The Inaugural Film Review Competition - There Will Be Blood - Results Announced!

A few of us have decided it might be a nice idea to have a way in which we can discuss films while at the same time getting some constructive criticism to improve our writing and introducing a little competitive fun, so here it is.

The premise is simple; in each competition we watch the film chosen (which hopefully will be something accessible to everyone) and have a few days to collect our thoughts and submit a review. Once the submission deadline has passed I will put the reviews up on this thread uncredited and allow voting to take place. After sufficient time for voting the pieces will be credited, the winners will be announced and the thread can be unlocked for people to comment on the pieces to help each other improve. Everyone who submitted a review will also be invited to then post it on the Film Critics' Society, a thread which has sadly fallen into disuse over time. The winner will receive much glory, rep from me (and anyone else who is willing) and be invited to choose our next film to review.

For our first film we are going with There Will Be Blood (2007). It is going to be shown on BBC2 on Saturday 8th August at 9.45PM, so hopefully everyone interested will be able to watch it if they haven't already. It is also now available here on iPlayer for a week, so if anyone missed it they can catch it there.

The deadline for reviews to be submitted is midnight on Wednesday 12th August. I will update this thread after then with details on how to vote, as well as the submissions. Submit your reviews by PMing them to me, which can be done by clicking this link.

This is very much a work in progress and a new thing for me to be organising and I'd be very grateful for your feedback, so any ideas or things to change you can also PM to me.

Rules

Happy watching and reviewing! :h:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Phalanges

Thanks everyone for your submissions! Voting will now take place until Midnight on Sunday 15th August, and because of difficulties with polls will be done by PM to Champagne Supernova, a man of fine standing who is neutral in this competition. Please include "film review competition" in the subject line. You can PM him by clicking here. Once voting is over, I'll reveal the identity of the reviewers, CS can announce the stats and the thread can open for feedback for each other.

A few rules on voting

So, without further ado, the reviews:

1There Will Be Blood is not a film that should be entered into lightly. It is a complex and often disturbing watch. There are jarring sounds and out of place scenes whose purpose at the time seems only to unsettle and disturb you. It is most definitely not a film for everyone, and I can completely understand if you find yourself frustrated or perplexed by it. However, I believe that if you stick with it, it is truly a rich and rewarding experience.

It is a film about the prosperity and spirit of the early twentieth century in mid-western America, and also about the pitfalls and the compromises. Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a silver miner turned oil man, and after a tip off he sets out to Little Boston to create his legacy, carrying in tow his adopted son H.W. (Dillon Freasier). There he encounters the evangelical preacher Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), and the two men are soon locked in a power struggle over the town.

While seeming at times polar opposites, Plainview and Sunday are mirrors of each other both in terms of character and accomplishments. Both seek dominance, and are prepared to do whatever it takes for it. Both are uncompromising, and see others purely in terms of what they can offer them (Plainview uses his son as a negotiation prop, while Sunday uses William Bandy to put the oilman in his place). Both seek utter destruction and humiliation of the other, unaware that their own deeds are causing their own destruction. Both create their business up from the ground until they are no longer needed, finally left only to descend to madness and bankruptcy. While they are obvious metaphors for the two main influences in modern American culture (capitalism and religion) neither is glamourised or demonised, and the script simply shows you the consequences of both. Both characters are acted out superbly, the scene coming alive when either of them are involved, and the absences of any other stand-out characters are easily compensated by their weight.

The film is directed with clear, uncompromising confidence, relying on it’s story and central performances to carry it through some of the more forgettable scenes. It’s opening scenes are completely without speech, and made all the more beautiful for it. On reflection, it is also foreboding of the immediate story, as it is one of the few times when you see pure, genuine honesty from Plainview, an illusion which is shattered as soon as he opens his mouth. It’s a brave move, and many less experienced directors would have not dared to do it, fearing that they wouldn’t be able to keep the audience’s interest for so long. But Paul Thomas Anderson has no such concerns. He see his audience in much the same way that Daniel Plainview see his; they are to be endured, and must not be allowed to compromise his goals. It is ultimate self-expression. As much as films can be art, this is.

