With The Dark Knight, Lightning Strikes Twice

At the end of 2005's Batman Begins, Captain Gordon asks Batman, "What about escalation?" Relevant to the story in reference to Batman opening the door to vigilantes and the inevitable response of criminals to heighten their methods, the question is also relevant to the state of comic book movies. Batman Begins unquestioningly raised the bar for the genre and now in 2008, The Dark Knight demonstrates exactly what escalation means for the genre. Comic books are often gritty, dark and uncompromising and so too is The Dark Knight. Chris Nolan's sequel is thrilling and proves that lightning really can strike twice; the benchmark for the genre has once again been raised.

The Dark Knight is a film that touches on many different themes, specifically focused on personal morals and limitations, asking the question "what is justice?" Bruce Wayne's crusade to clean up Gotham has been joined and the DA's office lead by the recently elected Harvey Dent is putting large numbers of criminals behind bars. The mob is on the defensive and its beginning to look as though Gotham no longer needs a masked avenger. Dent is the new "white knight". But as is so often true, things are too good to be true.

At the end of Batman Begins, Gordon hints at the arrival of the Joker, Batman's traditional arch-nemesis. In The Dark Knight he arrives and his brand of chaos, violence and anarchy that are almost incomprehensible. When Bruce trained under Ra's Al Ghul, the rift appeared between them because unlike Ra's, Bruce refused to execute justice through killing. Ra's warned him that his enemies would not share his mercy and it would be his undoing. The Joker is that enemy - he operates without grand scheme, hesitation or remorse. He is chaos personified and he represents the ultimate test for Batman. The only way to stop him will be to kill him. The question is, will Batman do it?

Dent is Gotham's new public face of justice. While his methods are not nearly the same as Batman's, they both appear to be incorruptible men. The Joker is not content to only test Batman and quickly brings Dent into his diabolical game to prove a point that no one is incorruptible. The tragedy for Dent is that in his case that turns out to be true. After being maimed at the hands of the Joker, Dent, now physically embodying his police force nickname "Two-Face", embarks on a crusade of personal revenge, hunting down and killing those who the Joker convinces him put him in the position to take the fall.

The Joker is mad in every sense of the clinical definition. He is unlike any other criminal in that he doesn't share their motivations (money) or their methods (he is much more sinister and extreme). As he states at one point, "Its not about the money. It's about sending a message." Not only is Joker fighting the police, Dent and Batman, but he is also fighting the traditional criminal leadership of Gotham for control. He kills some of the leaders and grabs the reigns without any measure of compromise. That's not his style. He is chaos and anarchy and it is up the heroes of Gotham to figure out how to overcome it.

The story of Batman, at its core, has always been a dark story of good vs. evil and one man's tormented crusade to save his city and with this sequel to Batman Begins, director Christoper Nolan truly takes us to that dark place. Kudos to him because in doing so he has created a thrilling, visceral crime drama that doesn't pull any of the punches. Its completely immersing and Nolan tells the story in the way it ought to be told. Gone are the days of Burton's Batman replaced with a much darker and serious version. As for Jack Nicholson's Joker... there is a new definitive version of the Joker and it is Heath Ledger's.

Simply put, Ledger's Joker is one of the most twisted villains in film history. As a villain he is a conundrum because to know his motivation is to know insanity. He is nihilistic, thrives on chaos and there are seemingly no limits to the vileness and brutality of his methods. He isn't self-serving but only wishes to sow terror. And yet, there are scenes where he seems to demonstrate a sense of civility, like the eye of a hurricane.

Ledger's portrayal is extremely nuanced and his presence immense as a result. His shifty eyes, assortment of ticks along with his slumping posture and slight limp go hand in hand with his creepy voice to create a character not easily forgotten. He is creepy! Not to mention his face. His sloppy clown makeup and scarred cheeks manifest just how unhinged he is and reflect his constant state of disorder. I'm not going to engage in the whole Oscar-worthy discussion, but I will say that his performance was simply amazing and completely unforgettable. He steals the show and the critical acclaim he has received is all completely warranted.

Bale once again excels in the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman. He is my favorite Batman and I especially like his demeanor as Bruce Wayne. He has a billionaire-playboy swagger in his performance that fits perfectly. Aaron Eckhart also had a good turn as Harvey Dent/Two-Face. He played the good guy Dent very well and an equally good tortured soul as Two-Face. Maggie Gyllenhaal was fine as Rachel Dawes and it helped that she looks somewhat like Katie Holmes to cover the fact that the actress changed. It could have been annoying and thankfully wasn't.

I think the under-the-radar performance still belongs to Gary Oldman as Gordon. The guy simply is Jim Gordon! I've gone on and on before about how I like Oldman for his range in roles and I honestly believe you could cast him in a woman's role and he could pull it off. The guy is immensely talented and a total chameleon when it comes to his roles.

The action in The Dark Knight was great! It was more visible this time around which I'm sure most people appreciate and is probably due to Nolan's improvement in that area as well as being intentional (Batman is phantom-like and getting only glimpses of him in Batman Begins worked as a device). Once again, the story was fantastic! Nolan didn't pull any punches and the scope of the action was grand and the impact hard hitting, the way it should be.

The Dark Knight is unquestioningly the best comic book adaptation to date. Along with Batman Begins and Iron Man, the comic book genre has a much higher benchmark to aim for now. As a film, The Dark Knight is one for the ages. It may be awhile before we have another comic adaptation as this level (or until Nolan makes another Batman film), but the fact that we've gotten to this level is heartening to me as a fan. Comics aren't just kid's stuff, they are very much adult and Nolan's vision of Batman demonstrates this in an entertaining and utterly thrilling way! 10/10

Wanted Is a Waste of Time

I have a pet peeve when it comes to films. I absolutely HATE when a film introduces elements that are completely incongruent and out of place based on the presented setting. It has a lot to due with the suspension of disbelief, which admittedly is very important when it comes to films, but its not that I cannot suspend disbelief. Rather it is essentially that there are bounds to the suspension of disbelief, and when a story is presented correctly, that suspension is warranted and I can have a great time watching. Other times it is not and when that happens, I shut off to a film.

Take for example The Matrix. Crazy stuff happens in that movie - normal humans leap from building to building, dodge bullets, etc. And it was all completely awesome! I didn't ask any questions. You know why? Because it was quickly established that they were in the matrix and within the confines of the matrix the "rules" (namely those of physics) could be bent and broken. Fine. Its well explained and it makes sense. Great movie!

The same is true for every superhero movie. Going in you understand that it is a superhero movie and normal rules do not apply (although I argue that there rules with superhero films too, just a different set of rules) and that crazy, spectacular, epic stuff is going to happen. Its justified. Superheroes aren't interesting if they don't do those sorts of things. (An exception to this rule would be Spiderman stopping a tram with his feet breaking through railroad ties and not getting ripped apart. He is Spiderman after all, not Superman. That was retarded.) The same is also true for Bond movies. They have a different set of limits because you understand that he is a super spy and the franchise has always carried its own aura of suspended disbelief.

Then there are films like Wanted. In the very first scene of the film, a man leaps out the windows of a tall building, flies across the street, pulls out his guns mid-jump and shoots three armed men on a rooftop, then safely lands in the building. Is he a superhero? No. Is this supposedly the real world? Yes. Does that make any fucking sense at all? No. We have a serious problem. And yes, I have the same issue with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. People literally fly through the air and and it makes no sense. Granted, we're given the setting of Asian mythology which gives some justification which I understand, but I still didn't like it.

Now back up a minute. Some people would point out that essentially the same type of stuff happens in Shoot Em Up (a film I own and enjoy immensely) and also point out that I have no problems with that movie. I would respond by saying that Shoot Em Up quickly establishes itself as an over-the-top dark comedy. Had it taken itself seriously, it would have been a problem for me.

Wanted takes itself very seriously, immediately establishing the existence of an ancient fraternity of assassins who, while possessing no supernatural abilities, can apparently do whatever the hell they want with a gun so long as they put in enough hours at the range. And aside from a guy leaping building, these folks can bend bullets around objects to hit obstructed targets or better yet, hit targets from obscene distances through dozens of obstacles including windows, moving trains, etc. And we are supposed to take this seriously. They are assassins and this is serious business- they are trying to maintain a balance between order and chaos in the world. The real world. The world you and I live in. You know, the world governed by a things called the laws of physics.

Okay, so we have this guy named Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) who is a real loser, hates his job and suffers from panic attacks. It turns out that his estranged father was the worlds greatest assassin, and he has been killed. So the fraternity of assassins (aptly named The Fraternity) lead by a guy named Sloan (Morgan Freeman) come looking for him so that they can whisk him away from the boring life he has and train him to be an assassin like his father. Most importantly he is the only guy capable of killing his father's killer, so they say.

Fast forward. So Wesley is introduced to the "Frat" and begins his training under the tutelage of Fox (Angelina Jolie) who is supposed to be the ultra-sexy master assassin who throws glances that say "I'm super cool because I'm an assassin". Apparently she got paid big bucks to stand around looking smug throughout the movie. I'm sorry but Angelina Jolie is annoying to begin with and she really lame in this movie. Anyway, we go through the obligatory training stuff where the guy just isn't getting it until he pushed to his limit and suddenly everything is hunky dory. Oh yeah, and we are also given this whole explanation of the frat's mission and whatnot and this back story of how the "loom of fate" (the assassins were started from weavers?) that contains a secret binary language that spells out those persons who need to be killed. In short, it was not very intricate but apparently served to advance the plot.

Basically, the latter half of the film serves as one long, drawn out climax sequence involving bullets bouncing off bullets (a reference to sword-fighting maybe?), Wesley and Fox surviving an absolutely ridiculous train wreck and eventually Wesley discovering the truth about his father and bringing down the Fraternity. Oh and Fox shoots a bullet in a complete circle at the end.

Obviously I didn't like this film and for reasons I have already spelled out. Had this movie introduced some element justifying the bullet magic (like being superheroes or a la The Matrix), it might have worked. Had this movie not taken itself so seriously (like Shoot Em Up), it probably would have worked. Instead, it just shovels out the craziness because Hollywood isn't stupid. They know that the crowds will eat it up because its packed with action and it has Angelina Jolie standing around looking smug, and teenage boys can't take their eyes off her. It fills seats, but it does nothing to help foster the production of better quality movies.

So call me a hater. Call me jaded. Call me elitist if you must, but I'm calling Wanted garbage. 4/10

Crystal Skulls is Unnecessary Chapter of Indiana Jones Franchise

There is an old film standby where at the end of the film the hero rides off into the sunset. It conveys a sense of conclusion without necessarily writing off the character. And while it may be seen nowadays as being a bit cliche, it is tried and true, but most importantly it works.

The Indiana Jones movies of the 1980s are adventure classics. Hailing back to the days of the old action serials of the 1930 and 40s, they are a great time at the movies with broad appeal. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was the final installment of the trilogy for nearly two decades and it very appropriately ended with Indiana Jones, his father and two good friends Marcus Brody and Sallah riding off into the sunset. It is a great trilogy with a great ending, not to mention that "The Last Crusade" is a fitting title for a final movie.

A few years back the rumblings really started to gain strength that creators George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, along with star Harrison Ford, were interested in revisiting the series. As soon as I heard the idea, I didn't want it to happen. Why? Because I new that after nearly 20 years, the magic would not be recaptured. Besides, the series had a nice tidy trilogy package with a fitting end. Nothing more was needed. Even so, the aforementioned trio pressed on and made a fourth installment.

What the hell is wrong with Hollywood?! Why do they suddenly feel the need to go back and revisit franchises from 20 plus years ago? Rocky Balboa (VI), Rambo IV, Terminator 3 (and now 4, 5 and 6 on the way)... they don't really need to be revisited and what we ultimately end up with are movies that don't live up, feel unnecessary and stories that feel tired. Apparently the aging baby-boomer generations obsession with nostalgia combined with a lack of originality in Hollywood is destined to flood us with these types of films... and for no good reason at all it would seem. I knew Indiana Jones 4 was a bad idea... and it turns out I was right.

Leading up to the release of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls, much speculation centered around Harrison Ford (now 62) and his ability to reprise his role as Indy, the globetrotting archaeologist who found the lost Ark of the Covenant, defeated the Thuggee cult in India, recovering the Shakra Stones and found the legendary Holy Grail. Countless jokes about his age were made, but I figured Ford would pull it off and he did. Ford was not the problem with this film.

The problem with this film is that it was unnecessary, wholly and completely. Fast forward about twenty years from Indy's last adventure in the 1930s (fighting Nazis) and we find Indy in the 1950s fighting Cold War Russians. Like the Nazis before them, they are interested in finding an item that will provide them with an unbeatable weapon - a mind weapon. A small team of Russians has captured Indy and WWII buddy "Mac" and infiltrated a secret government facility in the New Mexico desert. The facility as it turns out is a nod to the final shot of the first film, when we saw the Ark of the Covenant being put into storage in a vast, anonymous warehouse. We know this because during the warehouse we catch a glimpse of the ark in a crate that has been broken open. But the Russians are there not for the Ark, but for a highly magnetic artifact... a skull of unknown origin.

The Russians get the skull but Indy manages a dramatic escape into the desert. Shortly thereafter he finds himself wandering into a town which it turns out is a set for an atomic test site. He hears the countdown and quite alertly jumps into a lead lined refrigerator in one of the fake homes and rides out the atomic blast, escaping to live another day. I could go on and on about why that is quite possibly the single most ridiculous scene in film history, but I will refrain and simply say that it unquestionably defied the suspension of disbelief and was completely absurd in ever way imaginable.

Perhaps the only high point for me in the film was the next scene wherein Indy is debriefed by government agents and we learn that he was an OSS operative during WWII and rose to the rank of Colonel. I thought that was nice touch and fitting seeing as he had already fought plenty of Nazis in the 1930s. In fact, a film about his time in the war probably would have been a hell of a lot more interesting and rewarding than what we got.

Indy returns to his teaching at Marshall college only to find out that he has been fired due to political pressures. We also learn that his father Henry Jones, Sr. and close friend Marcus Brody have both recently died. Indy finds himself in a dark, lonely place. Soon, however, he is approached by a rebellious young man named "Mutt" Williams (Shia LaBeouf) who tells Indy that he knows his mother from years before and he needs his help in South America. With nowhere else to go and the Russians once again hot on his tail, Indy joins Mutt and they head to Peru.

In a nutshell here is what happens. Indy learns that the Russians have captured an old friend of his (Henry "Ox" Oxley) in the hopes that he will lead them to a lost temple housing Crystal Skulls that will give them the power to control the minds of their Western enemies in America and Europe. It turns out that Mutt's mother is none other than Marion Ravenwood from Raiders of the Lost Ark (Karen Allen). Its a game of cat and mouse with the Russians in the thick jungle and eventually they come across a long lost temple which houses the other crystal skulls, which it turns out are of extra-terrestrial origin.

Ok, not just extra-terrestrial origin, but inter-dimensional origin and the aliens are themselves archaeologists who came to Earth to study ancient human civilizations. And after swinging through the jungle canopy a la Tarzan, riding over waterfalls, racing through the jungle on military equipment and escaping giant man-eating ants, the gang finds themselves in this alien temple only to escape as it collapses around them revealing a giant flying saucer that flies off with the aliens inside. None of this felt like Indiana Jones, hold the chase scene, and the Tarzan sequence (along with the nuke sequence) felt completely uninspired and lame. Even the Russians prove to be completely unremarkable and totally forgettable bad guys (and gal). But on top of all that, this film made me feel like George Lucas, much like his reasoning for going back and altering the original Star Wars films, felt that Indiana Jones required closure with regards to Marion and finding out he has a son. Honestly, it was all unnecessary. We didn't need it at all. As a result, this film felt forced, clumsy and uninspired... and quite frankly out of its element.

Jacob, occasional contributor to this site, shared with me some thoughts that I find insightful. He felt that at least some of the purpose behind this film was to show Indiana Jones as a man out of his time; a relic that was no longer necessary in the new Cold War world. I think that is a very valid point. He also noted that during the wedding scene at the end of the film, Ox makes a comment that might be directed more to the audience. He says, "So much of life is lost in waiting" in reference to Indy and Marion finally tying the knot after so many years apart.... but it also accurately speaks to Lucas/Spielberg/Ford's return to the franchise after being away for far too long. Again, I think the point is very well made.

Another thing that really didn't work with me is the alien stuff. Indiana Jones has always been about searching for historical and religious artifacts and putting some interesting twist on those items rather than straight up science fiction. The plots were always more mystical and mythical than the science of A-Bombs and little green men. Frankly, it didn't work. I recall from a few years back reading a rumor that Frank Darabont had written and submitted a script that dealt with aliens and it had been rejected because of it. If that was indeed true then, what the hell changed with the script that George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson wrote?

The bottom line with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls is that it doesn't work as a stand alone film because it makes far too many references tying it to its predecessors from the 1980s but it also doesn't work within the framework established by those films, on top of the fact that it is a completely unnecessary installment. A more appropriate title would be Indiana Jones and the Reunion Tour, because that's exactly what it is, for Lucas/Spielberg/Ford, for Indy and Marion and for Indy and the audience. And while this film is getting generally favorable reviews, I think that it is mostly due to the same phenomenon that had people excited for Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in 1999. They are excited because Indiana Jones is back, but with time the excitement will fade and people will see the film for what it really is - mediocre at best. 5/10

Marvel's Iron Man Right on Target

The 2008 summer blockbuster season is now officially underway. Leading the charge this year is Marvel's Iron Man, starring Robert Downey, Jr., Jeff Bridges, Terrance Howard and Gwyneth Paltrow. If Iron Man is any indication, we're in for a great summer!

Okay... so lets forget those other non-super hero/comic book films soon to be be released. Even if they aren't that good, if Iron Man is any indication, we're in for a great future of comic book movies! You see, ever since the summer of 2000 when X-Men landed in theaters and kicked off the new generation of super hero/comic book movies, the genre has slowly been trying to find its way, suffering some serious blows along the way.

Officially, we've had 3 X-Men movies, 3 Spiderman, 2 Fantastic Four, Superman, Batman, Daredevil, Hulk, Punisher, Catwoman, Elektra, and Ghost Rider. If I have missed some, forgive me. The point is that out of all of these, roughly half were generally considered good with Elektra, Catwoman, Hulk, Daredevil (which I like), Ghost Rider and both Fantastic Four movies generally being considered not very good at all. Catwoman and The Fantastic Four are outright garbage! While the special effects and computer graphics have certainly dazzled, actually producing a quality super hero movie has proven to be a somewhat difficult task, the problem being how to make a movie that is faithful to the source material and accessible to general audiences. Even X-Men and Spiderman have some rough patches. Batman Begins (a complete reset of the franchise) stands out from that list as being the first one that really REALLY worked, both as a super hero movie and as a movie in general. It undoubtedly took the genre to the next level.

So now we have Iron Man and I'll admit that I wasn't all that psyched leading up to it, largely because I'm not a big Iron Man reader. But I went with some friends on opening night and what a breath of fresh air it was! Following the success of Batman Begins, it seems that the producers (now the comic book companies themselves) have finally figured out to do it right. Top to bottom, Iron Man was nearly flawless combining excellent casting, great effects, good direction and great story. I honestly don't have a single bone to pick with the movie and the overwhelming amount of positive press for the film would seem to support my position.

Lets start with the casting. Robert Downey, Jr. plays an excellent Tony Stark. He captures the carefree, billionaire playboy persona to a T. And when things get real in the story, he plays an excellent serious Tony Stark persona to a T. Right up there with Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne, we now have two "real" super hero characters. They feel believable and they stay very true to source comic book material.

Jeff Bridges turned in a surprisingly good portrayal of Obidiah Stane. Bridges usually plays the good guy or the lovable character in his movies. This time he played the villain and he played it very well! Again, the character was cast well and good casting combined with good direction is a recipe for a good movie. Terrance Howard and Gwyneth Paltrow also fit well with their roles as Colonel Rhodes and "Pepper" Potts. Chemistry was evident throughout the cast.

As for the story, Jon Favreau kept it moving along. I didn't note any portion of the movie that moved particularly slow or that seemed to drag or just plain didn't contribute to the overall story. It started immediately, forgoing the usual elaborate opening title sequence, jumping right into the story and it kept chugging along through to the end. No complaints from me there. The dialog was superb! Downey, Jr. delivered Stark's lines very well and the humor was refreshingly relevant and appropriate. Some jokes were silly, but none of them I would categorize as cheap.

Another credit to this movie, again similar to Batman Begins, was that the process of becoming the hero was not abridged but rather explored at length. Like Bruce Wayne, we see Tony Stark building his power armor, running his trials and working out the kinks... once again lending an appropriate sense of realism and legitimacy. Yes, this is fiction and we're talking about a super hero, but through the comic book lens, super hero stories have their own sense of "real" and this movie captured it. So when Stark finally perfects his Mark III suit, we know how he got there and understand his super hero persona all the more.

As I've said, I really don't have any beefs with this movie, surprising since I wasn't drooling over it going in. I fully appreciate the amazing job they did making a comic-book movie. The fact that Marvel has created their own studio production company to make their own adaptations is definitely a good development and Iron Man is proof that comic book movies are on the right track.

With The Dark Knight only 8 weeks away, the summer is looking very bright indeed! 10/10

There Will Be Blood an Unforgettable Film - Best of 2007

It’s not often that I state something with absolute certainly when it comes to film. But with Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood I can tell you without any hesitation at all that it was THE best film of 2007, Oscars be damned. It is truly a unique viewing experience, totally engrossing and curiously so. Based on the novel Oil by Upton Sinclair, There Will Be Blood carries its storytelling with an ambitious intensity that mirrors that of its central character – Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis).

In the very first scene we are witness to the almost inhuman drive of Plainview, a self-made oilman operating at the turn of the 20^th century in the desert wastes of the southwest United States. At the opening we see Plainview working alone in a deep shaft, speculating for oil. The scene introduces a bit of the process to us but also clearly shows the labor involved and the exhausting nature of the work. That Plainview is alone is impressive. He sets a charge at the bottom, climbs out and waits. The charge detonates and upon his re-entry into the shaft, the ladder breaks and he falls uncontrollably to the bottom breaking one of his legs. But despite the severity of his injury and the fact that he is alone, he manages to climb out of the shaft and somehow drag himself back to civilization to gather a team. Plainview has discovered an oil deposit.

Such is the nature of the beast within Daniel Plainview. Driven by unbridled ambition and an unquenchable thirst for success, there is nothing he will not do attain his goals and be the best. He will not be beaten, by nature or man. As far as Plainview is concerned people are an inconvenience only useful for helping him to make his profits, and nature is nothing more than an obstacle to be tamed… by him. He is proud, conceited, violent and remorseless. Daniel Plainview is a very dangerous man.

Fast forward a few years and we see that his operation has grown. He, as he so proclaims to groups of gathered townspeople, is an oilman. When he finds oil (or hears rumors of fields) he immediately moves in for the deal; he must buy the land and he will say and do anything to get it quickly and cheaply. The consummate salesman, Plainview knows all the right moves and words, speaking of his workmen as a “family”, playing up the benefits to befall the local residents and land-owners and even parading his son, H.W. Plainview, to help sell his image. But the words are just words and the actions just actions, for Plainview sees only the money to made, the victory to be won.

When a young man by the name of Paul (Paul Dano) shows up looking to speak with Mr. Plainview the story really picks up. Paul offers the notion of cheap, oil-rich land to Plainview and before long they are discussing location, but all the while both men are careful dancing around each other, evading questions and never answering the specifics of questions posed. With the news fresh in his ears, Plainview scouts the land, finds oil and quickly makes his move, buying all of the land but one holding.

Soon we learn that Paul is really named Eli and Eli, it turns out, is the leader of a local religious group. Plainview is not one for God and Eli is not really one for Plainview, but Eli knows that the profits from his promised share of the oil revenue will help grow his church. He is attempting to use Plainview’s ambition as an oilman as a way to fund his church.

While the themes of ambition and greed underscore the story of the film, the central conflict is a battle of wills – Eli versus Daniel, a player trying to play the player. It plays out in grand fashion and I loved every minute of it. Eli believes that he can hoodwink and control Daniel because he is blinded by his own greed, but he never truly understands what Daniel is – a deranged man who will not be made to serve the ends of another and certainly not be the pawn of Eli and his church. For a time Eli is able to obtain and maintain control… or at least convince himself and his church that it is so. Ironically, it is Eli’s own ambition that blinds him to reality. Where the path he is on leads only one man knows for sure.

There Will Be Blood is truly an epic tale played out in a classic setting that might easily be described as Legendary America. The characters are larger than life and the fortunes to be made enormous; the American dream of a man building his empire shines brightly, whether it be a business empire or a church. Both are prominent in America’s history.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s effort is phenomenal! He crafts the story so as to never let up in its intensity from beginning to end. It pulled me in and didn’t let go until the credits rolled. Even then it still had my attention. Days later I find myself continuing to think about it - Daniel Plainview and his maniacal quest for personal fortune and glory no matter what the cost.

Daniel Day-Lewis’ (Last of the Mohicans, The Boxer, Gangs of New York) performance was the best of his career I would say. Known for living out his roles for the duration of filming, he truly became Daniel Plainview. His character was real and strangely magnetic. Watching him I knew he was scum and legitimately mad but I couldn’t help but watch with intense interest. Like a train wreck or some kind of sick carnival act, he was fascinating and demanded my attention. Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine), too, gave an excellent performance as Plainview’s adversary. Playing the humble and righteous religious leader, watching Eli play out his scheme was pure entertainment.

Viewing There Will Be Blood exactly one week after seeing No Country For Old Men, I can easily say that this film was the best of 2007 and deserved the Oscar for Best Picture. Both are excellent films and rightly deserved nomination, but even with No Country fresh in my mind, it blew me away on a level I did not expect. It’s an instant classic! If you haven’t yet seen it, do yourself a favor and clear an evening (its 160 minutes long) and watch it. Every aspect of this film impressed me and I am confident that it will be a long while before I see another film like There Will Be Blood. It's cinema at its best. It’s absolutely riveting! 10/10