years, despite his hearing disadvantages. also, i found the side story - with the little girl who grows up, stays faithful, and marries HW - to be incredibly and profoundly sweet... in an otherwise relentless tale of greed and destruction. Danny, Jack Torrance's little boy, also represents the source of hope and optimism in his ability to 'shine'.. seeing past, present and future events, and communicating telepathically with the cook. HW Plainview and Danny Torrance, the little boys, both the sources for optimism in otherwise bleak and relentlessly brutal narratives.



another similarity i sensed. Before seeing the Shining, i of course knew about the 'Here's Johnny' scene. it's so iconic and plastered everywhere including the DVD/Blu-Ray case and the image of Jack through the door looms so large... that i was suprised once i finally saw the Shining that there were a whole bunch of moments i liked more than that scene

& before seeing There Will Be Blood, the 'I Drink Your Milkshake' looms so large... that i was surprised to find other moments in the movie i liked more. when Daniel Plainview reveals to Henry, his supposed brother,

'there are times when i look at people and i see nothing worth liking,'

i thought that was the most honest moment of the film for the character Daniel. He so wanted someone to open up to, that he believed this man was his brother with little proof. but the best moment in the film for me, was this



on the surface, it looks like the character Daniel Plainview is just hamming it up so he can appease the landowner and run his oil pipeline through his land. yea, that was why Plainview reduced himself to confessing on his knees. sure he only went through with it to get what he wants. my take, though, is that the confession itself is genuine. ... i think there's a little more to Daniel Plainview. yes he becomes consumed with his greed ultimately, but somewhere inside i think he feels some connection with the boy HW, however warped it is. otherwise he would have just killed him like he did Henry (the not-brother) and Eli (the priest)

Conclusion: There Will Be Blood is how movies should be made these days. While it comes a tad short of the timeless all-time greats in my view, it's still really damn good. I think it's better than anything Nolan has done, and that's no insult. I also think it's better than anything Tarantino has done. Daniel Day-Lewis has been the best actor around dating back to 1989 and My Left Foot, another great film. And this is to me his best movie yet that I have seen. my one criticism is that Daniel Day-Lewis dominates the screen too much. He drinks all the other actor's milkshakes. And kind of lords over the whole picture, dwarfing everyone else into insignificance. But that doesn't stop it from being very good

+ (8.5/10)





soon, i'll be traveling back in time again for the next three movies here in my Reflections... three classic hits i will be watching for the first time. one from the 1930's, two from the 1950's



I was surprised how great I thought this was as I only watched it because of what other mofos had to say about it. Day-Lewis plays one of the most memorable characters I have ever seen, and I also thought Paul Dano was excellent. This is the film that made me realize that any PTA film is a must see.



Nice review. I love this movie as most do. I never thought of the comparisons to The Shining but I definitely see it now that you mention it. I am just glad that there were no twins or gushing blood that I am supposed to pretend are scary for some reason. DDL over shadows everyone in almost every movie he is in. I thought Dano was spot on for the part he was playing though. I say this not being a Dano fan in the least. Keep the reviews coming.
__________________
Letterboxd



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
Nice review nostromo. I was also a big fan when I watched it a year or two ago. Will need to give it a rewatch at some point to see if I love it enough for inclusion on my top 100 list or not



watched this for the first time last night



oh, i love funny exiting lines

Rear Window
(Alfred Hitchcock, 1954)

A wheelchair bound photographer spies on his neighbours
from his apartment window and becomes convinced
one of them has committed murder

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047396/?ref_=nv_sr_1


i'd like to imagine this film as a sampling of Hitchcock's best fantasies. anyone who knows anything about him knows, if there was ever a person who had 'a thing' for blondes, it was Hitchcock. to me, the true nucleus of this movie is Lisa Fremont



played radiantly by Grace Kelly. So at the beginning, on the surface, she's pretty much the perfect woman. and for LB Jeffries, the wheelchair-bound photographer (Jimmy Stewart), that's the problem

i can hear you now,
'Get out of my life, you wonderful woman. you're too good for me'


at the beginning, she is kind, she is attractive. and she wants to be seen as attractive - taken out to dinner, taken to balls, paraded, etc. And for all her prospects, she is in love with LB Jeffries. Lucky man. but for LB, this is not enough. LB Jeffries is not just lucky, he is wise



LB wants a woman who can share in his passions. and he's challenging her to be more than the trophy blonde. if Hitchcock had another fixation beyond blondes, it was murder. and solving them. My take: what this movie really is, is the fusing... of Alfred Hitchcock's two chief fascinations. the blonde who helps solve the murder mystery and enjoys it. challenging Lisa to be more achieves two things for LB Jeffries and the movie, on different layers. layer 1: it keeps her engaged/interested in him, with her many prospects vying for her attention

Lisa Fremont: 'i'd say she's doing a woman's hardest job: juggling wolves'

layer 2: it provides the template for Hitchcock to demonstrate his ideal woman



Conclusion: the most delightful Hitchcock i've seen. i think it's great for everything above.. but furthermore, bc what is a more compelling film topic than what people do when they think they're not being watched? pondered it for a moment, and i'd imagine every person imagines their own life as its own grand film. so think of all the interesting pursuits people go through that we'll never know about. Rear Window, and a wheelchair-bound photographer named LB Jeffries provides the template and a playground for this concept of voyeurism. great movie

(9.0/10)





I love Rear Window and have always considered it my favorite Hitchcock. I am in the middle of a few month long Hitchcock marathon right now and plan on watching Rear Window again. We will see if it gets dethroned. There are already a couple of his movies in the running and I am only five in.