There Will Be Blood is not a film for those looking for immediate gratification – it’s score will never allow you to settle into it and the finale will leave you puzzled – but over time you will grow to appreciate it. I would hesitate to call it a masterpiece. It is undoubtedly a great film, but it is also flawed. Is it the best film of the decade? Perhaps not. But it is a film that everyone should see once.

It is very long film, and I found myself feeling relieved every time I thought it was over (but no, it wasn't over). That doesn't mean it wasn't a good film, it was just a boringly good film, if you get that. The actors cast for each role could not have been more suited to their role, especially Paul Dano as Eli (although he does not make a very convincing priest).The set and scenery used in the film was as if it had been filmed around the time the film was actually set, I liked that, it seemed more real. They haven't tried to be too fancy with scenes involving people in the wells, again it was very believable. There are bad points, though. The music did not fit at all, it seemed horridly out of place. At many points in the film did I feel uncomfortable watching what was going on, i'm not sure whether that was because of the acting or the camera angle. When Daniel and supposed brother person (cannot remember his name :colondollar:

) were sitting on the beach, the camera was angled in such a claustrophobic way, looking at the side of Daniel's face, it was not good. Also, in the church, well that was just a bit weird and awkward to watch. On the whole, I don't really know what to think. The film story itself is very good, but it did not keep me entertained and honestly, I did not enjoy this film. Was not what I expected, and I felt absolutely nothing at the end except relief that it was over.

3We were told there would be blood and there was blood. Plenty of it. Not to mention the extra blood flowing to your eyes as you try to stay awake during the film. We follow oilman Daniel Plainview’s journey and blood trail in a film which is stretched out longer than it’s needed. The film includes some brilliant scenery and a wonderful music score but that doesn’t compensate for the film’s length. Also, the line “I am your brother from another mother” didn’t particularly sound fitting for the scene that it was in. The film may not appeal to the general masses but if you’re a film buff, you’ll want to watch it at least once.

4In a film that revolves around greed, wealth, religion and ruthlessness a lot could go wrong. But Paul Thomas Anderson does not disappoint with this. The focal point of this story is a man, Daniel Plainview, a silver miner who stumbles upon oil which in turn sets off his story. As the film goes on, we see how Daniel’s greed for wealth becomes more apparent and how it has consumed him. He has no remorse and is full of hate as he says himself “I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people.” Using an orphaned boy as a tool and his highly persuasive speaking ability, he establishes a drilling company that looks for prospective oil deposits around the country.

It is when he clashes with Eli when working in California, a church pastor, that his ruthless side comes into view and we learn more about his character. What starts out to be an annoyance to Daniel, becomes humiliation and anger as Eli uses religion to take hold of Daniel. Eli pushes Daniel to the edge when he forces him to beg for forgiveness over “abandoning his child” after sending him to school in San Francisco. At the end of the film when Eli comes to Daniel for help as a “friend”, Daniel uses it to force to Eli shout out to God that he is a false prophet in a similar fashion to how Eli made Daniel shout out to God for forgiveness over his son. Daniel, fuelled by anger, beats Eli to death completing his consumption into darkness.

However, we do see an emotional side of him, where he learns and weeps of his true brother’s death and early on in the film when his dark side isn’t so apparent. It seems initially that he loves the boy, H.W, he adopted as a true son. But after an accident which leaves H.W. deaf his love for him grows apart as his greed demonizes him and his priorities lie in the oil business which is demonstrated by Plainview sending his son to a school in San Francisco. Towards the end of the film, when his son has grown up and married to Mary whom he met when he was a child at Plainview’s work in California.

Daniel Day-Lewis’ truly excels in the role as Daniel Plainview and his performance can be argued to rank up there with his performance in Gangs of New York as Bill Cutting. His hawk-like eyes and short-temper perfects the portrayal of the character. His “Best Actor” awards are very justifiable as he made this film his own. Though this film did seem have a lack of magic in it’s scene setting but that is overridden by the fact that the story itself is very intriguing and the well developed characters come into play. It time it could be remembered a classic story as the modern film industry moves into a more action and graphical stage.

