I first saw "Boogie Nights" about a year ago and I really liked it. Very funny. Well filmed. Well acted--great story. It had one of the best endings in any PT Anderson film (not that there is much of a selection.) His style, though, didn't really catch my eye. Not until I saw "Magnolia" did I say, 'Oh, ****, this guy might actually be something.' When I went onto the imDb and researched the film I discovered there were mostly mixed feelings on the movie and director. In my opinion, there were great camera angles-great acting-and some parts of the film were truly breathtaking. Most notably the opening of the picture. I just wanted to know everyone else's thoughts on him, as a filmmaker and a person? I hear he's arrogant, self-absorbed... but then I hear he's modest and brilliant. "There Will Be Blood" will cause a huge stir in the industry. From what I've heard it's headed in the direction of AT LEAST Best Actor at the Academy Awards. So, what do you guys think?

He is a genius. I don't know how Magnolia has mixed reviews on IMDB seeing as how it's in the top 250.

some people think he is pretentious.

I loved Magnolia.

However, I have absolutely no desire to see There Will Be Blood.

Why?

There Will Be Blood was very good. The cinematography and Daniel Day Lewis were the best part, however. PT is excellent at getting great performances from his cast. "Magnolia" is my least favorite film of his.... wait, scratch that. "Punch-Drunk Love" was kind've boring... but not bad.

There was just too much story, too much kinetic energy in "Magnolia" and it felt very rushed and quick and confusing in a very epic way. Once again though, it's not bad. He's an excellent director.

I guess in my mind There Will Be Blood is more or less equated with No Country For Old Men, which I thought was miserably weak.

In my opinion, There will Be Blood was way better than No Country for Old Men. The characters were much more engaging and human than in No Country. Daniel Day Lewis was incredible, but then again he has god-like qualities. I would definitely suggest seeing it.

The man has got a vision and you can't argue with that. Rumor is that he shot film for two months on location, prior to filming, in order to find the right aesthetic for There Will Be Blood. He also is set on avoiding "fixing it in post" which I really respect. Oh, and the punches between Daniel and Eli were real. All in all, I think that he is an astounding director and it makes me quite happy to know that he is out there

quote:

I guess in my mind There Will Be Blood is more or less equated with No Country For Old Men, which I thought was miserably weak.

Hahahahahaha. Ahahahahahaha.

Sorry, it still sounds so ridiculous to call one of the best films and greatest adaptations of a book in recent years weak, regardless if you enjoyed it or not. I can see you not liking There Will Be Blood, but again, even if you didn't enjoy it, it's a great achievment in filmmaking.

I probably should give There Will Be Blood a chance...

I just heard so many similar remarks about NCfoM and TWBB that it makes it really hard for me to get excited.

So many people would ramble endlessly about how how No Country was "unlike anything they had ever seen" and "tense" and "Oscar-winning material". So I went in expecting to see a great film from the Coen bros, and was let down by two hours of unengaging predictability and stale, rehashed elements. Apparently a lot of people saw something in it that I didn't, though.

Hopefully that explains my hesitant attitude towards There Will Be Blood.

I guess everything is subjective, but I loved No Country and apparently so did the academy, but nevertheless, you shouldn't be held back from watching one movie because of the other. As a student of a film you owe it to yourself to see TWBB at least once.

Brain i know i accidently critisized there will be blood , and only after seeing 20 minutes from it...but i recently rewatched it on the plane and it is without a doubt one of the best films of the last 30 years.

and i dont even like PT anderson's other work!

Apparently Blood was a novel by...who was that guy?

There Will Be Blood and No Country are lumped together for some reason...I personally expected so much from both by the time I got around to seeing them.


There Will Be Blood is the only one that delivered to expectations.


I love PTA, think he's brilliant, but even if you hate him, rest assured that There Will Be Blood is unlike any of the films that caused you to dislike him in the first place.

Upton Sinclair wrote the book, KJ.

I personally think he is one of the all time greats. Everything from Hard Eight to There Will Be Blood is absolutely brilliant in their own way as far as I'm concerned. There aren't many directors whose entire filmography I can say that about.

My only problem with "There Will Be Blood" is how they marketed it as a masterpiece. I think someone in another forum said the same.

PT Anderson has a true knack for what looks good on film - a cinephile. TWBB was great for two reasons: DDL and the cinematography... which was amazing! That's one reason I love PT is that he really knows how to move a camera.

As for NCfOM... I LOVED it. The Coen Brothers do such a great job at making the horrible... funny. True geniuses.

The reason TWBB and NCfOM were lumped together is obvious... they were both best picture nominees. Though I think "Eastern Promises" was snubbed tremendously. All are good ****ing movies.

There will be blood was great because you never see a movie where people manipulate themselves with lies....most especially multiple characters...plus the ending of the movie is probably the most important thing to ever inspire me. along with Deicide.

I'll just add my voice to the chorus of praise here for P.T. Anderson. I think he's one of the best American directors, one of the most inspired, inventive, smart -- and one of the best writers, for sure.

If I were going to find a way to criticize him, though, I'd say he doesn't always seem in control of his material. For instance, he didn't know how to make all the complexity of Magnolia equal something fully satisfying in the end -- it's like heavy on situation but too light on story, or its message was ultimately trivial or predictable or something.

But, I mean, the guy's like a genius -- any person who can write Boogie Nights is brilliant. There Will Be Blood is solid, patient, beautifully crafted without being pretentious, totally controlled -- I think it's an amazing movie. I wish studios would support more auteur-ish directors like P.T. Anderson.

It took me the longest time to realize that P.T. Anderson was not the director of The Royal Tenenbaums/Rushmore/Bottle Rocket

Anyone want to weigh in on P.T. vs. Wes?

In the interest of representing the diversity of opinion here at studentfilms.com, I'll go on record as being passionately "meh" on P.T. Anderson. His movies have their moments, to be sure, but as wholes, they tend to strike me as rather half-baked, like they were made by Richard Kelly's smarter cousin.

To put this blasphemy in perspective, I also don't particularly love David Fincher or Peter Jackson or whoever else it is my young white male ass is supposed to pucker for.

Stephen Frears, on the other hand, can get me all wobbly-kneed. Ditto Mike Nichols. Ditto Woody Allen.

There. Studentfilms.com is officially a Big Tent.

--IA