Editors Note: The following rant includes some very strong language. Please be advised…
You know those fake dipshits who voted for Bush (once, twice, whatevs) and now try to explain and express their sorrows about the Iraq “War” and the economy’s collapse to you? Yeah, my new keychain from Supreme says “F**k ‘Em” for a reason. But, yeah, those dipshits are not half as bad as all of these movie critics who are now jerking off Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood now that it’s safely tucked-in on DVD.
What a bunch of fucking cunts. Srsly.
How many articles do I have to read from “new-and-old-media” movie critics about why the general public doesn’t give a flying shit about movie critics anymore (the most unproven, self-obsessed employees in the Western World)? Nobody gives a shit because even when a film is as fucking fantastically great and earth-shaking as TWBB, these mocha-choking-assholes don’t have the guts to call it out until they can watch it “four times on DVD” and even then it’s still an “A- or B-minus.”
What is the deal? I understand why a pathetic college-educated, money-sucking wanker like Gregory Kirschling at Entertainment Weekly now calls TWBB a “masterpiece” after numerous viewings, after dissing it the first time. His first impression? The film was fucking “weird” and “with little of the flash or exuberance or life of PTA’s previous epics, Boogie Nights and Magnolia.” Are you fucking kidding me? I saw TWBB once and automatically knew it was light years beyond No Country For Old Men in every way. I smoked a huge joint and realized it was practically impossibly great! My editor Peter, who did not smoke a joint at all, agreed (seriously, our TWBB discussion is why I write for Slashfilm and love this site). When I saw the film two more times, I realized that the movie totally killed the very notion of God. Was I wrong? I honestly don’t care.
I have not read one “movie critic” discuss such implications, but that is what the public wants. They crave controversial, bizarre-even, opinions about today’s films. Not PR-pleasing bullshit. You want Pauline Kael? I don’t. She wasn’t fucking Mary, okay? I want new light. I don’t want Lester Bangs. No more death. I want young bloods who say what they think and then go party the night away.
I love CHUD (the site, the movie a lil’ less); but Devin’s review, while well worded, doesn’t come clean about what this film means and is about. Do we need PTA to get his bib dirty? I’m glad that Devin doesn’t refer to Plainview as “evil” as so many assholes have, but c’mon. The DVD is packaged like a Bible for a reason. This movie is about the end of religion in the face of American progress, as ugly as that concept is. It’s about being a man and facing off in a world full of supernatural, batshit “man in the sky” bullshit and how that can drive said man crazy, then and now. Get out of here Ghost! It’s about sons and fathers, when the father can’t have a son and how he looks at the world with that in mind. It’s about killing a God that doesn’t exist. It’s a fucking great movie and possibly in the top 10 ever made.
Critics, grow some huge balls. Do drugs. The world’s best scientists are (Adderall, so ‘04 btw). Live life, then watch movies. Don’t shrink in a chair. Get crazy. Come up with weird theories about new movies for the helluva it. Like Quentin Tarantino says, if you back up a cool review up with examples, they will come and cum. Stop pretending like you are immortal in the face of mainstream mediocrity. The Internet is now your pimp. Show some skin (not literally, please never), but get freaky.
TWBB is a fucking masterpiece and it shits all over No Country For Old Men. That is ALL. Either you said it then (LIKE WE DID AT SLASHFILM) or you are an idiot. Every scene of TWBB is worth 1,000 words. Here’s to the new generation.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Who cares that people love it? No Country was way better than TWBB. Both were good, but it doesn’t matter. AS they say, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Also, it comes as a big shock that you do drugs… Srsly.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:29 am
I also thought There Will Be Blood was better than No Country For Old Men. NCFOM was definitely a lot easier for the general public to appreciate. You have to have a very good taste in film and know good from bad to appreciate TWBB. I was very disappointed when it didn’t win Best Picture nor did Paul Thomas Anderson win Best Director.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Hunter Stephenson, I can finally appreciate you for being honest. I’m sick and tired of these politically correct fake critics. After Film ick died, I wasn’t sure I’d see anyone speaking with a backbone anymore.
Thank you.
- spidey
April 10th, 2008 at 12:34 am
I havent seen either, unfortunately they had very few screenings of each at my 2 local cinemas (i guess the chipmunks movie was more important to the profit margin???) I will however being buying them both and judging for myself.
anyways, more to the point, THANKYOU. Im sick and tired of these gutless, self-important, wanker movie critics and indeed they all do need to grow some balls and have a f’n opinion.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:47 am
While I think TWBB is a powerful film, I think it loses some of its impact if you don’t identify with its message. I float in a very Zen/Christian area of religion, so while I don’t have any hangups about an atheist message (and indeed, the film stayed with me a long time after viewing), it doesn’t have me in the rafters praising the dawn of a new revolution.
