Re: What movie did you last watch?
Dark knight was great
Dark knight was great
Spoiler:The confusing 'is he or is he not' the same person that first visited Plainview and told him of the oil, just left me flat. According to an interview, Dana was hired to play the role of the brother and someone else was cast as the preacher. Supposedly, the script even had them different ages. Then it was decided that Dana would play both roles and the other guy let go.
The character of the 'brother' never appears again. He's a lot like Ritchie Cunningham's brother Chuck in Happy Days.... Gone. He does get a token mention at the end.
But why have the same guy playing him? If the role is that small what purpose does it serve to be so confusing? If the idea is to veer from the book (as I understand it... I haven't read it) and make the character the same person (maybe making the preacher character simply a 'persona' of a man with more than one persona) then what of DDL's mentioning of him during the ending?
Is he just rubbing it in Paul Dana's face that if he'd chosen the persona that he used when he first met with Plainview and been honest from the start then the life that Plainview is telling him about is the life HE (Dana) could've had? ...Or is he simply telling Dana what has become of his (Dana's) brother (as it appears on the surface)?
I left the movie with the thought that this is the area where I just came up short and missed the thread that tied it all together. Unfortunately, the info I sought out only confused things more (finding out that the script (and apparently the book as well) did indeed call for two different characters to play the brothers).
Spoiler:I didn't like the jumps in time the movie took. Especially towards the end. DDL did a great job of portraying his character aging as he added the limp, etc as things went along. But what of Paul Dana's character? I mean he looked EXACTLY the same 20 years later for the climax of the movie.
Once again... in a movie that had paid such attention to the details that went on the film, this had me wondering if I was missing something. Like maybe the preacher had been a figment of DDL's imagination all along and his descent into madness finally ended with some delusional killing of a man of God... Thus freeing him from his last clutches to sanity and anything other than deceit and greed.
Or maybe at least that last scene only existed in DDL's mind and that is why Dana's character didn't appear to age.
Spoiler:The confusing 'is he or is he not' the same person that first visited Plainview and told him of the oil, just left me flat. According to an interview, Dana was hired to play the role of the brother and someone else was cast as the preacher. Supposedly, the script even had them different ages. Then it was decided that Dana would play both roles and the other guy let go.
The character of the 'brother' never appears again. He's a lot like Ritchie Cunningham's brother Chuck in Happy Days.... Gone. He does get a token mention at the end.
But why have the same guy playing him? If the role is that small what purpose does it serve to be so confusing? If the idea is to veer from the book (as I understand it... I haven't read it) and make the character the same person (maybe making the preacher character simply a 'persona' of a man with more than one persona) then what of DDL's mentioning of him during the ending?
Is he just rubbing it in Paul Dana's face that if he'd chosen the persona that he used when he first met with Plainview and been honest from the start then the life that Plainview is telling him about is the life HE (Dana) could've had? ...Or is he simply telling Dana what has become of his (Dana's) brother (as it appears on the surface)?
I left the movie with the thought that this is the area where I just came up short and missed the thread that tied it all together. Unfortunately, the info I sought out only confused things more (finding out that the script (and apparently the book as well) did indeed call for two different characters to play the brothers).
Spoiler:I didn't like the jumps in time the movie took. Especially towards the end. DDL did a great job of portraying his character aging as he added the limp, etc as things went along. But what of Paul Dana's character? I mean he looked EXACTLY the same 20 years later for the climax of the movie.
Once again... in a movie that had paid such attention to the details that went on the film, this had me wondering if I was missing something. Like maybe the preacher had been a figment of DDL's imagination all along and his descent into madness finally ended with some delusional killing of a man of God... Thus freeing him from his last clutches to sanity and anything other than deceit and greed.
Or maybe that last scene only existed in DDL's mind
Spoiler:
I really didn't understand what kind of a journey we were on until late in the movie when it became clear that he didn't either.
I assumed there really weren't two brothers and that the hypocrisy of pretending there were to get what you want was the whole basis for the conflict between them.
In other words the whole idea of religion and superior value is b.s. when secretly they all clamor for the wealth the oil brought them and he had no patience for the hypocrisy.
I liked the movie when it became clear he was lost in his own life as much as we were lost trying to find the epic meaning of the story.
The ending kind of made it all work for me.
Wait, Richie Cunningham had a brother?
Spoiler:The confusing 'is he or is he not' the same person that first visited Plainview and told him of the oil, just left me flat. According to an interview, Dana was hired to play the role of the brother and someone else was cast as the preacher. Supposedly, the script even had them different ages. Then it was decided that Dana would play both roles and the other guy let go.
