comment #1

Josh Massey says ...

Alright, that last paragraph has stoked my interest in this film more than anything else has.

McWeeny really needs to ditch the AICN cesspool.

comment #2

lazarus says ...

Drew has always been a much better writer than he's been given credit for. But I disagree that he needs to ditch AICN, because he's the sober flipside to Harry's wild (and often contagious) enthusiasm. If even a tiny bit of his sophistication trickles down to the neanderthals that spoil the talkbacks for the members that want to seriously discuss films (and there are many true believers on that site), then it can't be a bad thing. I'm afraid to imagine what the site would be like without him (think the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey).

comment #3

Jack Price says ...

I couldn't think up a greater endorsement for a film than the "Bill the Butcher" comment. Can't wait to check this film out tonight.

Regarding the "AICN cesspool," yes, the site has its share of unpleasantries and moronicity, but don't write off Capone and Quint so soon. Drew is one of my favorite reviewers, print or online, but the other two help legitimize and bring a small amount of integrity to the otherwise unbridled geek smegma known at Aint it Cool News.

comment #4

DarthCorleone says ...

I enjoy Drew's writing, and I loved There Will Be Blood, but I think that last paragraph sets up false expectations. Daniel Plainview is not Bill The Butcher. Anyone going into There Will Be Blood expecting that character will be disappointed in my opinion. Bill is much more charismatic and entertaining in his villainy. He becomes larger than life. Plainview is no less interesting of a character, and he certainly is not much less of a dangerous person that you wouldn't want to cross, but charisma and entertainment are barely on the menu. If I were guaranteed to live to tell the tale, I'd be much more inclined to share a drink with Bill than with Plainview.

I suppose if you're couching it solely from the standpoint of an engrossing character study in the hands of the awesome Daniel Day-Lewis, than I can see the point.

comment #5

Legowombat says ...

McWeeny's an odd case. He can write a reasonable enough essay about a film to make you think he understands the craft, but having read three of his 'movie scripts' in all their misguided, hacktastic glory, I simply cannot take his opinion on any film seriously, ever again.

Ninja and gorillas, low rent Emperor Palpatines ripoffs, 'president of africa', 'money shots - like Independence Day but bigger', and people going CLINICALLY INSANE because their PC's don't boot up. Ed Wood has nothing on McWeeny / Swann. I sincerely want him to become a movie maker, because the movies will be cult classics.

comment #6

dangovich says ...

Well, being able to write ABOUT movies doesn't necessarily mean you know who to write movies.

comment #7

dangovich says ...

HOW to write movies.

Or in my case, communicate in English.

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

Hannibal Lecter? Travis Bickle? The entire cast of Deadwood? There's plenty of flawed and disturbing heroes. What about Kevin Spacey in American Beauty? Clint Eastwood in High Plains Dirfter rapes a woman without a care.

for most of us, the only thing we remember from Gangs of New York is Bill the Butcher. If you cut the film to just focus on him, you still have a feature length flick.

comment #9

Aladdin Sane says ...

Not to mention a much better Gangs of New York. I wonder what the film would look like if Leo's character was a true supporting role...and axe the love plot w/ Diaz.

comment #10

lazarus says ...

If you judged Roger Ebert's writing solely by Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, you'd probably think he has no taste either.

And wonder how he ever won a Pulitzer.

Also, some of us don't mind Leo and Diaz, and "original cut" notwithstanding, don't have a problem with Gangs as it is.

comment #11

erikwithak says ...

i think drews awesome, he's one of the only people on the net in general whose opinion is always at least worth consideration.

comment #12

Balthazar says ...

Revisionist filmmaking and re-editing. I love it!

Remake Star Wars episodes 4,5,6 to focus on the arc of Anakin/Vader

comment #13

actionman says ...

next Tuesday can't get here quick enough...gonna buy my Arclight tickets right now

comment #14

cjKennedy says ...

I've got to agree with DarthCorleone to a point. Daniel Plainview is really nothing much like Bill the Butcher. Bill is a force of nature, but Plainview is craftier and more charming and more civilized and more dangerous.

People going in expecting the Bill the Butcher show will be disappointed.

Having said that, the characterization is no less intense and Daniel Plainview is an extremely entertaining character. Yes, I'm saying it: I like Daniel Plainview. I'd have a milkshake with him any time.

comment #15

hiviper says ...

Bill the Butcher was great *because* you got small pieces of him (no pun intended). IMHO one wouldn't cherish the character as much if the whole move was based on him.

It was Scorceses's/DiCaprio's job to make the "good guy" as compelling, and apparently they failed at that.

comment #16

MilkMan says ...

What are you looking at?
Ain't it cool?
No, it's not cool. Quit hanging out with the kids who grew up in apartments. They were raised by single mothers. Everything they see gives them a hard-on. They have a hard time telling the difference between two totally separate things.
Daniel Day-Lewis is a ham. So is Daniel Plainview, who is only acting like he's knows what he's doing. The entire movie is one big bluff on his part. Chance and luck are just as important to his success as determination and ruthlessness. He is pre-modern, almost pre-industrial, or at least born to parents who were.
Bill the Butcher was a thug. Maybe it should've been Ray Winstone who played him instead of Daniel Day Lewis.
Paul Thomas Anderson is a fan of Mamet, Ricky Jay, P.T. Barnum. Con artists, magicians, showmen. This plays into what he writes just as much as his directorial influences.
Daniel Plainview is Anderson's Travis Bickle, a mythic character who gives face to an idea of a person who doesn't really exist, yet should.
Is it just me, or does it sound like some of the guys who write for ain't it cool are doing an impression of David Lee Roth when they write?