There Will Be Blood

"I drink your milkshake!"

Whilst writing the post the other day on Boogie Nights, I mentioned that Paul Thomas Anderson would go on to make the Daniel Day-Lewis starring There Will Be Blood. As the film was suddenly in the forefront of my mind, I have decided to write a piece on bad reviews of that as well. Now, I'm willing to admit that P.T. Anderson's most recent film isn't exactly the most action-packed of movies, but the powerhouse performance from Mr. Day-Lewis, and the interesting characters keep you hooked to the end. These folks from Amazon.co.uk should have stuck to simpler films like Transformers...:

There will be few movies worse than this! (Really? If you think this is one of the worst movies of all time then, quite frankly, you need to seek psychiatric help)

I was eagerly waiting for this movie to arrive after watching the previews and interview with Daniel Day-Lewis who I believe to be a superb actor. (He is indeed. And this is his best performance. At least that I've seen)

Imagine my disappointment when this turned out to be one of the most boring (I can see how some, small-minded people might feel this way), irritating (How is it irritating? Do you find all excellent films that are well made, directed and acted irritating?), going-nowhere extremely slowly (It goes somewhere. [SPOILER coming up] It goes to Plainview's fall. The fall of this horrible, greedy man is where it goes), movies I have ever had the misfortune to waste my time on. (I can only presume, therefore, that you haven't seen many movies. Perhaps you only know DD-L from such films as Last of the Mohicans...)

This movie illustrates that superb acting and camera work are not enough to make a good movie without those essential ingredients of an interesting plot and good tempo. (It has an interesting plot. Just not an exciting one. There is a difference. And what the fuck does 'good tempo' even mean? A film should move only as fast as it needs to. Too slow and it becomes bloated and a chore to sit through, but too fast and we lose characterisation and development. Each film's optimum tempo is different. This film hits it just right.)

I have to say, I'm quite proud of that last bit...:

There will be gloom. (I see what you've done there. It's so hilarious I think I'm going to have to lie down for an hour)

Gruesome. (It's not gruesome...)

Not even Daniel Day-Lewis' acting in this movie can lift the dark brooding gloom of this awful film. (It's not awful. It's excellent. And, yes, it is dark. But it was supposed to be. So saying it is isn't an insult.)
Quality sets, acting and appearance, but gloomy dark and oppressive (So? That's the intended feel of the movie. It aims to show that greed is bad). If there is an anti feel-good movie, this is it... (Nah, that'd probably be Through A Glass Darkly. But anyway, it isn't a feel-good movie. It doesn't want to be. Not everything has to be the same. Not everything has to be cheery like a bad Disney film)
Horrid. (Yes. Your review was horrid.)

 Here's one more. This guy even commits the cardinal sin of reviewing!:

I was getting very very excited before I purchased this film. (You know you shouldn't be sexually aroused from DVDs right?)
Got it for Friday film night at home; surround sound on; lights down.
Following on from all the press adoration (Adoration for good reason, I might add) I couldn't wait to get it into the DVD player; anyway after half and hour I was wondering when it was going to `warm' up (it will come in a minute I'm sure!) after an hour I was exchanging glances with my girlfriend (Does she know about your DVD fetish?). Eventually after an hour and a half we both decided we had had enough. (What?! You didn't even finish the film? Then why the fuck are you reviewing it on here then you moronic fucktard? You cannot review something if you have not seen the whole film. If you don't know the full story arc then it is ludicrous to say you don't like it. Didn't you read my post from yesterday?) Sold it the next day on Amazon market place. (I hope the person you sold it to isn't as much of a twat)
Slow (Because it fucking needs to be!), uninspired (I'm not going to even dignify this with a proper response), over hyped (It deserves all the plaudits it has received. And more) platform for a Hollywood `method' (yeah right!) (He is a method actor. It is what he is. Ignorant fuck.) pre-Madonna. (In what way is DD-L a pre-Madonna? Because he is picky about what films he stars in? That just seems like good sense to me)
Save your Fridays for binge drinking it will be more academically challenging than this pile of bile! (I see. So slowly killing yourself is better in your eyes than this superb piece of film-making? Well, please, go ahead. We don't need you.)

Hmm... I was trying to move away from actually threatening people with violence and death. Oh well...

Boogie Nights

Marky Mark Walhberg has a large penis in it...
image via wikipedia

In 1997 Paul Thomas Anderson (later of There Will Be Blood fame) released his second film. Boogie Nights tells the story of Dirk Diggler, a young pornstar, and his associates in the late 70s and early 80s when the industry was beginning its movement from film to video. The film is generally regarded as possibly one of the most important films of the 90s. This first review comes from Amazon.co.uk:

I can't understand why this is such a highly rated film!! (The second exclamation mark really helps to lend credence to your argument...) There is nothing good about it except mindless violence (The violence isn't 'mindless', it is very important to the plot of the movie. It is necessary to reinforce the idea that the porn industry was not a fun place to be.), drug taking (Again, Diggler's fall from grace wouldn't pack much punch without a reason for it...) and stupid sexual innuendos (It's about the porn industry, what did you expect?). Fair enough this film is based on the porn industry so I would be a bit confused if there was no sex in it whatsoever but it's just the way it's shot and acted that seems so tacky (I believe it was meant to be tacky. Like the films and industry it is portraying). I apologize to people who have put this at the top of their hundred greatest films list but I really disliked it! (Well, at least you show remorse I suppose...)

I don't expect any such apologies from any body else. Speaking of which, here's some more from Amazon.com:

Badly written (That'll be why it was nominated for best screenplay at the Oscars then...), badly directed (It really wasn't.), well acted (Yup), well made (Yup. So surely those last two points could have resulted in at least 2 stars then?). It cannot conceal the fact that it has absolutely nothing to say (It has a lot to say. For instance: that stardom, in this instance pornography, is not all its cracked up to be. Getting all that you wanted does not necessarily make you happy. And, more obviously, that drugs are bad). It simply mills around for about an hour, and then decides to throw some graphic violence on the screen as a last-ditch effort for some kind of Artistic Significance (No. It had artistic significance right from the off. The violence was there to bring several of the stories to a proper conclusion. That and, as previously said, to make the industry less glamorous). Avoid this film. It is utterly without any kind of value whatever. (Avoid this review. It is without any kind of value whatever. Unlike the film)

And here's another:

A long, boring, absolutely awful movie (It is 2 1/2 hours, so I suppose the claims of it being long are valid...). It introduces us to a lot of characters (It's an ensemble film, they always have a lot of characters), follows them around for a while, and then, when it seems to realize that nothing is going on, gives us a scene of graphic violence in a vain attempt to add significance to what must be the most empty film to be made in the wake of Quentin Tarantino's equally vapid Pulp Fiction. (It's actually an incredibly intelligent movie with an awful lot to say on its chosen subjects. I'm fed up of people saying violence in anything other than an action film is immediately bad. The violence works. It works because of the mood set by the rest of the picture. If you think both this and Pulp Fiction are vapid, then what precisely do count as depth?)

To close I'll leave you with this brilliant review:

THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE. PURE GARBAGE. DEFINATELY definitely NOT WORTH SEING.