The character of the 'brother' never appears again. He's a lot like Ritchie Cunningham's brother Chuck in Happy Days.... Gone. He does get a token mention at the end.
But why have the same guy playing him? If the role is that small what purpose does it serve to be so confusing? If the idea is to veer from the book (as I understand it... I haven't read it) and make the character the same person (maybe making the preacher character simply a 'persona' of a man with more than one persona) then what of DDL's mentioning of him during the ending?
Is he just rubbing it in Paul Dana's face that if he'd chosen the persona that he used when he first met with Plainview and been honest from the start then the life that Plainview is telling him about is the life HE (Dana) could've had? ...Or is he simply telling Dana what has become of his (Dana's) brother (as it appears on the surface)?
I left the movie with the thought that this is the area where I just came up short and missed the thread that tied it all together. Unfortunately, the info I sought out only confused things more (finding out that the script (and apparently the book as well) did indeed call for two different characters to play the brothers).
Spoiler:I didn't like the jumps in time the movie took. Especially towards the end. DDL did a great job of portraying his character aging as he added the limp, etc as things went along. But what of Paul Dana's character? I mean he looked EXACTLY the same 20 years later for the climax of the movie.
Once again... in a movie that had paid such attention to the details that went on the film, this had me wondering if I was missing something. Like maybe the preacher had been a figment of DDL's imagination all along and his descent into madness finally ended with some delusional killing of a man of God... Thus freeing him from his last clutches to sanity and anything other than deceit and greed.
Or maybe that last scene only existed in DDL's mind
Spoiler:I agree with a lot of what you said, but I happened to enjoy the movie quite a bit. This may be because I had no expectations going into the movie since I heard very little about it before watching it on blu-ray. I don't even remember seeing any trailers or anything for it because I generally skip through commercials when I watch TV (DVR), and I maybe only go to the theatre to watch a movie 2 or 3 times a year. But I watch tons of movies on DVD and blu-ray. I never realized this movie had so much hype surrounding it until after I watched it and read some reviews.
Ok, regarding the movie itself: I'm not sure there was an "all good" main character in the entire film aside from HW - and it's not like he played a huge part. Before he was shipped off he was basically Plainview's pawn for a sales pitch, and Plainview would do anything to further his cause for more and more power. The faith healing preacher was certainly not good; he was just as greedy as anyone (i.e. begging for money at the end). The townspeople I guess were generally well-meaning . . . they were just stupid and insignificant, aside from the guy that didn't sell his land.
I read something similar as you as to why Paul Dano played the roles of both Sunday brothers. From what I read, another actor had already filmed a significant amount of Eli's (the preacher) role for the film and Dano was just playing the insignificant part of Paul (the greedy brother). The rumor was that Eli's actor (forgot his name) quit the movie because he felt he was too upstaged by an intense DDL (who didn't break character during shooting). Doubt that is entirely true, but it would make sense. Then, for whatever reason, the director decided to cast Dano as both Paul and Eli and have them be twins. I have no idea why they couldn't just have re-shot the Paul role with somebody else to avoid the confusion of Paul/Eli being the same person (which they clearly are NOT). I didn't care for Dano in his role either, like you I felt he was compeletely not believable. The fact he didn't age during the final scene bothered me too.
I absolutely loved the ending. When the old man (Lundy?) basically blackmailed Plainview(via knowledge of the killing of the guy that claimed to be Daniel's brother) into repenting and being baptized into Eli's church, with Plainview being completely and totally embarrassed by Eli, it was something that ate at Plainview the rest of his life. Then at the end, he got his "revenge" by making Eli denounce god and his church over and over, before finally completely going crazy and beating him to death with a bowling pin. I thought that was fantastic, and it eerily reminded me of a Kubrick film - from the atmosphere to the weirdness to the score (which was awesome).
I just wish they would have casted Eli differently. I agree completely that having Dano do both brother roles just added unnecessary confusion to the movie. There was no point in having that being confusing. I think the plot itself was very simple; the relationship between greed, power, good, bad, & religion. I didn't have any problems with the flow of the story, in fact I thought it was quite good. The exception is the massive jump in years at the end.
That all being said, DDL's performance more than made up for the shortcomings of the movie. I'd give it about 8 or 8.5 out of 10. I've seen where the movie has been given some crazy all-time rankings by critics. Some had it #2 all time. It certainly doesn't belong in any discussion in the Top 50 or maybe even 100 of all time IMO. Great, great acting by DDL and superb cinematography, good story, some questionable casting does not warrant that type of silly ranking IMO. Still a great movie though, and I'll watch it more than a couple of times...
Edit: I think the best part of the Plainview character was when he talks about how he doesn't want to just succeed, he wants to make sure that others DON'T succeed. That was his character in a nutshell.
Spoiler:I agree with a lot of what you said, but I happened to enjoy the movie quite a bit. This may be because I had no expectations going into the movie since I heard very little about it before watching it on blu-ray. I don't even remember seeing any trailers or anything for it because I generally skip through commercials when I watch TV (DVR), and I maybe only go to the theatre to watch a movie 2 or 3 times a year. But I watch tons of movies on DVD and blu-ray. I never realized this movie had so much hype surrounding it until after I watched it and read some reviews.
Ok, regarding the movie itself: I'm not sure there was an "all good" main character in the entire film aside from HW - and it's not like he played a huge part. Before he was shipped off he was basically Plainview's pawn for a sales pitch, and Plainview would do anything to further his cause for more and more power. The faith healing preacher was certainly not good; he was just as greedy as anyone (i.e. begging for money at the end). The townspeople I guess were generally well-meaning . . . they were just stupid and insignificant, aside from the guy that didn't sell his land.
I read something similar as you as to why Paul Dano played the roles of both Sunday brothers. From what I read, another actor had already filmed a significant amount of Eli's (the preacher) role for the film and Dano was just playing the insignificant part of Paul (the greedy brother). The rumor was that Eli's actor (forgot his name) quit the movie because he felt he was too upstaged by an intense DDL (who didn't break character during shooting). Doubt that is entirely true, but it would make sense. Then, for whatever reason, the director decided to cast Dano as both Paul and Eli and have them be twins. I have no idea why they couldn't just have re-shot the Paul role with somebody else to avoid the confusion of Paul/Eli being the same person (which they clearly are NOT). I didn't care for Dano in his role either, like you I felt he was compeletely not believable. The fact he didn't age during the final scene bothered me too.
I absolutely loved the ending. When the old man (Lundy?) basically blackmailed Plainview(via knowledge of the killing of the guy that claimed to be Daniel's brother) into repenting and being baptized into Eli's church, with Plainview being completely and totally embarrassed by Eli, it was something that ate at Plainview the rest of his life. Then at the end, he got his "revenge" by making Eli denounce god and his church over and over, before finally completely going crazy and beating him to death with a bowling pin. I thought that was fantastic, and it eerily reminded me of a Kubrick film - from the atmosphere to the weirdness to the score (which was awesome).
I just wish they would have casted Eli differently. I agree completely that having Dano do both brother roles just added unnecessary confusion to the movie. There was no point in having that being confusing. I think the plot itself was very simple; the relationship between greed, power, good, bad, & religion. I didn't have any problems with the flow of the story, in fact I thought it was quite good. The exception is the massive jump in years at the end.
That all being said, DDL's performance more than made up for the shortcomings of the movie. I'd give it about 8 or 8.5 out of 10. I've seen where the movie has been given some crazy all-time rankings by critics. Some had it #2 all time. It certainly doesn't belong in any discussion in the Top 50 or maybe even 100 of all time IMO. Great, great acting by DDL and superb cinematography, good story, some questionable casting does not warrant that type of silly ranking IMO. Still a great movie though, and I'll watch it more than a couple of times...
Edit: I think the best part of the Plainview character was when he talks about how he doesn't want to just succeed, he wants to make sure that others DON'T succeed. That was his character in a nutshell.
Spoiler:
He needed somebody worthy of sticking it to.
He was energized when he thought he had a brother. SOmeone at his level he could stick others with. And he was energized by sticking it to preacher boy.
At the end it was all he had.
He really wasn't in it for the money or he would have cashed out. He wasn't really in to the family thing even though he knew he should be.
I really bonded with him by the end.
Spoiler:
He needed somebody worthy of sticking it to.
He was energized when he thought he had a brother. SOmeone at his level he could stick others with. And he was energized by sticking it to preacher boy.
At the end it was all he had.
He really wasn't in it for the money or he would have cashed out. He wasn't really in to the family thing even though he knew he should be.
I really bonded with him by the end.
Spoiler:Me too.
But please don't take it personally if you ever ask me to go bowling and I politely decline.
Spoiler:...as long as you subscribe to the belief Paul Sunday was a real person and a twin to Eli Sunday. ...But then Twes has already said his interpretation was that they were the same person.
...And so it goes...
Comment