Full props to you for calling it like you see it from day one, and I completely agree: film critics are passe today because they are as inconsistent as pop culture. Even if I disagree with a critic, if I know he’s consistent, I know what I’ll think of a film based on his experience of it.
And the best line for film criticism still resides with Phil Villareal of the Arizona Daily Star:
“Science has long theorized that Nicolas Cage would overact so much his head would explode into flames. In Ghost Rider, this theory is proven correct.”
April 10th, 2008 at 1:49 am
This is from the guy that said Rambo was a masterpiece.
Srsly.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Well, at least you’re honest and don’t try to cover your feelings with bullshit.
But one thing I’d like to correct you on.
- The general public have never given a shit about what critics think, only people who care or have ever cared what critics think, are the critics.
They’re fucking useless to begin with and if they had any talent what-so-ever they’d be doing exactly what they’re critiquing.
No, seriously. If you’re a critic, and you’re biggest inspiration is NOT Francois Truffaut, you can go fuck yourself.
…Actually, scratch that, just go fuck yourself.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Jay: To be fair, while critics have little to no effect on the big blockbusters, or Adam Sandler comedies, they do however have a strong proven effect on lower budget releases (usually the independent and Oscar-grade films). And this article deals with two of those films, There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men.
What’s a better movie: How Green is My Valley or Citizen Kane? I’m betting that many people reading this site have never even heard of How Green is My Valley, nevermind seen it. Yet John Ford’s film somehow won 5 Oscars including Best Picture. But what’s more shocking: It beat out such classic films as Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon for the top honor. I’m not saying that How Green is My Valley is a bad or undeserving film. I’m just saying that No Country will be remembered as the How Green is My Valley 20 years from now, and There Will Be Blood will be admired/remembered as a masterpiece, and studied in film schools around the world.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:15 am
I saw “There Will Be Blood” December 30th at Midnight. I’ve loved every minute of that movie since. I prefer “Blood” to “No Country”.
What I liked about “Blood” is it brought up discussion. Hunter, I think we viewed the movie from different angles. I saw a the film as a study about the rise and fall of a greedy, competitive user and those around him. This might be the “face -value” approach to “Blood” where you were saying in your review that “Blood” was much deeper. I noticed atheist undertones ,but I didn’t take it as the film’s message as shitting over religion.
I agree, the film is a masterpiece. Each time I watch it, the movie becomes better and better.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:15 am
‘no country for old men’ is a great, great movie…but ‘there will be blood’ drinks its milkshake
April 10th, 2008 at 3:22 am
I kind of agree with Jay. I can see Peter’s point about how the lower budget/indy films getting good national reviews would help them. But my question is, How many fans of Indipendent and low budget films actually Care about what critics say? I can’t remember the last time I went and saw a movie based on a review. I’d bet most of the readers of /film go see a movie based on director, actors, story, potential rather than what some pretentious tosser from San Fransisco or Chicago says.
And normal everyday folks who don’t really care too much? They’re all about the flashy trailers and picking a movie once they actually Get to the theater. The masses want an escape at the theater not a discussion on whether God is dead or not. (PS. He’s not)
We’d be talking about just a couple million dollars one way or the other from a great national review. If you look at Juno, that movie’s marketing and word of mouth made it such a huge success, not some schlub on Good Morning America saying it was great.
Your whole rant just sounds like anger and frustration. Not up to par with /Film standards. I was kinda disappointed. And honestly, Drugs? WTF is that about? If you Need drugs to watch something, then you’re not really watching the work of art. You’re experiencing drugs. I’m sure Some Like It Hot is amazing on LSD, but common? The whole thing sounds like a junior college educated rant from sexman.
April 10th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Hunter, you are the shit!!
/Film is the shit!!
And I fucking do drugs too!!
Doing drugs is the shit, and this is the best bloody comment ever. Fucking Period.
April 10th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Peter.. you are the shit too, man!
April 10th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Best. Movie. Ever.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:22 am
why are you name dropping supreme?
April 10th, 2008 at 5:42 am
I think the majority of the critics didn’t mention the athiestic themes in TWBB for the same reason the majority of critics didnt discuss the christian themes in ‘Horton Hears a Who’… People don’t discuss the themes in movies in their reviews unless its something that strikes a particular cord with them (the war in Iraq, racism, etc).. Even movies like Fight Club, most critics skipped out on the film school analysis of in their reviews. The reviews are meant to bring people into a movie or warn them about it being a waste of time and money, the discussion afterwords is when you can talk about themes.
I am also going to have to agree with a previous poster that said if you have to do drugs to enjoy a movie that doesnt speak well for it… do you really want to bundle TWBB with ‘Dude Wheres My Car’?
This really sounds like sour grapes because your team lost the big game. NCFOM had more mass appeal than TWBB? The oscars haven’t cared much about mass appeal and box office in the last few years, why would it suddenly start now? and then why didn’t the award go to Juno?
April 10th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Has it occurred to anyone that these critics might be telling the truth? Sometimes repeat viewings increase someone’s appreciation of a film. Theres no need to be so damn self-righteous. Critics didn’t like 2001, The Empire Strikes Back, or Blade Runner on their first release, but since have mostly accepted them as the damn good films they are. You are not an accredited film reviewer. You run a website about film news and film tidbits. Its one of the better ones on the internet (with the possible exception of Ainticool, but they never post At-ST halloween costumes). When you get worked up into a fiery rage over other people coming to the light, as you have it, it makes you look like a whiny teenager, angry that everyone else is doing what you once thought was unique.
Personally, I found there will be blood disappointing. Too many subplots that went nowhere, and they cut out the twenty years when Plainview might do something reprehensible. There was an interesting message and moral there, but it was pretty muffled. But my opinion obviously doesn’t matter, since I don’t do drugs, and therefore, cannot appreciate this film’s complexity. Jesus, man, get over yourself.
~Roger Ebert
April 10th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Ha! Whether that’s the real Ebert or not, he hit the nail on the head. I like this site, but this rant comes off as pretty immature. You lambast professional critics and then claim that your opinion is more relevant because you’re younger and do drugs. You say that critics need to “grow some huge balls”, but you, sir, just need to grow up.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:40 am
How is this guy allowed to write for the site peter. Some valid points are raised but suggesting that you need to smoke dope to appreciate a movie? Fuck off. One of the most immature movie critiques I have ever come to read. Please remove this man from your staff Peter.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:44 am
AMEN BROTHER! Agree 100%
The line about the joint was hilarious. I’ve had so many amazing experiences high just by thinking about TWBB. Listen to the soundtrack while driving for an added jolt of freaky intenseness to your day.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:57 am
That’s because There Will Be Blood is the best movie ever.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:11 am
this is funny as hell
April 10th, 2008 at 7:24 am
I can appreciate varying opinions about film because luckily I don’t need others to draw my conclusions for me. I like Slashfilm because you guys pay close attention to the industry not because you’re necessarily mad geniuses when when it comes to explaining why a film is edifying.
No offense, but pick a less obvious film to champion next time. Oh really, you thought TWBB was amazing?! And what!? There was stuff about God in it?! Wow, That came out of left field. Must have gone over my head. Thanks for enlightening me. And by the way, if you know what’s good for your cred you’ll stop quoting Tarantino. The guy’s about as enlightened a filmmaker as a VH1 host regurgitating a history of rock and roll top ten list.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I seriously do not get it. I saw the movie I know what it was trying to convey to me, but i have no idea why people loved this movie so much. It was Weird with a capital ‘W’. It was painful to watch. It peeked into the life of a really F’d up guy who dug for oil. Whoopee! Did Daniel do an amazing job acting yes of course think about who we are talking about here, but the movie seriously bored me to tears and the music (if you can call it that) was pathetic.
So all of you who say this was the best movie EVAR bla bla bla sorry I hated it.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:02 am
OK, first of all, I fucking love “There Will Be Blood”. It was definitely my favourite movie of the year. But this “rant”, much like pretty much every rant posted on /film (”Michael Bay is NOT a hack” anyone?) comes off as immature and unintelligent.
I don’t think its wrong in the slightest to like a film better on its second or third viewing. No one is perfect, even movie critics. They are simply people who have watched a lot of movies, and studied them, and who’s opinions are at least worth reading before you pay ten bucks to see a movie.
And most of them probably don’t get baked before reviewing a movie. Pot makes sights and sounds better, there’s no doubt about it. Case in point, I remember I got really baked with my friends and we watched an entire episode of “Saturday Night Live” and thought it was the greatest thing ever. I then tried to watch one clip of that episode sober and found it unbelievably lame.
So to wrap this up, Hunter Stephenson, go smoke ANOTHER bowl and chill the fuck out.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:24 am
You’re pretty much proving why people could give a shit about new and old media’s criticism with film or really anything. Given the platform you have develop some actual tools to review a film beyond pouring hyperbole over a film that was strongly praised in the first place and confused idiot critics who had little clout for their views. EW barely speaks for itself much less is it a representation of the pool of criticism out there.
