The Song Fight Bulletin Board

What's the big deal here?

I thought it was well written, well shot, well acted and, well, boring (if you'll excuse the puns).

Why are people raving about this film? What am I missing?

Damn, this is an awesome flick! Daniel Day-Lewis is a great actor and really pulled me in. This gave me the same feeling I had after watching Gangs Of New York.

Billy's Little Trip wrote:Damn, this is an awesome flick! Daniel Day-Lewis is a great actor and really pulled me in. This gave me the same feeling I had after watching Gangs Of New York.

Why are people raving about this film? What am I missing?

The direction's impeccable, and DDL pulled off a very good performance as Daniel Plainview. The cinematography's pretty cool but the music really works with the direction and the acting and the script to create, I felt, a very effective film. I don't know what you're missing, maybe you don't like good movies.

As you felt the writing, script, acting were all good, what else does it take to make a film worth raving about? It needs to be not-boring? I don't think the last twenty minutes--the portion in the post-Depression era--were very exciting, as was the explosion at the oil well, as were plenty of other moments. Besides, plenty of great movies are very boring. Citizen Kane's certainly boring. Doesn't mean it's not worth raving over, because it is. Crime and Punishment's a great book, but it goes on and on. Gerry's, I think, a very good film, but it has several ten-minute long scenes that are wordless. Similarly There Will Be Blood doesn't have any speech for the first, what, ten minutes? Until the title card or something? I dunno, pretty groundbreaking, pretty amazing. The music, again, was very well-done.

The music was interesting and caught me a bit off guard at first, but really worked well to lead you down the path of Daniel Plainview's slow downward spiral and the mental state of the characters. The music is like something from the original flight of the phoenix, or planet of the apes, or something like that.

mkilly wrote:As you felt the writing, script, acting were all good, what else does it take to make a film worth raving about?

That's a good question, but I'm buggered if I know the answer. Although:

mkilly wrote:It needs to be not-boring?

would have to be pretty high on the list.

mkilly wrote:I don't think the last twenty minutes--the portion in the post-Depression era--were very exciting, as was the explosion at the oil well, as were plenty of other moments.

I'm not sure if you mean this how it reads to me. From the rest of your post, I'm assuming you meant to say that you DO think the last 20 minutes (+ explosion etc.) were very exciting. To which I can only shrug and say that I wish I agreed.

mkilly wrote:Besides, plenty of great movies are very boring. Citizen Kane's certainly boring. Doesn't mean it's not worth raving over, because it is.

Well, perhaps you're on to something here, because I"ve also always been somewhat bemused by the praise heaped on CK. Perhaps it really is as simple as that - if a film is boring, I'm just not going to love it. I'm now trying to remember if I ever saw a film that I thought was boring but also excellent, and I'm drawing a blank. I'm interested to know what other folks thing of this - do other people love films that they also find boring?

You're right about the music being awesome tho', I forgot about that.

I think by boring, he means slow or understated, which may be considered boring by some. If a slow movie can capture you by the visuals, then that is some good acting and directing, which is generally brilliant.
Like the beginning of this movie. There was a long segment where no words were spoken, but it was captivating and set up both the lead character and the era, perfectly.

obscurity wrote:Why are people raving about this film?

People like snazzy catchphrases.

Psycho moves pretty slowly...

just saw this movie last night... DDL is awsome...