5I will not bore you with details, the film can do that, but the plot in its most naked form is as follows-
Daniel Day, having traversed from the five points of NY to the somewhat calmer not yet Wild West, has brought with him the standard of professionalism, the handle bar moustache and melancholy spectacle that, when in combination, ensure the avoidance of the channel 5 film re-run list. He finds oil at the cost of his sons hearing, and then meets a fraudster hiding under the vestments of a harmless middle state Christian priest, whose frugal upbringings do not mar his ability to haggle with the most experienced Goldstein or Steinburg. Beginning, not ideally, in a whole, the opening scene does in some respects drag itself, though assisted by tooth and nail, out the unromantic toilet of Kansas or Nevada, or some other arid desert ridden oil blooded flat. The absence of a soundtrack in this opening scene allows a foresight into the gritty nature in which the film has been conducted. Having watched this film some time ago, I can honestly say that it is not overtly awe-inspiring, an observation that leaves it off both the polar lists of “Walk out halfway” and “******* good”. The scene that is starkly embedded into my head, a scene upon which my whole view of the film now rests, is one where the pining Dan Day reinvents the head of the church charlatan with the fat end of what looks to be a very heavy bowling pin. I do not know whether I invented the blood, or it was shown; I am inclined to think the former, as any such spectacle would do greatly in my estimation of any film.
In this film there is plenty of dynamite, only it does not explode, and when it does, it does so with the effort of an overly priced firework bought from a store with an untameable tendency to disappear come the 6th of November.

6There Will Be Blood. Something that conjures up images of violence, betrayal, revenge and a feeling of a murderous massacre. A special sense that, just by reading the title, you get the feeling that this outha be good. So the question begs; is it a blunder or a stroke of genius? Most critics seem to think the latter. But what does a real person think?

For starters, the movie is about oil. Or more specifically, about greed. Based on Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel “Oil!” it tells the story about prospector Daniel Plainview who has discovered oil and will go great lengths to get his wealth. Played by Daniel-Day Lewis, Plainview is orginally a likeable man who does his business, and moves on. But under the likeableness is a man who is coarse and animalistic, sentimental in matters of love and ruthless in matters where he sees gain. And to accompany him is his son H.W. They are then joined by Elia Sunday, who works as a pastor at a local church in the Little Boston area, where Plainview has aquired land and wants to extract oil from it. The real story actually starts from there, since there is no dialogue for the first fifteen minutes.

The story involves a tangle of relationships, and the greed that supposedly ruins them. The films actually does a good job of explaining those certain connections, mainly the father and son relationship. A bit about 2 brother is also thrown in there. Most of the story takes place around the year 1911 in California, at which point Plainview is a successful Oilman. He is accordingly accompanied by H.W. who wonders and learns what his father does, and at the same time is sort of a partner. H.W. is the one gives Plainview the supposed image of likableness. Then one day, Paul Sunday (the brotheer of Eli Sunday) arrives to tell Plainview that see has discovered oil around his family ranch in Little Boston. Plainview then sets off to acquire the illustrious black gold.

When the Oil gushes out of the the desert, Plainview does his bit of pretending like a politician and promises the local community that they will prosper soon enough. The poor people who dont even have enough water to grow wheat, decide to let the oilman bring them what God promised. Like any politician, he promises roads, education, water and even bread (which the townsfolk think its a luxury). But soon, a number of challenges stand in his way. From there the film starts to gain momentum, and feels like a smooth flow. The real Daniel Plainview soon emerges. The ruthless businessman that once was likeable, only seems to have his eyes on the prize.

There is that sense, that Plainview is actually 2 people. The difference in personality constantly takes you, to and from the charismatic Plainview. you just dont know what this person might do next. Its like hes reading a story to his son one moment, then mixes whiskey with his milk the next moment. The constant change of emotion really make this film flow. In the latter part of the film however, he becomes drunk and delusional. And Daniel-Day Lewis shows this brilliantly.

But there is more to the film than just Daniel-Day Lewis. Paul Dano who plays Eli Sunday, plays his role wonderfully. Although his role doesnt change at all (unlike Plainview), he actually does a good job of keeping his character firmly on the ground. There is a sense that, God actually has chosen him to be his Prophet.

