I hope he never sickens of responding.

Interesting. I loved the Thin Red Line too. But to me that movie dripped with emotion.

In fact I’m very happy for any rule to be broken (in skilled hands) except for one - if a movie fails to produce emotion in me, then, to me, it’s failed.

Blood failed therefore, for me and the audience I saw it with, despite so much that was admirable about it.

I absolutely share your pleasure that some movie makers don’t take that advice - personally I’m desperate for more complex, ambitious movies - and if there’s one thing Blood had it was ambition.

But I loved it. I loved every minute of it. I loved the visuals. I loved the acting. I loved the story.

Maybe most people will forget the film, but I won’t. In fact, I’ll bet more film historians write about it fifty years from now than they do “No Country for Old Men.”

But challenging films like this one DO bore, frustrate, and annoy the audience. They do come off as cold and intellectual. So I understand the advice to steer clear of unlikeable characters and grim endings. It’s advice that I myself have taken.

But, I can’t help feeling grateful that a few strange and original filmmakers DON’T take that advice.

- Sean Hood

P.S. I also loved “The Thin Red Line.” So maybe it’s just me.

When I write — I try to strike a balance.

I read that James Cameron wrote Titanic for both men and women — i.e the strike gold at the box-office.

I strongly believe that a good script must have a strong male and female lead in order to become an “instant classic”…

Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill are actually well balanced.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
Benjamin

I understand your ideal of great movies and I agree that those films you mentioned are classics. But my point was that some people enjoy the raw Pulp Fiction/ Black Snake Moan films…also woman aren’t the only ones that are entitled to their own films…where is the “Lifetime” for men? To say that we can not make a movie for a bunch of guys would be cutting out a bond with the men that also enjoy a good film…to make movies for everyone all the time is not logically possible, there must be a balance my friend.

Moses

Interesting point of view.

I look forward to watching this movie again one day.

But right now, I still think it’s forgettable.

Regards
Benjamin

Well, I did disagree with one thing(!): the moral and actual darkness of the film. I was surprised when you mentioned the lighting, because it wasn’t something that struck me at all. If anything, I thought the lighting and cinematography in general was amazing.

Two particular shots stood out: the pitch black, smoky silhouettes of the men as they stood watching the pump ablaze as the fire turned the sky blood-red, and the image of the fake Henry Plainview sat on the beach with his head on his knees, as the soundtrack soared horribly and Daniel moved out of the frame. They held the shot for what seemed like a brilliantly ominous length of time.

I think your criticism does in fact relate to writing rules. McKee is obsessed with scenes, sequences, acts and the entire film arc “turning” values, and that was what was missing from this film. Daniel’s character, to me, seemed no different at the end of the film from the beginning. His “I’m a family man” spiel was obviously a ploy from the start, not borne out of any real affection for “H.W.” (the fact that he has no real name is telling), and by the end, the fact that he’d murdered only two people was somewhat underwhelming!

So, it wasn’t the fact that he was an dark and miserable indictment of the American Dream that bothered me, it was just that nothing happened or changed. Magnolia has that, at least.

Yes, it is a good movie to some people but..

But, but… history will not remember this film.
Only 3 guys in the theatre when I watched it.

We have to make and write iconic films in the level of Godfather, Annie Hall, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Titanic, Pulp Fiction, Citizen Cane, Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs, The Matrix….

Boutique films are not popular. Men and women must like and enjoy the movie together!!…We cannot make a movie just for a “bunch” of guys, in this case three guys in a New York movie theatre when I saw it?

And I did a survey with University graduates — they never saw this movie but they liked No Country for Old Man…

Regards
Benjamin

Moses

You are hitting the nail with the hammer. This movie is a big question mark?

Thanks for calling this movie what it really is!

We should all strive to write,direct,produce movies that will live forever in our hearts and shine with a moral premise of hope and uncompromising entertainment….

Regards
Benjamin Ray

Hey Jess, glad you’re still around. (But agreeing with me? What’s that about?) And Mark said that? Well, he does have some very strange opinions…

And that’s an uncanny link to the Exorcist there Yew Yee in the circs - Mr Kermode’s long time favorite. I have to say, I’m a Max von Sydow man myself…

I’ve wrestled with it, but still can’t see why Mark Kermode thinks it “rewrites the grammar of film” (paraphrasing), or, like a Guardian writer said, that it makes you feel like it’s the first film you’ve ever seen.

At least the characters didn’t burst into song at the end causing me to wish I could eat my own head, which is how I felt during Magnolia. There were characters that you rooted for in that, at least . . .

You’re right - it was a chore to watch.

Suzanne Lieurance
The Working Writer’s Coach
http://www.workingwriterscoach.com
“When Your Pen Won’t Budge, Read The Morning Nudge”

But even so, it’s such a tiny tiny glimpse of a heart in such a long movie - I want so much more…

And I still think old Daniel DL went a bit far with the actual acting… Take a look at this for a laugh:

http://whiteboardmarkers.blogspot.com/2008/02/milkshake-brings-all-oscars-to-yard.html

Personally, what I enjoyed about the movie — beyond the acting, production design, and cinematography, have a lot to do with what I said before: the dark side of art and truth. The fact that greed is a powerful force in the history of humanity, and California in particular, is a compelling topic (and one we should never forget), exemplified in the character of Daniel Plainview. I don’t think he is stereotypical or melodramatic due in large part to milkshakes, believe it or not.

Why did Mr. Plainview say “milkshake”? It could have been anything else, whisky, beer, even goat’s milk. There, at the very end, was my payoff for investing time and money in this unlikeable man. Somewhere inside him is another story from some distant place in the character’s world. And this back story was not one played out in full-color for my addled brain. No, I have to think about it, later, walking home from the theater. This is my preferred moviegoing experience, and “Blood” paid off for me in numerous ways.

I don’t need to like any characters in a film or a story. I just need to believe in the story being told. There is nothing in “Blood” that isn’t believable, in my opinion.

I thought it was too bad that you say “it fails completely,” hence my response. I felt compelled to argue against that point. It’s great to debate, yet in the end, we like what we like — I’m just glad you didn’t compare it to “Juno.”

Best regards.