I've been thinking and writing about this film for days, and my milkshake's empty.
You can read my thoughts about its social significance in Sunday's paper in an essay tentatively titled, "An oil man, an evangelist and the American way."
What do you think about this pic? Puzzling? Masterful? Controversial? Snoozer?
As passionately as my friends feel about "No Country for Old Men," I feel about "There Will Be Blood." You can listen to me and Chris Jay of the Robinson Film Center talk about the Oscars and these flicks today on Red River Radio at 4:44 p.m.
Buzz doesn't appear to favor my choice for top prize, but I personally believe "There Will Be Blood" has no equal for 2007.
What got me excited about this film was Manohla Dargis' review in The New York Times.
Here's a great excerpt: "With a story of and for our times, 'There Will Be Blood' can certainly be viewed through the smeary window that looks onto the larger world. It’s timeless and topical, general and specific, abstract and as plain as the name of its fiery oilman. It’s an origin story of sorts. The opening images of desert hills and a droning electronic chord allude to the beginning of '2001: A Space Odyssey,' whose murderous apes are part of a Darwinian continuum with Daniel Plainview. But the film is above all a consummate work of art, one that transcends the historically fraught context of its making, and its pleasures are unapologetically aesthetic. It reveals, excites, disturbs, provokes, but the window it opens is to human consciousness itself."
PHOTO: François Duhamel/Paramount Vantage.