Don’t confuse unorganized immature ranting and cries of smoking blunts to bringing some actual criticism to a film that wasn’t overlooked.
Isn’t there a way this space could have been better used?
April 10th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Is this a joke column, Hunter? I keep reading it, thinking that perhaps I’m missing something.
But let me see if I’m close…you’re mad because some people didn’t like a movie that you did.
I will defend “Blood” until my dying day. I think it’s one of the best films ever, period. But someone’s gotta say this: Peter should be ashamed that this column is on his site. It’s embarassing. You sound like a fucking tool, Hunter. I’m sure you’re a cool guy and all, but this whole thing reeks of a bad Aint It Cool review.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:33 am
HELL to the YES!
April 10th, 2008 at 8:45 am
TWBB was an awesome movie, better than NCFOM. but TWBB couldn’t win best picture for the reason that it was anti religion, for me i don’t care i am actually happy that it got so much reconition. but 56% of america is christian so that is the reason I think it didn’t win.
Long live TWBB as one of the best films in history.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am
This rant is the true BS.
How many reviews are you going by??
Just take a look at the metacritic scores, 92 for Blood and 91 for No Country.
Look at the Oscar nominations Blood got.
You can dismiss metacritic or whatever, but it’s obvious the critics loved There Will be Blood. No Country just barely squeezed past it.
And personally I don’t have a problem with it - as many other people have pointed out, the final act of Blood took a big leap in time and even plausibility which was less than perfect. They’re both great films and they got their dues. Stop being a bitter ass.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:10 am
1) The rant was awesome!
2) The pic was totally not necessary and had me holding my vomit back.
3) Peter’s comparison to Citizen Kane vs. How Green is dead on!!
4) TWBB is great, so who cares when people jumped on the praise for the film really. It’s great regardless…even though some critics need a cold fish to the face to see it.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Both Great Films, TWWB takes my top prize however. But if we are in this position next year, discussing two fantastic successful films like these, it willl have been another good year for cinema
April 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am
LOL I love this quote “the most unproven, self-obsessed employees in the Western World)” because the very article that it appears in proves itself wrong. You prove that movie bloggers are indeed “the most unproven, self-obsessed employees in the Western World)”
At least it was an entertaining read.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:44 am
TWBB wasn’t even the best film of the YEAR. How could it possibly be considered the best EVER?
April 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Who let Hunter off his chain? WTF?!! this is really disturbing stuff. Do we really need to know that he’s on drugs? He writes like he’s on crack.
Does he really think that he is more special because he liked the movie first?
April 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Peter, it’s ridiculously contrived and self-serving to make the How Green Was My Valley comparison to No Country For Old Men. Perhaps, if you mentioned something like Shakespeare in Love or Crash, etc. it would be more fitting of “forgettable Best Picture winners” (particularly with the general sentiment that Brokeback Mountain was far superior to Crash), but despite all of that, No Country For Old Men will stand out for a number of reasons.
It’s truly memorable and brought a good deal of attention and discussion to itself because of the ending and Bardem’s performance and, ultimately, regardless of where it stands in terms of their catalogue, it will be noted as one of the top two or three examples of work by a writer/director team that have dominated decades as fan, critical, and industry darlings. Actors and filmmakers love the Coen Brothers and are always talking about their work as being influential and inspiring, etc. and I think that NCFOM will stand out in 20 years as one of the first movies someone mentions when talking about them. People don’t usually bring up After Hours or The Last Temptation of Christ as the first examples when talking about Scorsese, just like they’re not going to mention The Hudsucker Proxy and The Ladykillers when they talk about the Coens.
I’m not denying TWBB’s excellence (I actually preferred it to NCFOM), but I think both you and Hunter are given to making wild and preposterous claims to bully and badger other people into accepting your hyperbolic statements.
This rant was disappointingly childish.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I agree with the responses from “The Internet” all the way down, with a few exceptions. Hunter, quit trying to toot your own horn. If you really want to be vindicated, you should give up writing on this site and concentrate your attention on building a time machine. Once you finish it, jump 30 years into the future and tell me which movie is more relevant. In fact, I don’t care what film is. They were both great. Why don’t you just stay there. I’m sure there are plenty of futuristic drug hybrids out that could make you appreciate a film EVEN MORE!!!
But not Adderall (it made a comeback in 2026, but now is soooooo ‘30). If you want to whine, create your own blogspot. This is the kind of fat that needs to be cut from /film.
Shut your mouth.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Your rant was based around teh flip-flop nature of critics how they say one thing one day and then after a while switch their opinion. And you made “decent” points until you had to immaturely state “TWBB is a fucking masterpiece and it shits all over No Country For Old Men.” It makes you sound adolescent and fanatical.
I don’t know which one is better, I enjoyed both immensely. I’m just glad we had these two movies (not to mention the Jesse James movie–which I think was up there as well).
April 10th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Hey Hunter and Peter,
Who are you guys railing against?
TWBB was nominated for 8 Oscars and won 2. On both Rottentomatoes and Metacritic it stands at a positive 92%. Newsweek, Variety, Premiere, The New Yorker, Slate, and EW all gave GLOWING reviews of TWBB. Not only did it get rave reviews, but critics at EW, Premiere, The Onion AV Club, the Austin Chronicle, LA Weekly, and the NY Times hailed it as the Best Film of the Year.
So why are you acting like you are the only two people in the country that praised this film?? Why do you endlessly mention NCFOM when speaking of this film? Yes, NCFOM won Best Picture, but really, “Oh it’s better than NCFOM,” makes you sound like complete amateurs when it comes to reviewing films.
You two aren’t the only ones who praised this movie. Get over it.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I would have to agree……with everyone that says your post is BS.
This site is fantastic, one of my favorite blogs. I read a number of blogs, I usually dumb them down to one specific one for each different interest, I love Joystiq, 360 fanboy, engadget, consumerist, and /film. All usually have fantastic posts, and great news regarding what interests me the most. Every once in awhile though, someone posts something completely ridiculous, and this post falls under that field.
Your angry because some reviewers, who have more pull on what viewers watch (BS in the first place) didn’t like the movie that you loved, or they just didn’t think it was as great as another movie.
Maybe I should start a credible blog, get a bunch of viewers, and then all of a sudden, rant and rave about the fact that I enjoyed Shoot em up, but everyone else hated it! I am going to totally flip out, post pictures of poop on Roger Eberts head so I can one up you, and make myself look like an idiot.
Remind me Hunter the next time you put an article of your own thoughts on here, I will be sure to skip over it.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Ahhhh… the old “This is the best movie ever and if you don’t agree, you’re stupid.” argument. I love that one.
Get off your soapbox. You sound like a spoiled, snotty film school brat.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Worst post I’ve ever seen on Slashfilm. Total garbage. You guys should stick to the news and keep your immature overly opinionated rants to yourself. I guess it didn’t occur to you that over half of your readers might actually like that film? No, I guess not. Well, your post with a picture of a pile of shit and your head up your ass attitude that you are the only one that is seeing reality and can judge quality isn’t going to win anyone over.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Also, just say no to drugs. I don’t know if I would be able to fathom life armed with the knowledge that a giant cinemtic mind such as your own needs to rely on mental crutches to accomplish a task which lies within the realm of, um, thinking about a movie.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:32 am
-i thought that twbb was certainly robbed of at least 2 main oscars: best director & best picture. ncfom is not a forgettable best picture winner, but it was disappointing to see blood loose out. i agree with hunter that its always amusing to see critics change their minds on films.
-i was suprised to see a cuss filled post/rant, as i’m just not use to seeing it on /film. but after reading another of hunter’s posts last night, i’m thinking maybe he just did some late night drunk posting. one thing i can’t support is the advocating of drunk driving (zooey/chloe post), doing drugs and the ‘fuck this, fuck that’ stuff. bottom line is that as readers we always post whatever the hell we want, so the writers/owners should have that same freedom.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Better question: Why the fuck are we even comparing TWBB to No Country? Just because they came out at the same time? Get some fucking objectivity and look at the separately.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
C: “Hey Hunter and Peter, Who are you guys railing against?TWBB was nominated for 8 Oscars and won 2. On both Rottentomatoes and Metacritic it stands at a positive 92%. Newsweek, Variety, Premiere, The New Yorker, Slate, and EW all gave GLOWING reviews of TWBB. Not only did it get rave reviews, but critics at EW, Premiere, The Onion AV Club, the Austin Chronicle, LA Weekly, and the NY Times hailed it as the Best Film of the Year.”
No Country appeared on more than double the year end top ten lists than There Will Be Blood. No Country beat Blood for the following Oscars: Directing, Best Picture of the Year, and Best Screenplay adaptation. In 20 years, There Will Be Blood will be remembered as a masterpiece, while No Country will just be a “good film in the Coen’s Catalogue”
April 10th, 2008 at 11:49 am
“Live life, then watch movies.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
- spidey
April 10th, 2008 at 11:49 am
If I understand this article correctly, and I think I do - we’re supposed to like this guy because he’s “right” about a movie? Really? And because he’s so genius at going after other critics? Yikes. Sad stuff.
I don’t think there is a right answer on TWBB. You can like it. You can dislike it. Both are valid arguments. The trouble with either is when some blowhard starts pontificating and essentially ruins the discussion for everyone involved. Kudos to you there! Everyone has officially been shown “what is up.” Scotch for everyone.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:52 am
That’s great, Peter. What I was pointing out is that you two weren’t the only one’s who praised the film.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Peter, come on. You’re arguing an opinion, and opinions are like assholes. Hey Hunter, is that why you chose to display feces in your post? And what about that picture of poop, too?
Why don’t you just tell C, “My dad can beat up your dad,” or “My God can beat up your God?” (And no people, this is not an invite for religious discussion. I’m merely pointing out it’s the same kind of argument tactic)
Who’s going to prove you wrong? You’re making a prognostication that might take decades for you to be right…..or wrong. Do you just want a pat on the back too for being a filmic Nostradamus? I liked No Country for Old Men more, does that make ME the bad guy? Both movies were great for different reasons.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
How could this movie possibly be any damn good? It was made by Anderson, a complete hype-built fraud on par with Dave Eggers and The Pixies–which is to say, the output has been uniformly crap.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Yes, we should all be outraged by top ten lists. Definitely a reason to rail against “the man” there. Here’s my theory about top ten lists: about five seconds after they are published everyone forgets them. The old cherry pick the data trick, I dig it. How about this one: No Country sold more posters than There Will Be Blood! This is a goddamn outrage and I demand retribution!
April 10th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Blah: Have you read Eggers?
PTA is one of the most inventive, exciting writer/directors working today.
But whatever. Who do you like?
April 10th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
But Hunter, even in your review you said you didn’t like it the first time (or something to that effect) and it took you three times to realize the”greatness” of the film.
You said, “When I walked out of the theater, I remember throwing away my ticket later that night in mild irritation… But after my third viewing, I realized the undeniable greatness of this film and Anderson.”
Are you saying it is a different thing to see it three times in the theater compared to three times at home?
I do agree that I don’t think many critics understood it and I talked about that in an article (http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/dissecting_there_will_be_blood/), but I think you are going to catch a lot of grief for holding yourself up so high and mighty here.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
You know, Hunter, I think this is the first post of yours that I’ve liked. I still haven’t seen TWBB, but what you’re saying needs to be said regardless. I’m extremely sick of the timid nature of critics.
I think you should blog angrily more often. Less esoteric references and more full-on profanity and rage.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
WTF comment system shows 2 word reply? Try #2
Gah! I love /flim and I’m all for “passion” but really…get the fuck over yourself Hunter. I read your original review, and while I didn’t agree with all of it, I thought it was fantastic. Now this…no one cares, bitch about it to your bitchy pretentious film friends. I go to NYU, and everyone who was bitching about TWBB got over it months ago because it’s not the be-all-end-all….christ, move on.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I saw both TWBB and NCFOM, and while I loved both of these movies, saying the former is “light years” ahead of the latter is asinine.
These are both complicated films with a lot of undertones. However, Hunter basically informing us that “this is the way TWBB should be interpreted” does not do the film itself justice, it undermines it. To limit the film to his one view makes him seem, well, like a jackass.
I think it surely carries that “God is a superstition” view, but limiting to that interpretation does NOT make it a great movie. This movie was more complex than this one view, and your “rant” take this obvious viewpoint and makes it what the whole movie was about. To compare NCFOM and TWBB is subjective and ulitmately moronic, as they are both great in their own rights (If you want a good review of NCFOM, read Roger Ebert)
As a fellow admirer of TWBB i’ll request that you stop writing such narrow minded reviews. It makes you seem like you are on par with the agreeably terrible critics you talk about.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Sweet, that makes two comments that mysteriously disappeared on me. Shall we try for #3? That’s so awesome you guys censor people who, unlike a few other posters, aren’t using profanity to show their distaste for Hunter or his post.
I’m done with this site.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Peter, I appreciate the site as always, but I don’t think the How Green Is My Valley over Citizen Kane debacle is the best argument. There were plenty of people in Hollywood who recognized that Citizen Kane was the better movie, but it was blocked from winning Best Picture because of Hearst’s power and Hedda Hopper’s campaign against it. Don’t forget, in the heyday of the studio system, the studios pretty much told their employees who to vote for, often because they wanted a specific film to win an award to help box office (of course movies had a much longer post-Oscar run because of no home video). MGM pushed The Greatest Show on Earth over Singin’ in the Rain in 1952, because they needed the marketing for the former. They campaigned for Robert Donat in Goodbye, Mr. Chips in 1939 over Clark Gable in Gone with the Wind because GWTW didn’t need any box office help. Oscar campaigns didn’t begin with Miramax…
April 10th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Reg: I only delete comments without content. If you post “Hunter is a giant Dochebag” it will get deleted. If you post “Hunter needs to calm down and he doesn’t have a point, here is why…” then it stays. We will not tolerate any personal attacks of any kind on /Film, be it towards a blogger or another commentator. You will notice I have left many negative comments above alone because they debate a point. This has been and will always remain our policy.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Is this a normal thing where you guys post inane rantings just to get out of your system? I personally could do without HS’s little “charm” in each of his posts and would rather he just give the straight facts but like they said it’s either this or AICNs.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
The Best thing about this Post, IMO, is that Hunter & /Film are willing to “call out” Critics, and more importantly, hold them to their Logic over time.
Film Analysis can be just a rewarding as Film-Making, however the Critics in the mainstream publications and papers seem to all subscribe to the “play it safe, and don’t piss off the baby-boomers” mantra. Film Comment is worth my time, and thats about it.
Yeah, maybe less swearing would do future posts nicely, but count me in as on the side of being all-for debates now and then on a site like this.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
TWBB was one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the decade. For the few that are just now finding a new appreciation for it, whatever, multiple viewings will do that. Is it really that big of a deal that you ‘understood’ themes from the movie before some guy from entertainment weekly did? You wrote this like you’re opinion of the movie is the ‘right’ one and if others didn’t touch on issues you did, they don’t understand the movie. Also, I don’t care about swearing but calling the critics dipshits twice, and fucking cunts makes you look like a fool. Not only does your argument loose credibility but so does /film.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
i got a serious question. Is hunter your real name or is it some pen name you gave yourself because you consider yourself a gonzo journalist?
April 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
No Country for Old Men is more entertaining, There Will Be Blood is a more pure as a film, though, if that makes sense.
Calling people “idiots” for not “getting” a film is a bit much though.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“This rant was disappointingly childish.”
This was my thought exactly. I have enjoyed every /film posting I have read up until this one, and if it is a reflection of where the blog is heading then I am going to look somewhere else. Peter, you run a professional website, and if you continue to post articles such as this one, articles that are pretentious, pointless, and smattered with foul language, I believe you will find your readership declining quickly. Peter I would suggest that you stop posting rants if this is what is encouraged of them.
Hunter, this post was complete garbage, it’s this shit that makes critics look bad, get over yourself. You weren’t the first to hail TWWB as a classic; neither do you have the definitive or most thorough interpretation of its themes. You do seem to have perfected the ability to put your foot in your mouth.
This was a disappointment.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Sorry, I’m a tad confused as whether or not this post is meant to be taken as a joke, or taken seriously.
Do drugs? Honestly? Are you implying that society needs to do even more drugs to ‘get’ movies?
I’m only 18 years old, and while I may not be as intelligent or experienced as you are when it comes to the film industry, is it really necessary to call out your fellow critics as ‘wankers’ and ‘mocha-choking-assholes’?
And Peter? “We will not tolerate any personal attacks of any kind on /Film, be it towards a blogger or another commentator.”? Hypocrisy, much? Your dude just called Gregory Kirschling a wanker for not acknowledging TWBB as a brilliant movie. I don’t know, I reckon that’s a bit personal, attacking his personal opinion, don’t you think? Or are you both of the the belief that people who pay to go watch films like Norbit are less intelligent creatures than us true movie fans, who wouldn’t touch a movie like that with a ten foot pole?
With that being said, I completely agree with you about how the more ‘popular’ movie critics these days tend to skim the surface when there normally is much more to a movie (for instance the two being debated in this post) than the average moviegoer cares for. But therein lies the point; the average moviegoer doesn’t care; the average moviegoer wants to be entertained; and these ‘popular’ critics write reviews that are read by the average moviegoer. That doesn’t make them wankers or idiots. It just makes them, perhaps, unfit for their jobs? Maybe even that’s a stretch.
I think I’ve picked the bones out of this enough. To echo what ethanhedman said, this is a credibility-detrimental ‘rant’. Never tell anyone to do drugs. Srsly.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I too thought that TWBB was the best film of the year, and that D.D. Lewis’s performance was one of the best I’ve ever witnessed, if not *the* best, in my short movie-viewing history.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Jamie J is right. I’m done with /film.
Thanks Peter for all the right things you have done with this site.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I have a lot of respect for the writers of this site and probably always will but I lost a lot of it after reading this. Is this a joke? You say “Do Drugs” to appreciate movies, but then say “Live life, then watch movies.” A little bit of a contradiction there. You can only appreciate a good movie on drugs? I had a totally different impression of you before reading this article. My experiences with drugs aside, (some good, some bad), I definitely don’t need them to appreciate movies nor to “Live life.”
All of that aside, I agree with the fact that 1) TWBB was better than NCFOM–in absolutely every respect. Period. And I felt this way immediately after walking out of the theater the first time I saw it. 2)Most critics are stupid fucks that do not deserve to have the great jobs they have. 3) TWBB is probably already on the top 10 of all time.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Well if you ask me this is about how moustaches and headwear have revolutionized the western civilzation up through the 1980’s its obvious because Daniel Plainview has both a hat and a moustache and is filthy fucking rich. In the end when he says “I’m finished” its almost as if he is saying “I’m finished with all those weak pussies who shave every morning.” Thus ending our belief in razors and shaving cream.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
You are a genius Al Starks.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Though I’m not a fan of the language or the tone of this rant, I can’t help but agree with almost every point of his analysis of TWBB. I thought it a masterpiece when I saw it, and the more I think about it, the more it appreciates in my estimation. It just blows my mind. The Master Degree in Film holder in me just wants to write a gigantic thesis on the thing.
No Country for Old Men was a tremendous film, but I just can’t say the same thing for it. Thoughts of “one of the greatest films ever” come quickly when I think about TWBB. Not so with No Country.
I also agree that critics - unlike bloggers (not to toot our own horns too much there) - do tend to be much more fearful about sticking their necks out a little on their opinions. They don’t take what may be perceived as a big risk by declaring a film like TWBB to be a masterpiece (though, in some critics’ defence, many have) or even that an obviously mediocore film can still somehow be entertaining and enjoyable for what it’s worth.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Fuck Bush, and fuck the war! Mission accomplished my asshole.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:12 am
January 9th, I said it first.
I still think No Country is pretty great, though.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I thought No Country For Old Men was better than There Will Be Blood.TWBB is ok though.And whats with this weird ranting? I hope you aren’t serious.”Do drugs” lol , totally bodacious dude.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Mate you went and let down your whole agrument by mis or over reading the film. Its not about the death of religion by ‘american progress’. Its about how tenaciously and outwardly/inwardly destructive the relationship between the two are upon one another. Eli undoes himself as much as Daniel for example, by being a fraud, a calculating sales man, for the perceived benefit of him and his community; and yet in doing so is being utterly naive or willinginly/self-deluded to this fact; and therefore being naive of this - perhaps in its ultimate form - in the pure driving force and ’soul’ of Plainview, for which he has allowed himself and his beloved community to be laid bear to. To me, while its true TWBB should not be seen as purely and allegory or metaphor for capitalism and the middle-east, it is one for the historical roots and relationship between capitalism and religion that has led to such things. It seems to posit that rather than religion itself being the condoner of war, blood letting, control and destruction; its simply the ruthless heart or soul of man; highjacking the good natured foundations of any given model such as a capitalist or christian centered one; very telling and more true to the heart a depiction to me of the problems/acusations/conspiracies/failings of the western world upon its self and others….wheres the Kleenex?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:32 am
The movie may have intended to shine a light on the evils of religion, but no, this movie didn’t destroy God. The fact I had to write that sentence is laughable. Please stop writing terrible reviews of great movies.
This reviewer’s views of himself and how he’d like to be perceived, as well as how he’d like other critics to live, far outweigh this or any movie. It was bad enough that he didn’t understand the movie with his first review, but still doesn’t after repeat viewings.
If I want the insight of a professional whose understanding and education of cinema surpasses my own, I find a good critic. If I wanted the opinion of the stoned prick at the bar soap boxing about the next new Most Important Movie Ever Made, I’d pay attention for once.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Also, please stop deleting my posts. They followed your “Commenting Rules” at least as well as the original article did. Thanks.
Sincerely,
The Internet
April 11th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I do have to say that I agree with your point on movie critics—they suck. I never read reviews from critics. I rely on word-of-mouth and my own analysis of promo material for the project. Critics never say anything meaningful. Now essays on films, I thoroughly enjoy.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
This is starting to sound like the part in the movie where the town starts shouting after Daniel Plainview states his “intentions” for setting up the oil rig. Then he quietly exits while the town continues to argue. Way to fucking go PTA. This movie has more going on than any fifty of us could argue.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Agreed, I saw the TONY preview screening and immediately knew it was one of the best films I had ever seen. 4 viewings later and it’s only clearer how amazing the film is. Every scene is gold, and anyone who says otherwise has some ’splaining to do (especially people who don’t think the ending fits - have you been paying attention???)