Finished here. It's been fun.
I know I'm in the minority but Rear Window is just a tedious film, and heavily overrated. Now Vertigo, thats a Hitchcock masterpiece.



Pfff... That film is such a MASTERPIECE. I feel the urge to rewatch it right this instant after reading your review and seeing those pictures.

For me it's the number two Hitchcock film right after Vertigo. It used to be my absolute favorite of the director until a rewatch of Vertigo absolutely blew my mind.
Maybe I'll change my mind after seeing this one again for the third time.

Great review!
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019



another first-time viewing

minor recommendation for these reflections: scroll down to the bottom of the post and start the music and then commence reading




you can see now?

City Lights
(Charles Chaplin, 1931)

the Tramp struggles to help a blind flower girl
he has fallen in love with

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021749/?ref_=nv_sr_1


i take for granted sometimes how exceptional a storyteller Chaplin/the tramp was. he is pretty much the original cartoon character. i'd wager the animators of mickey mouse, bugs bunny, donald duck, etc, etc, all took things from Chaplin. He knew exactly when to play up comic exaggeration, and when to play it small



while watching City Lights, i forgot i was viewing a silent picture. i took pleasure in the perfectly-timed gags, the comedy, the clever finesse Chaplin displays as the producer, director, and star of the show. and it's not like he glorifies himself. he almost drowns, a flower pot falls and hits him in the head, he loses the boxing match, and he's pretty much an all-around goof. yet i can't help but admire the product


Chaplin is unique in that even modern audiences know that he, the puppet and star of the show, is also the one pulling the strings. he owned his own production company, so he was never under any obligation to studios to have to change his vision. 'talkies' were the new thing in 1931 in Hollywood, and Chaplin mocks it at the beginning.. when the public officials introduce the monuments and squeaky gibberish comes out. love it



Conclusion: the final scene, to me, is the epitome of what Charlie is at his best... it's everything the tramp stands for. after the time he and the flower girl shared together while she was blind, she naturally assumes he is a rich man. at first when she doesn't recognize him, my first reflex was to call out to her. tell her the truth... but Charlie doesn't...




(9.0/10)




The first time I saw Rear Window was at the movies for one of those special showings. It was one of the best times I ever had going to the movies. Great film.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
I've still never actually watched a Charlie Chaplin film in full.

Got to say by the way that my favourite part of these reviews is all the little gifs, videos and pics you include, very much in the style of your top films lists



I've still never actually watched a Charlie Chaplin film in full.


How is that even possible? Please get on it. I recommend "The Great Dictator" for starters. The ending is a masterpiece.
__________________
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
-Daniel, There Will Be Blood



After giving it a lot of thought I concluded that City Lights is Chaplin's masterpiece, but Modern Times is almost just as good.
Watch that one if you haven't already! The physical comedy in Modern Times is even better than in City Lights, but the latter one has that rare charm and sweetness to it that only a handful of films can compare to.

Great review!



After giving it a lot of thought I concluded that City Lights is Chaplin's masterpiece, but Modern Times is almost just as good.
Watch that one if you haven't already! The physical comedy in Modern TImes is even better than in City Lights, but the latter one has that rare charm and sweetness to it that only a handful of films can compare to.

Great review!
Modern Times is great too! the Chaplins i've seen so far are the Gold Rush, Modern Times, the Great Dictator, and now City Lights. All are good, if you're interested in my ratings, it'd go like this

City Lights
(8.0/10)
Modern Times
(8.0/10)
the Gold Rush
+ (7.5/10)
the Great Dictator
(7.0/10)

my aim is to try and sample the best from a lot of great directors... so maybe one day i'll get around to watching the Kid, the Circus, and perhaps Monsieur Verdoux as well



Modern Times is great too! the Chaplins i've seen so far are the Gold Rush, Modern Times, the Great Dictator, and now City Lights. All are good, if you're interested in my ratings, it'd go like this

City Lights
(10.0/10)
Modern Times
(9.0/10)
the Gold Rush
+ (8.5/10)
the Great Dictator
(8.0/10)

my aim is to try and sample the best from a lot of great directors... so maybe one day i'll get around to watching the Kid, the Circus, and perhaps Monsieur Verdoux as well
All three are very good films, in my opinion.
I still have to see A Woman in Paris, Limelight, A King in New York and A Countess From Hong Kong from the feature films he directed. I pretty much agree with your ratings, but I would also give Modern Times a maximum score (
).



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
How is that even possible? Please get on it. I recommend "The Great Dictator" for starters. The ending is a masterpiece.
Well it's not that I've never seen anything of him. I've seen clips and bits and pieces here and there, but never a film of his from start to finish. They've not appealed enough to really make me desperate to tackle them but I'll have a look someday. In fact the closest I've come to a full film is Chaplin with Robert Downey Jr. Another reason I've not seen any of his films in full is that I don't imagine they're ever actually on TV.



I actually watched The Circus and The Dictator for the first time in highschool. One of my former teachers was a huge Chaplin fan and if we did a good job and worked fast enough during a whole month/two months, he showed us a complete Chaplin film from start to finish.

My father is also a huge fan, so we have his complete DVD box at home.

You should definitely check out some of his work, JayDee! His films are very accessible and in my opinion timeless!