So the question still begs: is it likeable? Hmmmm. No. The film is a work of art. But it is only a work of art, to those who like works of art. And I dont like works of art.

It is simple point. You go to an art gallery, and you see pieces of art. The artistic person will stand to look and admire some of the emotions that have gone into making this piece. See the pain, the ambition and the inspiration. Feel those emotions, See the beauty of it. And then finally proclaim that it is wonderful indeed. He might even say its a masterpiece. All in all, it takes about 3 minutes of staring, then some admiration, and then the verdict. A total of 5 minutes.

A not so artistic person will look at the same piece of art; admire it for 20 seconds; shake his head; and then move on.

There Will Be Blood. Something that conjures up violence, betrayal, revenge and a feeling of a murderous massacre. A special sense that, just by reading the title, you get the feeling that this outha be good. 'There Will Be Boredom' could have been much more suitable if I am honest.

If are the sort, that likes films filled with passion and emotion (or artistry basically), then this is definitely recommended. But it you are the sort that has the nagging question in his head of, "should I watch it?" Then for your own sake dont. Even if that question comes up just once, dont watch it. You really wont be missing anything.

Good luck everyone and happy voting!

Reply 2

Champagne Supernova

Hi everyone, thanks for your entries and votes - I'm glad to see this competition has started off brightly! :thumbsup:

I won't ramble on....so....the results are as follows.... :colone:

The winner, with 5 votes is..... Entry 1! :king1:

In second place, with 2 votes is...Entry 3! :king2:

And in joint third place, with 1 vote each are Entries 4 and 6! :king3:

And in joint 4th (and unfortunately last), with zero votes each are Entries 2 and 5!

Once again and thanks again to everyone - and a big thanks to Phalanges for coming up with the whole idea. :smile:

Reply 3

Phalanges

And in terms of who wrote what:

Entry 1 was written by Phalanges.

Entry 2 was written by rofflewaffle.

Entry 3 was written by unknownking321.

Entry 4 was written by SirRamAlot.

Entry 5 was written by WrigglyMammoth.

Entry 6 was written by S-man10.

Big thanks to Champagne Supernova, whose work behind the scenes made this whole competition possible, and thanks to everyone that took part in entering or voting. Next competition will be announced shortly I guess!

Reply 4

Phalanges

Quotes for Attention

Thanks for all of your entries. :h:

Please feel free to post your reviews in the film critics soc, if you wish.

As the thread is now open, I look forward to hearing your feedback on all of the reviews (and the overall organisation of the competition).

Reply 5

S-man10

Phalanges. :king1:

Edit: Third isn't bad.

Reply 6

rofflewaffle

Well done Phalanges :h:

. And last :camp: told you my review would be awful :colondollar:

Reply 7

S-man10

rofflewaffle

Well done Phalanges :h:

. And last :camp: told you my review would be awful :colondollar:

At least you put in a review. Well done.

Reply 8

S-man10

Phalanges

Thanks for all of your entries. :h:

A win thoroughly deserved. Awesome review.

So sir, which film is next? :h:

Reply 9

Phalanges

Thanks guys. :o:

I'll type up my thoughts of everyone's review a little later (when I've got a bit more time, and can devote my full attention to it).

S-man10

A win thoroughly deserved. Awesome review.

So sir, which film is next? :h:

I'm not sure. The main question is whether to do another one which is on telly because then everyone has a chance to watch it, or whether to do one which I think would make be good because it polarises opinions well (I've got one in mind which does exactly that) and is mainstream enough that most people will have watched it or be able to watch it?

Reply 10

Ape Gone Insane

I knew it. :nutcase:

Well done everyone. :h:

Reply 11

rofflewaffle

Phalanges

Thanks guys. :o:

I'll type up my thoughts of everyone's review a little later (when I've got a bit more time, and can devote my full attention to it).

I'm not sure. The main question is whether to do another one which is on telly because then everyone has a chance to watch it, or whether to do one which I think would make be good because it polarises opinions well (I've got one in mind which does exactly that) and is mainstream enough that most people will have watched it or be able to watch it?

I like this idea :yy:

Reply 12

unknownking321

~~I sense a fix.~~ :sly:

Congratulations Phalanges.

Reply 13

Phalanges

Right then, feedback:

Entry 2: This is by no means a bad review, certainly not as bad as you think. While you lack a bit of refinement in your style the content is good, and it has a good honest feel to it (I particularly like and emphasise with your comments about it being boringly good). You submitted your review very quickly after the film had been on; if you wanted to improve it I would perhaps suggest waiting a day after you had initially written it and then gone back and neatened up a few of the sentences. It wouldn't take much to have it looking very good.

Entry 3: A very nice synopsis of the film, but a little short. You have a great writing style and it's very easy to read, so it would have been nice to see a few more thoughts on the film.

Entry 4: My personal favourite. You express good points clearly and concisely and all of the paragraphs flow very nicely into each other. Not much else I can say really.

Entry 5: My least favourite. I like the conclusion, but the rest of it seems a bit rushed and immature. You have some good points to raise, but their impact is muddied a little bit by some of the imagery you try and use.

Entry 6: A very good look at the film. You analyse it well, and the analogy to art is well thought-out and well executed. It feels a very real review, and the comparison between a critic's viewpoint and a regular audience-goer adds another layer to it. My only criticisms were that I didn't find the repetition to work that well, which also made it a little on the lengthy side.

I'll be grateful to hear any feedback anyone has on my review. :smile:

Reply 14

Phalanges

rofflewaffle

I like this idea :yy:

Cool. I found the film I want to do available to buy on DVD for only £2 as well, so even if someone hasn't seen it or doesn't know anyone who has a copy it wouldn't be too much expense for them to watch it.

Reply 15

SirRamAlot

Nice I got one vote (entry 4), that's one more than expected lol, I'm just annoyed I didn't complete my sentence in the penultimate paragraph (the last sentence) as it doesn't make sense when reading it. Good job Phalanges I voted for your one as I had no doubt it was my favourite, and thanks for your comment about my entry. :wink:

Reply 16

unknownking321

Phalanges

Right then, feedback:

Entry 3: A very nice synopsis of the film, but a little short. You have a great writing style and it's very easy to read, so it would have been nice to see a few more thoughts on the film.

I'll be grateful to hear any feedback anyone has on my review. :smile:

I fell in and out of sleep whilst watching it. :colondollar:

Reply 17

rofflewaffle

Phalanges

Entry 2: This is by no means a bad review, certainly not as bad as you think. While you lack a bit of refinement in your style the content is good, and it has a good honest feel to it (I particularly like and emphasise with your comments about it being boringly good). You submitted your review very quickly after the film had been on; if you wanted to improve it I would perhaps suggest waiting a day after you had initially written it and then gone back and neatened up a few of the sentences. It wouldn't take much to have it looking very good.

Cool. I found the film I want to do available to buy on DVD for only £2 as well, so even if someone hasn't seen it or doesn't know anyone who has a copy it wouldn't be too much expense for them to watch it.

It was written and submitted quick because I was going to Devon, aka land of no internet, and wouldn't have been able to do it before the 'deadline' :colondollar:

. But yes, it was a rushed ramble, so I know what you mean. Thanks.

Sounds good :yy:

. I'm sure people who can't buy it can find it other places for free :ninja:

Reply 18

Phalanges

rofflewaffle

It was written and submitted quick because I was going to Devon, aka land of no internet, and wouldn't have been able to do it before the 'deadline' :colondollar:

. But yes, it was a rushed ramble, so I know what you mean. Thanks.

Sounds good :yy:

. I'm sure people who can't buy it can find it other places for free :ninja:

Ah, I see. Well hopefully you won't be so rushed for the next competition then. :h:

As a mod I couldn't possibly suggest any illicit places. Merely acknowledging they exist would probably have a few people filing post reports in an effort to bring down the establishment. :ninja:

Reply 19

rofflewaffle

Phalanges

Ah, I see. Well hopefully you won't be so rushed for the next competition then. :h:

As a mod I couldn't possibly suggest any illicit places. Merely acknowledging they exist would probably have a few people filing post reports in an effort to bring down the establishment. :ninja:

I hope not :h: