The Hot Blog

It's amazing how people can view different movies through very different eyes. I thought I'm Not There was one of the most self-indulgent films I'd seen this year, with the talented Todd Haynes trying way too hard to be unnecessarily evasive at times (although at others, that is exactly the point). I think we understand the central conceit of the film during the first fifteen to twenty minutes and then after that, it does nothing but hammer that point home for the next two hours. And the film definitely runs out of steam as it hits the home stretch, a problem I found in both Velvet Goldmine and Poison. It's got great performances, but I found it to be much more of a wank than Zodiac and There Will Be Blood.

But it's fascinating that on my travels I've found that the people who love I'm Not There often don't like Zodiac and TWBB. And these two groups will, of course, believe that they are smarter than the other.

Yeah... I think an attack on "critical onanism" in a piece that names "I'm Not There" the film of the year is a bit rich. But I enjoyed reading it. Happy new year.

David, I do think this is one of the more arrogant things you've written in a while (why people like that trio of films), especially combined with the hypocrisy of putting I'm Not There as your #1, as Noah pointed out. I'm Not There is my favorite film of the year as well, but I can see the similarities he's talking about.

What bothers me is that you seem to be unwilling to even entertain the notion that each of us as cinephiles will be impervious to or unappreciative of highly regarded films over the course of our lives, and that it's possible you're on the wrong side with this one. Instead, you create this blanket statement about auteur-obsessed critics sending a message to the studios. Are you crazy? You're damned right generalizations are a bad idea. And the critics aren't the sole people deciding the merit of these works--there are plenty of geeks who feel totally supercharged by these films. That you aren't feeling the same thing shouldn't be a impetus to find something so intrinsically wrong with the people who do.

I can only imagine what you'd say about Pauline Kael's review of Last Tango in Paris if it just came out today.

Has anyone checked out the list of "Worst Films" at the Village Voice/LA Weekly poll? Almost every highly regarded movie of the year is on there except There Will be Blood.

It really seems like some of the choices were made just to spite other critics. I mean, as much as someone may find a cause to dislike Juno or No Country for Old Men, how can anyone say they're worse than something like Epic Movie, or Bratz?

[full disclosure: I didn't see Bratz. It may have been amazing. But I doubt it.]

Ok, I just saw I'm NOT THERE for the first time tonight. I'm 35 and have been a Dylan fan since I was 15 yrs old. I heard BLOOD ON THE TRACKS and lots it for much of anything else after that. I love the man's music. Seeing this film tonight, and knowing all the views people have towards it, i sat there by myself and knew within the first few minutes, when I relaized it was jumping around and making complete sense to me, that it was a work of obvious genius.

I find it amazing this film got made. It seems like it was made for the me, the hardcore Dylan fan, and not for folks who don't care for his music at all.

I understand how someone could say Haynes rams the same points down your throat for 2 hours, but I just see how expansive he makes the mind of Dylan come alive and I think there is something amazingly touching about how people change over the course of their lives. I know people don't really change, and yet they do. I know I'm different and it's not just something I tell myself to feel unique or anything. I just know that I have a unique place in this world and when I'm gone, it's not gonna be there anymore.

A lot of things welled up in me watching it, mostly about how my ideas about his music have always been right under the surface of so much of what I love about art and things of this ilk. It made me think about the nature of film and about the ideas that go into creating anything trying to be original and in the end, the struggle is the whole point of it.

I just think that it no longer matters, and never did, why someone likes one thing and someone else doesn't. I can deal with someone disliking this picture, even if most people agree or not. What matters is that for two hours, I sat alone in a theater and someone else put moving pictures up on a wall and they were my own memories of a time passed, a time I was never part of and can never be a part of and it all felt right to me.

EOTW, I agree with you a hundred percent in that last paragraph. I didn't like I'm Not There, but I am sincerely happy that you did. I'm envious of the joy you got from watching that film and I just wish I could feel it too.

Understood, Noah. I have NO clue what your level of knowing Dylan's stuff is, but I do believe that one has to be a pretty serious fan to enjoy it totally and to "get it." I don't mean that in a patronizing, condescending way at all. But there were so many little in jokes, like the act that Robbie and Claire go to see in NY that appears to be a takeoff on the cover of THE BASEMENT TAPES, to the various characters in Riddle county. These and the rest just make it more enjoyable to a more than casual fan.

The internet kinda gives everyone a chance to air their opinion and one can disagree or not and I am fine with that, but it's only normal to defend something you consider an achievement, no matter what others think of it.

I havent seen everything else on Poland's list, won't be able to see TWBB till it goes wide next week, but disagree with him on ZODIAC and TAOJJBTCRF but I'm fine with that, even thoguh I think they are two well made, fine pics with some great performances in front of and behind the camera (though I think ZODIAC misrepresents a lot of facts from the real story. But hey, it's Hollywood!).

A very well written piece about your reaction to the film EOTW, and not very far from my own. Having my mind blown by a film about Dylan wasn't surpising, but what I didn't expect was how moved I was, not just by the "personal" material, but by the meditation on the soul of the country told through the filter of his music and life. Words just can't do justice to the true achievement of what Haynes has done here.

I know what you mean by moving. i think the first thing that got me was the sequence of Woody going to see "real" Woody at the hospital in NJ. If you know the story of that, of how Dylan went to meet him, just looked him up in the phone book and went to play for him and how Guthrie liked his playing, it's quite touching. The film really captures the idea of this old man, dying of this terrible disease passing himself on to this young man who had lived and breathee him for so long under his own skin. It's a touching visual and Haynes achieves this with one simple camera shot and no dialogue. It's a strikingly beautiful image.

The editing of this film is above anything I've seen this year. It was, along with Cate, for me, the most satisfying aspect of the picture. it depicts the 60s and 70s in such a style that it doesn't call attention to itself at all, which is a small miracle considering how many period films hit you over the head when trying to make you believe you've gone back in time. This film does it with ease, though I am sure it took a lot of work to make it seem so.

It's sad, but one of the first thoughts I had after viewing it this first time was wishing Jerry Garcia was alive to watch it. He'd flip over it. I know that.

I was not a big Dylan guy going into the movie, but the movie changed my perspective on his work significantly by building in the emotional context without it being a history lesson or a rant by a Dylan obsessive.

As for my arrogance, Laz... all I can ever say to that charge - besides the obvious copping - is that just because I see phenomonology and you don't want to doesn't make me crazy or arrogant. There is something in those three films that is touching the same people in much the same way. I seek an answer for that. If you disagree with my answer, we have a discussion. If you just write me off as arrogant, we have nothing but name calling.

When I write things like that, a big part of it is that I have many experiences with people who disagree on those pictures. And somehow, we manage to battle on the various fronts and have another glass of whatever and move along. I would be curious to know what you think the phenomonology is, other than "well, they're just good films." Nothing bores me more these days - and you are hardly a prime culprit, of assuming something works or fails because of how we, and those we know, feel. We matter, but we are a tiny sample.

Really... if Superbad made more than Knocked Up, would Joe's position be anymore his own than it has always been... and would the box office vote change his mind... or mine?

But this blog sometimes... oy...

EOTW, I know a medium amount about Dylan, having always been a fan but never becoming obsessed with the music or the man. I suppose my issue with the film is that from the moment "Woody Guthrie" shows up onscreen played by a small black child, Haynes is making the point that Dylan is everyone and no one at the same time, he's consistently evolving and changing shape.

I guess if I knew more about Dylan, then I'd be more intrigued by the smaller brushstrokes, but the central conceit is laid out from the get-go and then the film continues to make the point. Todd Solondz's Storytelling used a similar technique a few years ago, but I think the film it most resembles is Haynes' own Poison, which uses a variety of film styles, film stock and genres and mixes them together. In I'm Not There, he does a Western, a black and white depiction of Swinging London, a Behind the Music type of mockumentary, etc. I just wish it added up to something other than 'Dylan is unknowable because even he doesn't know himself' or something along those lines.

Again, I appreciate anyone else's opinion and I can see what others see in it. It's definitely an achievement, just not one I'm excited to revisit.

DP, I just don't think there's as much in common between the 3 films as you do. Dominik has one other film to his credit and certainly doesn't come from the "new school" of the 90's as the other two. Zodiac is obsessed with the obsession with evidence and information. Jesse James is a poem. There Will Be Blood goes over the top in a way that the other two don't.

So why group them together? Because they're long? Because they're from "visionary" directors? No, it's because they're the ones that YOU don't like, and I'm Not There is so close to what you're trying to argue against I don't know how you can't see the similarities.

But my main (and less name-calling) point wasn't that I feel you are being arrogant about this, but about how we all have a supposed masterpiece (or two, or three) that just doesn't hit us like it hits everyone else. And some of us say, okay, not for me. And maybe sometimes it's because something feels too self-indulgent. But I think it's disingenuous for you to dismiss these films as big "jerk-offs". You think the critics are sending a message to the studios by embracing runaway auteurs; what message are you sending from your lofty place of criticism? That artists shouldn't aim too high for fear of looking like they're taking themselves too seriously, or not seriously enough?

This is how we get true masterpieces, it seems to me. Not by our directors playing to their own strengths and delivering a easily-swallowed sorbet, but by shooting for the moon and ramming it down our throats, jagged edges and all. I can hear you saying the same thing about Apocalypse Now, for example, and if that's a jerk-off too, then I guess I'm happily bukkaked.

"I seek an answer for that. If you disagree with my answer, we have a discussion."

DP, with all due respect, when people see movies that they love written off with terms like 'onanism' it doesn't exactly come off like an invitation to a discussion soiree.

Across the Universe, Before the Devil Knows Your Dead, The Brave One, and I AM NOT THERE? Really? This is why I continue to read you seven years freakin in. You come up with some of the daffiest films to love (Before The Devil Knows Your Dead being one of the most contrieved films that I have ever seen). Seriously, I'M NOT THERE is a freakin mess of a film. It is a mess from beginning to end. Yet it's your best film of the year. You continue to be a trippy motherfucker Heat. A straight up trip of a human being and movie critic/reviewer/analyst/fan.

Laz... really... you can't see a connection? The only connection you can imagine is that I don't like the films? Really? Really?

Plenty of people that I know and that love all three can see exactly what I am suggesting. It's not some crazy reach.

And if you knew anything about me, you would know that I was not only on the pro-Apocolypse train early, but that I have supported most of Coppola's forays into pushing the envelope. And I really have nothing against the choice to make the films that these filmmakers have made... only a clear sense that they failed in enough ways to keep the films from being what some people feel they are.

We get masterpieces because masterpieces are made. Sometimes they are made by great artists aspiring to something insane (all three of these films were made with the very generous financial support of the studio system). Sometimes, they come from minimal ambition. Some are messes that just magically came together with hard work.

Haynes and Schnabel both took wild leaps and I hold their films in very high esteem. Tony Gilroy took real chances in his first film and I feel they paid off. Tony Kaye paid for his own movie, working on it for year after year. Julia Loktev is really a performance artist working in the form.

So... did you actually look at my list or were you just reacting to an opinion that smacked at yours in a way that stung?

I don't think Fincher or Anderson is incapable of making a true masterpiece. Quite the opposite. No one fought harder for Fight Club or Boogie Nights. I think both will make films that truly belong in the pantheon in time. But not this year. Dominick is still too new to really have any sense of where he is going.

This kind of discussion is exactly what drives me nuts... we disagree and suddenly you are screaming about how unsupportive of artists I am... because you are pissed... because I don't think you believe it. And if you do, you have wasted a lot of time in this blog, because you don't get me at all. My actions speak for themselves in this regard... loudly and clearly.

Let me add one more post after reading EOTW's statement. While they are all nice and poetic. I love Dylan. His music means a great deal to me. Yet... the man Robert Zimmerman... has a linear line through-out his life. A line that can be used to tell a story without different actours, without the Riddle country sequence (I do agree that if you know enough about Dylan. The Riddle County part of the film has all sorts of deeper meaning to it), and without the pointless skipping around.

Maybe Haynes felt he could tell a rather straight-forward story in a rather obscure way and pull it off. It seems that way, but he pulled off a large mess. How Poland can excuse Haynes and Co. self-indulgence. While casting aspersions on other directors for their artistic visions and the critics who supported them last year. Continues to be one of the reasons why you -- HEAT -- can be rather "OY WITH THE POODLES" sometimes. Seriously dude... do not hate on the blog. Hate on yourself :D! Would that be a form of onanism? Could be. Could be.

lazarus I see exactly where you are coming from here. I had a very similar reaction. Having seen Zodiac in theaters and again on DVD not too long ago, my wife and I both feel that it is the best film of 2007 (I have not seen Jesse James or There Will Be Blood yet). I can't understand why it is so difficult to believe that critics out there genuinely love Zodiac. It seems ridiculous to assert that so many people would praise a movie not because they love it but because they are trying to stick it to the studios. A few, OK, maybe, but so many?

Hey David, could you provide some links to your reviews or posts on Jesse James, There Will Be Blood, and I'm Not There? The list of reviews linked to from the MCN front page only has Zodiac, and I'm curious to read your thoughts on each in a bit more detail.

And if anyone here can provide links to some convincing, positive criticism of any of the above, I'd love that, too.

Dave, what people are reacting to is that - once again - you are stating your opinion as pure and simple 100% fact and that these hundreds of other critics and and moviegoers who have a different opinion on the movies in question are wrong.

Some people don't think I'm Not There and Michael Clayton are all that special, either. Doesn't make them wrong? Well, some like Zodiac, There Will Be Blood and Jesse James! Why is that so hard to fathom.

Stop thinking you're the one-stop-shop for critical views and maybe people wouldn't give you a hard time when you - effectively - say their/our opinions are wrong and yours are right and there aren't any ifs, buts or maybes about it.

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but Jesse James, Zodiac, and Blood are all sprawling, meandering epics from indie directors in a way that I'm Not There, well, isnt :-)

Beyond that I'm not exactly sure how to further consider them a trio of films, although strangely enough I can see DP's point of view here also. Perhaps they all have that same sort of lucid dreaming, "Terrence Malick" aesthetic that gives you a common feeling.

For me Jesse James was the strongest of the three (and the only one I loved unreservedly). TWBB was strong but I do see the third act as fairly flawed, and I wish the central conflict between Daniel and Eli was more pervasive throughout the film. Zodiac I can appreciate but, like DP, I just didn't get into it that much. Maybe the source material wasn't as intrinsically interesting for me as it was for other people? I just remember it being a rather cold film.

Then again, what do I know - My favorite film last year was the new Harmony Korine film... (Ratatouille was probably my 2nd favorite though)

Oh, thanks for giving some props to My Winnepeg and Black Book. The former in particular was a revelation for me - after mostly hating Guy Maddin's earlier efforts I was shocked to find this film one of my favorites at the Toronto Film Festival this year.

And putting Black Book within a stone's throw of the top ten list is an example of why I continue to read The Hot Button/Blog :-)

Kami, I don't think that's necessarily what DP is doing or what anyone on the web is doing. I think if you're taking on a point or a position that is not in line with many others, you have to defend that point and come up with reasoning behind it. Give the man credit for not just dismissing the films without giving us the specific reasons why.

I happen to love all three of the films that David didn't like, but it does make for a better discussion to look at the points that somebody makes and try to come up with an argument for why those points are incorrect. For me, I found I'm Not There to be much more of a jerk-off than any of those three films, but I don't begrudge anyone for loving that flick. None of us needs Dave's permission to love Zodiac or There Will Be Blood and it would be nice if we could all stop acting like sensitive spouses ("it's not what you said, it's the WAY you said it!").

Perhaps, some of us think that lumping those three movies together (do they really have anything at all in common outside of running time?) and calling it The Trilogy of Critical Onanism is not much of a starting point for a real discussion. It was sort of a defensive way to start things off and Poland tends to discuss the critical reactions, the budgets, etc. more than the actual movies themselves. His Jesse James review came across as a rant about the idea of the movie being made rather than its execution.

Personally, I didn't care much for I'm Not There, but I would offer something more than merely calling it a jerk-off. The movie revealed Haynes' problem of making cinematic term papers where emotion is trumped by analysis. As a Dylan fan, it actually distanced me from his music.

Can't agree much about Blanchett's performance which I felt was little more than hollow mimicry, much like her Hepburn imitation. She's done much better work than this. Certainly not the performance of the year when there have been a lot of terrific performances.

Man, if three of the best films of the year are guilty of onanism, I'd hate to see DP's "critical" view of CITIZEN KANE, WIZARD OF OZ, GODFATHER, APOCALYPSE NOW and hundreds of other films that go as big as they can, reaching for the highest stars possible. Ranking movies and judging them based on how other critics reacted to them seems totally, totally silly....but whatever.

I will say, I'm driving 2 hours in the rain today to see I'M NOT THERE because I haven't and in some freakish way, DP and I tend to agree on alot of the "smaller" films. Plus, I like the list overall. But excluding those 3 because other critics went nuts for them is the equivalent of like....when I was 6 becoming a huge hockey fan because no one else was. "Lookie me....I'm different!"

Dave, I know you're a supporter of artistic endeavor. I just feel your words this time, your message, is suspect. And you don't think that just as many critics felt Apocalypse Now went off the rails in the Brando section, much like you feel There Will Be Blood does?

Again, I'm just saying we each have our blind spots. Where are yours? Is there any widely-regarded "great" classic that you just don't like for whatever reason? Is it possible one, if not all of these three from 2007 are the same thing?

I don't, as some here are saying, think it's inherently wrong to believe in one's own opinion as "right" and others as "wrong." As was pointed out, everybody has a few so-called masterpieces of cinema that they hate, and some of us (myself included) are arrogant enough to believe that our minority opinions are the correct ones. That's not necessarily bad. After all, you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time.

What I find unpalatable is to go about defending one's own unpopular opinion by ascribing false motives to the opposition. If you want to say the majority is wrong, fine. If you want to support that attack by defending your own view, fine. If you want to respond to the claims of the majority opposition and pick them apart, fine. Persuasive arguments can be made this way, and great debate may ensue.

But don't commit the disrespect of arbitrarily ascribing alterior motives so as to dismiss them. Do you REALLY think critics who love Zodiac only love it because they have an agenda in saying so? If you think that, name names and provide quotes to prove it. As a generality, it sucks. I can't believe that the people who love it, or at least most of them, don't GENUINELY love it.

To presume otherwise, to ascribe an alterior motive, is to insult every last one of them by calling them dishonest and underhanded. To do so seemingly only to reinforce your own critical appraisal is just wrong.

I'm pretty sure I wrote about a variety of factors in this phenomenon.

Again, this is what is so surprising to me every time this comes up. No one but a moron thinks their opinion is the only opinion. I assume that people are smart enough to see that as a baseline for any conversation. If I thought my opinion was the only opinion, I wouldn't have an open forum for opinion... because what would be the point?

One of the things that always catches me is that real people - civilians - have opinions about films... they are almost always absolute... and they rarely seem to feel a need to rationalize them. If they like Zodiac, it's "great." If they hate it, it's "A piece of shit." And the details are an inconvenience. Deconstructing our relationships with films is an odd job. But you guys are a lot more sensitive about it than the professionals that I am seeking a clue about in this phenomonology.

The drama of "to ascribe an alterior motive, is to insult every last one of them by calling them dishonest and underhanded" - besides being an accusation of exactly that itself - is way too touchy for anyone who actually believes in what they think. But I will say this as an absolute, again... if you don't think there are waves that effect how groups think almost completely unconciously, you are just dead wrong. And to suggest that ANYONE is above it is absurd.

This reminds me of the screener ban thing, when some people went on about how it was insulting to them. It's fairly surreal when I have a guy with goggles watching me watch a movie that I was invited to watch when I am the only one or perhaps one of a half dozen in the room. But a personal insult? Please.

I call "bullshit" like this maybe 3 or 4 times a year and you guys get worked up like a bunch of virgins in a whorehouse. Scott Foundas is not the same as Manohla who is not the same as Todd McCarthy who is not the same as Michael Philips and on and on. Duh!

What I am still most interested in - other than whining about me - is the discussion of why these three films are such critical faves and such audience flops. And the answer ain't "critics are out of touch." And I don't much figure into the answer either.

Okay, but why did you restrict it to these three movies? I'm Not There is a critical favorite and an audience flop as well. Likewise with Once and 4 Weeks, 3 Months and Lake of Fire. Why not include them into the discussion as well?

I think your separation of the three films that you had problems with sets up the terms of the argument into something inherently skewed.

Dave-
You really, really don't know why those films are critical faves and audience flops? Seriously? C'mon, now you're just being coy.

All three films are close to 3 hours if not 3 hours, for starters. People simply cannot stand slow moving movies period plus the fact they might have to (*gasp*) sit there for 3 hours isn't going to drive them into theaters. Plus, they're all rated "R" which drives away tweens and kids. Plus, they're movies for adults and adults aren't the prime box office draw.

For two, (and I should note, I'm seeing TWBB tomorrow) there's no real closure or easy to swallow message in the other two which I've seen. I'm sure that holds true for TWBB as well. Again, not to be elitist, but go see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN with a crowd of regular folk and watch what happens to them at the end of the film. Rather than 200 youtube video reactions to "2 girls, 1 cup," someone should put infra-red cams in theaters and tape peoples reactions to the end of that movie.

Not only that, but There Will Be Blood hasn't even opened yet (in regular release)! Hard to gauge if its an audience flop or not....

"What I am still most interested in - other than whining about me - is the discussion of why these three films are such critical faves and such audience flops."

You've already determined There Will Be Blood flopped? I still don't know why I'm Not There is not part of this discussion since that flopped worse than any of these movies (despite a cast and subject matter that could have got the movie closer to 10 million rather than barely getting past 3 million) and certainly alienated audience members despite getting mostly great reviews.

It seems your issue is with the budgets of these three movies, but are not copping to that being the actual issue. Although Zodiac was the only one with a fairly large budget (granted I have limited info on the budgets of the other two).

You're saying this discussion isn't about you, but you're shaping it around three movies you personally felt were self-indulgent and were inferring they were irresponsible in their budgets. But, if you want a more objective discussion about the subject of critical favorites flopping with audiences, I don't know how you don't include I'm Not There. I loved Into The Wild, but it legitimately belongs in this discussion as well.

It is the exclusion of I'm Not There that bothers me the most, and it's my favorite of the year (so far). Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it receiving more negative reviews than Blood and Zodiac? Indulgence is indulgence. The difference is that I'm Not There is off the rails from the first moment of the film, but that shouldn't make it exempt from the same criticism DP is dishing out.

It's MY Top 10 list, Laz.

And you are correct... I'm Not There has absolutely NOT gotten the same kind of love that the other 3 have. And that is not my point at all.

We can discuss how indulgent I'm Not There may be... but it is not part of the other group in this year of these three films - all dry, all long, all visual feasts - getting so much love from such a specific group.

About half of the critics on our Top Ten chart who voted for Zodiac also voted for There Will Be Blood. To be fair, only about 2% of Tenners voted for all three.

P.S. I haven't suggested in any way that these three films are the most indulgent of the year. That is not my argument either.

I think thats why I like Jesse James so much more than the other two - I don't think its dry at all. Slow and contemplative, yes.

I wouldn't disagree that the other two are dry (Zodiac more so than TWBB)

Just had to give props to Petaluma for that idea about putting infrared cams in to film the reactions at the end of NCFOM. Funny stuff.

Much as I hate to agree with EW's Mark Harris, seems he had a throwaway comment in his column a few weeks back about the fervor you'll find in NCFOM and TWBB defenders. I guess we could add ZODIAC and AOJJ to that equation to. I know the issue here is Poland allegedly speaking for others with his supposedly minority opinion on these three films*, but at some point it just does seem that their fans are SO passionate about them, they'll throw down and get severely bent out of shape with anyone who disagrees.

I think Poland's pretty tame in this instance. He's rather explicitly and thoughtfully described his issues with all three films. I don't agree with him, but he's a far cry from an elitist circle like, say, Slant Magazine (Gonzalez, Schaeger, etc.) where all manner of bullshit, contrarian, and arbitrary opinions are bandied about, and delivered with an arrogance that presumes to speak for others, as if theirs was somehow a majority opinion.

Oh, and Poland's Indulgent Three are total sausage fests. They're tanking or will tank because women don't go to see long, brown movies with mostly male characters doing male things.

TWBB, in particular, has nothing that any woman, EVER, will enjoy.

LexG, I think your second post is totally off base. I watch movies that are primarily about women and I don't mind. In fact some of my favorite films have a lack of important male characters. So, why should it be any different for women? They can't enjoy There Will Be Blood because there aren't any women in the film? If they don't enjoy the film, I suspect it is for reasons other than "I can't see myself represented there." Do I have to be black to enjoy a Spike Lee film or be gay to enjoy Brokeback Mountain?

Women are picky. There Will Be Blood is brown, three hours, and is about oil drilling and buying land. Those issues are more estro-repellent than the actual lack of female characters.

My extremely unscietific polling of, well, every single woman I know, has led me to generalize that women aren't going to be very interested in this movie.

You, like me, are a movie fanatic, and will go see any- and everything. And while your two devil's advocate examples aren't really applicable to all the reasons I think TWBB is a male-appeal movie, I'll still indulge:

No, you needn't be African-American to see a Spike movie or gay to enjoy Brokeback Mountain, not at all, but on the flip side, how many testosterone-dripping "dudes" were floodin' the plexes for the latter? How many corn-fed Nebraska dorks were lining up for the last Madea movie? Did "The Queen" knock 'em dead in urban Detroit?

To cite a less extreme example, the awesome "American Gangster" has been a pretty decent-sized b.o. success, but on the niche/geek/DVD-based sites I sometimes peruse, I've seen very little discussion of it. Whereas the not-entirely-dissimilar "Departed" last year had all the nerds a-buzzin', discussing plot points and style and such. Could just be there's more Scorsese geeks in general, but Ridley's no slouch. So my grim, unfortunate, and depressing hypothesis would be that fewer white geeks rushed out to see pretty much the same movie when it featured a predominantly African-American cast.

My counter-hypothesis is that people simply recognized that American Gangster is far inferior to The Departed.

My counter point is that Jeff's counter point is pure and utter bullshit. However, he does make a good response to Heat above. Good on him for making a point. Nevertheless; Heat wants to frame this conversation. When no one sees this discussion in his framework. If you want to take out three films all at once Heat. Do not give props to a film that's as indulgent as the three you are bashing.

Actually, to respond in a more honest manner, I think LexG has a point: movie fanboy culture is relatively more 'white' it appears to me and probably not as into African-American movies relative to the general population.

That said, a movie directed by Ridley Scott and starring two huge movie stars is going to have a lot of fanboy appeal no matter what.

IOIOI: I really did think it was a thoroughly mediocre movie with no reason to exist. Sorry.

American Gangster is the Lexist movie to ever Lex...

I just wish I liked it a little more.

Based on his posts, I doubt that LexG is on speaking terms with many actual women.

I believe that's "HER posts", Rob.

All I can say is that about 5 female friends of mine have all expressed interest in seeing There Will Be Blood, mainly because they all love Daniel Day-Lewis to one degree or another. These aren't film geeks either.

Maybe I just know cooler chicks.

Also, without getting into another American Gangster argument, considering how ass-kicking and intense The Departed was by comparison, I can easily see the target demographic seeing AG and telling their friends it wasn't as good.

And it wasn't. Which is why it's not going to make even close to what The Departed did.

"How many corn-fed Nebraska dorks were lining up for the last Madea movie?"

Bite me. Just because we prefer a veggie that actually TASTES GOOD....

Seriously, though, we didn't even GET the Madea movies around here, so it's hard to guage how that would go. Most likely not too well because most conversations would probably go like this...

"They got Diary of a Mad Black Woman movie at the mall."
"Really? It looks like a non-funny version of The Nutty Professor. Damn, that was a funny movie...."

Much as it soothes my inflated ego to know that the ever-vanilla "lazarus" puts so much time into thinking about my posts and is such a superfan as to quote me on the weekly, I am a little curious as to where (s)he gets/got the impression that I'm female, or that my brilliant genius constitutes some sort of "put-on" shtick.

But whatever. Just keeping hanging on my every word like the 39 Steps, homes.

And I'm real happy that your five fat friends whip out the vibrator for a middle-aged British actor, but in the real world, no hot chick worth her salt would be lining up for 2 hours and 38 minutes of LAND NEGOTIATIONS. Hell, all my MALE friends, who are hardcore as fuck and live a life of AWESOMENESS, have ZERO interest in seeing TWBB. Even when I talk about how AWESOME it is and how PLAINVIEW is a GOD and a MODEL OF WHAT MALE BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE, because WINNING AT LIFE OWNS and most people are generic LOSERS who rely on weak-ass relationships instead of their own, PHIL ANSELMO-esque heavy metal INNER KING... they still don't give first fuck about LAND NEGOTIATIONS and SILVER MINING and OIL DRILLING.

He's not British, he's Irish.
And I think your last paragraph speaks pretty well for itself on the subject of 'put-on schtick'.

Get the bozack, McMahon.

All due respect. But I OWN.

To keepz it back on topic, any Top 10 without ROB ZOMBIE'S HALLOWEEN is seriously suspect. The second hour is a little generic once it starts remaking the original, but the firzt hour is FILMMAKING GENIUS.

ZOMBIE = BEST DIRECTOR OF '07.

DRAGULA, BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why aren't more people on this board METAAAAAAAAAAAAAL?

I bet Poland doesn't even own a single SLAYER or PANTERA album. GET METAL, all bitches.

LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR.

Embrace your testosterone, and be a MAN, be a GOD, not a BITCH.

OWN ALL.

MAN IS GOD.

Wow, I can't believe the Writer's Guild won't have you.

And your male friends sound as lame as your female ones.

Point of clarification, Joe: Corn is a grain not a vegetable. (That's Korn to LexG.)

I just saw THERE WILL BE BLOOD and man, you're soooo way off on this one DP. I also saw I'M NOT THERE last night and again, you're off. In my opinion anyway ;-)

It's truly like you got the 2 mixed up in terms of masturbatory. I just couldn't dig on INT but can't wait to watch it on DVD several hundred times. Perhaps having it as a screener has given you more of a chance to fall in love with it. I dunno....but I liked BLOOD way, way better than THERE.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: