"CAPTAIN BLOOD" (1935) Photo Gallery

Here is a gallery featuring photos from the 1935 swashbuckler classic - "CAPTAIN BLOOD". Directed by Michael Curtiz, it featured Errol Flynn's first starring role and his first movie with famous co-star, Olivia DeHavilland: 


"CAPTAIN BLOOD" (1935) Photo Gallery

"BAND OF BROTHERS" (2001) - Episode Five “Crossroads” Commentary

"BAND OF BROTHERS" (2001) - Episode Five “Crossroads” Commentary

The last episode, ”Replacements” saw Easy Company reeling from the Allies’ disastrous defeat during the Operation Market Garden campaign in Holland. Directed by Tom Hanks, this latest episode depicted Richard Winters’ last combat engagement as the company’s commander, Operation Pegasus, and the company’s departure for Belguim as they prepare to participate in the Bastogne campaign. 

At the beginning of the aptly named ”Crossroads”; Winters, now the executive officer of the 2nd Battalion of 506th regiment, recounts his last combat mission as commander of Easy Company in a report for regimental headquarters that took place at a crossroads, near a dike in Holland. In the aftermath of the battle, Winters is informed that he has been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel Strayer’s executive officer, leaving Easy without a commander. However, a new man - Frederick Theodore "Moose" Heyliger – becomes Easy’s new commander and leads them in Operation Pegasus, a military mission to escort a large number of British paratroopers trapped behind enemy lines, following the failure of Market Garden. Unfortunately, about a week later, Lieutenant Heyliger is seriously wounded by an American sentry and Easy ends up with a new commander named Norman Dike. Unlike Winters and Heyliger, Easy Company has no respect for their new leader and nicknames him ”Foxhole Norman”.

Not long after Dike becomes Easy’s new commander, a reluctant Winters is ordered to spend a few days of furlough in Paris. During his furlough, Winters is haunted by a moment when he killed a teenaged German soldier during the crossroads battle. Not long after his return to the regiment, the 101st Airborne learns about the German counterattack near Bastogne and is sent to Belgium to repel it. The episode ends with Easy company marching into the Belgian forest in the middle of the night, with minimum supplies and inadequate clothing.

I have always liked ”Crossroads” . . . despite itself. I cannot put my finger on it. Perhaps my feelings about the episode have to do with how Hanks directed the battle fought at the crossroads. He injected a great deal of style into that very moment that featured Winters leading a charge against S.S. troops at the crossroads. I also enjoyed Damian Lewis’ performance during the Paris furlough scenes and Neal McDonough as the slightly stressed out "Buck" Compton, who has returned from the hospital. And I enjoyed the sequence featuring the interaction of some of the company’s men, while watching a Marlene Dietrich film. However, my favorite sequence featured Easy Company’s brief journey to another crossroad – one near the town of Bastogne, Belgium. Screenwriter Erik Jendresen certainly did his best to ensure that the episode’s title adhere to its theme. A good deal seemed to be at a crossroads in this episode - including the location of a Dutch dike, where Winters led Easy Company into combat for the last time; and the crossroads near Bastogne, where the company was sent to halt the German counterattack. Winters’ Army career was at a crossroads, as he went from company commander to battalion executive officer. And Easy Company endured a crisis of leadership following Winters’ promotion to battalion.

Yet, despite my positive feelings for ”Crossroads”, I cannot deny that it was one of the miniseries’ weaker episodes. For such a short episode, so much had occurred. Winters led Easy Company into combat for the last time. The company participated in Operations Pegasus. It lost “Moose” Heyliger as its commander after he was accidentally shot and gained Norman Dike as the new commander – a man for whom no one seemed to have much respect. This episode should have been longer than 50 minutes. More importantly, watching both ”Replacements” and ”Crossroads” made me realize that Spielberg and Hanks had limited the company’s experiences in Holland to two engagements. The miniseries could have explored a lot more, judging from what I have read in Stephen Ambrose’s book.

It seemed a pity that Spielberg and Hanks failed to take the opportunity to explore more of Easy Company’s Holland experiences. Instead, the second half of this episode focused on Winters’ furlough in Paris and the company’s preparations for the Belgium campaign. And because of this ”Crossroads” seemed unfulfilled . . . and lacking. But it did provide an excellent performance from Damian Lewis as Richard Winters. And it featured a first-rate combat sequence and some personal interactions between the men that I found interesting. It was not a complete waste of time.

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (1940) Review

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (1940) Review

There have been at least eight adaptations of "Pride and Prejudice", Jane Austen's 1813 novel. But as far as I know, only four are well known or constantly mentioned by many of the novelist's present-day fans. And one of the four happens to be the movie adapted in 1940 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. 

Directed by Robert Z. Leonard, "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" told the story of the five unmarried daughters of a 19th century English landowner and the efforts of his shrill wife to get them married before his estate is inherited by a distant male cousin. For years, this version of Austen's novel has been highly regarded by fans and critics alike. But ever since the advent of numerous Austen adaptations in the past 15 to 20 years, these same critics and fans have been incredibly harsh toward this Hollywood classic. Many have complained that the movie failed to be a faithful adaptation of the 1813 novel.

Many of the complaints volleyed by recent Austen fans include:

*The movie's fashions and setting changed to the late 1820s and early 1830s
*The deletion of Elizabeth Bennet's trip to Derbyshire and Pemberly
*Mr. Darcy's slightly less haughty manner
*Instead of a ball, Charles Bingley held a fête for the Hertfordshire neighborhood
*The change in Lady Catherine de Bourgh's reason for visiting Longbourn

The 1940 movie was the first version of Austen's novel I had ever seen. Since then, I have become a major fan of some of the adaptations that followed - including the 1980 miniseries, the 1995 miniseries and the 2005 movie. So, when I had decided to watch this version again, I wondered if my high regard of the film would remain. Needless to say, it has.

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" had a running time of 117 minutes. To expect it to be a completely faithful adaptation of the novel seemed ridiculous to me. If I must be frank, I have NEVER SEEN a completely faithful adaptation. But I can say this about the 1940 movie, it remains as delightfully entertaining as ever.

However, the movie is not without its faults. And I was able to spot a few. One, I found Laurence Olivier's portrayal of the haughty Fitzwilliam Darcy as not quite so haughty . . . especially in his pursuit of Elizabeth Bennet during the Netherfield Fête. The time span between Elizabeth's departure from the Collins household in Kent and Darcy's arrival in Hertfordshire, to announce his knowledge of Lydia Bennet and George Wickham's elopement seemed ridiculously short. Since the movie was nearly two hours long, it could have spared a scene in which Colonel Fitzwilliam had revealed Mr. Darcy's part in Charles Bingley's departure from Hertfordshire. Instead, we are given a scene in which Elizabeth angrily conveyed the colonel's revelation to her friend, Charlotte Lucas. And speaking of Charlotte, I was rather disappointed by her portrayal. It made Gerald Oliver Smith's (Colonel Fitzwilliam) appearance in the movie rather irrelevant. I found nothing wrong with Karen Morely's performance. But screenwriters Aldous Huxley, Helen Jerome and Jane Muffin failed to do justice to Charlotte's character or her friendship with Elizabeth.

Despite these disappointments, I managed to enjoy "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" as much as ever. A good deal of Austen's words and wit remained in the screenplay. And the screenwriters also added some of their own memorable lines that left me laughing aloud. After my recent viewing of the movie, I believe this "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" is one of the funniest Austen adaptations I have ever seen. Director Robert Z. Leonard has been nominated for a Best Director Academy Award at least twice in his career - for 1930's "THE DIVORCEE" and 1936's "THE GREAT ZIEGFIELD". It seems a pity that he was never nominated for "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE", because I believe that he did an excellent job of injecting a great deal of atmosphere, humor and zest into the film. And his pacing of the film is top-notch. Not once did I ever have the inclination to fall asleep, while watching it.

While many Austen fans were busy bemoaning that the movie was not completely faithful to the novel, I was too busy enjoying it. And if I must be brutally honest, there was one major change to Austen's story that really impressed me. At the Netherfield Fête, Elizabeth began to show signs of warming up to Mr. Darcy, following her demonstration of her prowess as an archer. But when he noticed the less pleasant sides of the Bennet family, Mr. Darcy withdrew himself from Elizabeth, deepening her dislike toward him even further. This was a creation of the screenwriters and to my surprise, I ended up enjoying it.

As I had hinted earlier, I found it to be one of the funniest adaptations I have ever seen. There were so many scenes that either had me laughing on the floor or smirking (with delight). Some of them included the Bennet family's introduction to Mr. Collins, poor Mary Bennet's attempt to entertain the guests at the Netherfield Fête, Mrs. Bennet and Lady Lucas' race to reach their respective homes in order to order their husbands to call upon Charles Bingley, Elizabeth's first meeting with George Wickham at the Meryton Assembly, and Caroline Bingley's attempt to express interest in Mr. Darcy's letter to his sister Georgiana. But the few scenes that I consider my personal favorites were the interaction between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy during a game of archery, Mr. Collins' marriage proposal to Elizabeth and the dinner sequence at Rosings with the verbose Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

I tried to find a performance that seemed out of step for me. The only one that left me feeling less than satisfied came from Karen Morely, who portrayed Charlotte Lucas. Her Charlotte seemed to fade into the background, in compare to the other characters. I suspect that the problem had more to do with Huxley, Jerome and Muffin's screenplay than the actress' performance. But everyone else seemed to be at the top of their game. Both Ann Rutherford and Heather Angel were outrageously silly as the younger Bennet sisters. Marsha Hunt was hilarious as the Bennet family's wallflower, Mary. Bruce Lester was charming as the extroverted Charles Bingley. He also made a strong screen chemistry with Maureen O'Sullivan, who was equally charming as the eldest Bennet sibling, Jane. Frieda Inescort was both convincingly cool and sometimes rather funny as the imperious and ambitious Caroline Bingley. Edward Ashley Cooper gave what I believe to be the second best portrayal of the roguish George Wickham. He was charming, smooth and insidious. And Edmund Gwenn gave a subtle, yet witty performance as the quietly sarcastic Mr. Bennet.

However, there were five performances that really impressed me. One came from Melville Cooper, who had me laughing so hard, thanks to his hilarious portrayed the obsequious William Collins, Mr. Bennet's annoying heir presumptive for the Longbourn estate. Equally funny was the unforgettable character actress, Edna May Oliver as Mr. Darcy's overbearing aunt, Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Her role as an English aristocrat seemed so convincing that I was amazed to discover that she was an American from Massachusetts. Mary Boland gave a superb and entertaining performance as the equally overbearing and gauche Mrs. Bennet. In fact, I have to say that her portrayal of Mrs. Bennet is my absolute favorite. My God . . . that voice! She really knew how to put it to good use. Fresh from his success in 1939's "WUTHERING HEIGHTS", Laurence Olivier tackled the role of Fitzwilliam Darcy, regarded as the favorite Austen hero by many fans. Personally, I thought he did an excellent job, although his Darcy never struck me as haughty as the other interpretations I have seen. From what I have heard, he was not that fond of the picture or his role. I was also amazed that he had such a strong screen chemistry with his leading lady, considering that he thought she was wrong for the part. Olivier had this to say in his autobiography:

"I was very unhappy with the picture. It was difficult to make Darcy into anything more than an unattractive-looking prig, and darling Greer seemed to me all wrong as Elizabeth."

I thought it was nice of Olivier to call Greer Garson "darling". But I do not think I can take his comments about her performance that seriously . . . especially since he wanted Vivien Leigh - his paramour at the time and soon-to-be future wife to portray Elizabeth. Personally, I am glad that Garson ended up portraying Elizabeth. I thought she was superb. Garson had a deliciously sly wit that she put to good use in her performance . . . more so than any other actress I have seen in this role. Some have commented that in her mid-thirties, she was too old to portray Elizabeth. Perhaps. But Garson did such an excellent job of conveying Elizabeth's immaturities - especially when it came to passing judgment on Mr. Darcy that I never gave her age any thought. All I can say is that she was brilliant and I heartily disagree with Olivier.

Many fans have commented upon Adrian's costume designs for "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE". They seemed to have taken umbrage that he designed the costumes from the late Georgian Era - namely the late 1820s or early 1830s, claiming that Austen's story should have been set during the Regency Era. However, Austen first wrote the novel in the late 1790s. And she did not change it that much before it was finally published in 1813. There was no law that "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" had to be set in the 1810s - especially when one considers there was a version set in early 21st century India. Personally, I found Adrian's costumes beautiful, even if they were filmed in black-and-white. And since "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" was not a historical drama, I simply do not understand the fuss.

After reading so many negative comments about "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" in recent years, I wondered how I react to watching it again after so many years. To my surprise, I discovered that I still love it. Even after so many years. I admit that it is not perfect. But neither are the other versions I have seen. The magic of Greer Garson, Laurence Olivier and director Robert Z. Leonard still holds up after so many years.

"THE HOLLOW" (2004) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE HOLLOW", the 2004 adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1946 novel.  The movie starred David Suchet as Hercule Poirot:


"THE HOLLOW" (2004) Photo Gallery

"CHARMED" RETROSPECT: (2.14) "Pardon My Past"

"CHARMED" RETROSPECT: (2.14) "Pardon My Past"

(2.14) "Pardon My Past" is an episode from Season Two of the TV series, "CHARMED" (1998-2006). In it, one of the Charmed Ones – Phoebe Halliwell - is haunted by a spirit from her past life. The past life turned out to be one P. Russell, a first cousin of the Halliwell sisters' great-grandmother. 

To find out why she is being haunted by P. Russell’s spirit, Phoebe visited 1924 and discovered that P. Russell was a pyrokinetic witch who had been romanced by a warlock named Anton. While in the past, Phoebe also acquired a glimpse into the past lives of her older sisters – Prue and Piper. She discovers that they were former relatives of P. Russell that were out to destroy her and all the latter's future lives before any of them can become completely evil. Prue and Piper must then stop their past lives' curse in the present before Phoebe falls victim to it and dies. 

Did this episode sound confusing? I thought it did. "Pardon My Past" was the second episode, following Season One's(1.17) "That 70s Episode" that revealed a bit of the Charmed Ones' family past history. And like many of these type of episodes . . . it had a lot of flaws. Let us take a look at them, shall we?

Flaws in "Pardon My Past"

*Ownership of the Manor – In this episode, it was revealed that the parents of the sisters’ grandmother – Penelope Johnson Halliwell – were living in the manor in 1924. Yet, according to the Season One episode, (1.15) "Is There a Woogy in the House?", the Halliwells (which happened to be Penny Halliwell's in-laws) had purchased the manor following the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906.

*The Ages of Phoebe Halliwell and P. Russell - While perusing the Warren family tree, Phoebe had this to say about her past life:

"I think that this one is me. (She points to P. Russell) She died February 17th, 1924. The same age I am also." 

How was this possible? According to the family tree, P. Russell was born on July 1894 and died on February 17, 1924. She was 29 years old when her cousins killed her. The episode "Pardon My Past" occurred between February 16-18, 1924; and February 16-18, 2000. Phoebe was born on November 2, 1975; making her 24 years old at the time of the story, not 29 years old.


*Past Life for Leo Wyatt? - According to Phoebe, she had spotted the past life of the Charmed Ones' whitelighter, Leo Wyatt, in 1924; and was P. Baxter’s (Past Piper) lover. I am curious. How was this possible? The series has claimed that Leo was born in May 1924. But again, this is not possible. According to the Season One episode, (1.21) "Love Hurts", Leo had been a medical student when he joined the Army in 1942:

"No. World War II. I left med school and enlisted as a medic. I wanted to help save people not shoot them. The last thing I remember, I was bandaging a soldier's head wound and I felt a sharp pain and the next thing I know I was floating surrounded by White Lighters."

If Leo had been in medical school at the time when the U.S. entered World War II in December 1941, he should have at least older than 22 years old when he joined the Army. Which means that he should have already been alive at the time of P. Russell’s death in 1924.


*Phoebe’s Theory - How did Phoebe get the idea that she was going to die within a day, because of her encounter with her past spirit? From the moment she had encountered P. Russell’s spirit on the very anniversary that the latter was killed, Phoebe made this assumption:

"So, it doesn’t mean that I’m going to die today too, right?"

Even before she found out about the curse placed on P. Russell’s future selves, Phoebe came to the conclusion that she was doomed to die:

"Phoebe: Not much time. By midnight, I’ll be dead again.
Piper: By midnight? How do you know that?
Phoebe: Midnight, a full moon, what’s the difference? It’s always one or the other, right? I know I won’t make it to February 18th unless…
Leo: You go back to the past again and find some answers."

How on earth did she come to this conclusion without knowing the facts? Or was this another example of the Halliwells producing theories out from their respective asses?


*Phoebe’s Ability - Phoebe had asked Leo why she did not have a power like P. Russell’s – pyrokinesis. This is what Leo had told her:

"Well, if you screw up your regrets. Your past self must have abused the power. That's why it was taken away from you."

What the hell? How did Leo come to this conclusion? Although Past Piper (P. Baxter)’s ability, slow down others, was a variation of Piper’s ability; Past Prue (P. Bowen)’s ability turned out to be cyrokinesis (freezing ability), which had nothing to do with Prue’s abilities of telekinesis or astral projection. Nor did P. Russell’s ability (pyrokinesis) have anything to do with Phoebe’s ability of precognition. And why is Phoebe’s precognition ability considered a REGRESSION of P. Russell’s fire ability? Phoebe is a seer. She has the ability to summon information on the past, the present and the future through visions. Information is power. Both of her parents have told Phoebe that many magic practitioners would kill to be a seer. Apparently, Phoebe never believed them. Even the Source did not want Phoebe’s precognition ability . . . despite the fact that he had depended upon two seers. Which only told me that even intelligent individuals like Phoebe and the Source can be incredibly stupid.


*The Warlock – Anton - So, Anton(who was P. Russell’s lover) was supposed to be a warlock? How is that possible? It is quite apparent that Anton had never aged during the 76 years between 1924 and 2000. It was established in the series' first episode, (1.01) "Something Wicca Comes This Way" that warlocks were merely witches who had gone bad:

"A bad witch or a warlock . . ."

Despite what Leo has claimed, witches ARE mortals. If Piper could die from a bullet wound in an alternate timeline, then witches are mortals. And if witches are mortals, then warlocks should also be mortals. Which means that either Anton should have aged, used magic to prevent aging, or he was something other than a warlock. Also . . . the sisters and Leo have declared many times that evil cannot love. Yet, Anton was in love with P. Russell and had remained in love with her for a long time.


*Phoebe’s Warning in the Book of Shadows - Apparently, all of Phoebe's future lives are doomed to die in their early 20's unless they can somehow stop P. Bowen and P. Baxter’s curse from affecting them. They end up saving present Phoebe by putting the necklace on her, but the rest of her future lives are still doomed to die in their early 20's. Thus, Phoebe wrote a warning in the Book of Shadows to warn her future selves about this. What if Phoebe’s future selves do not end up as a member of the Warren family line? Had anyone stopped to think of this?


*Gordon Johnson’s Piano Talent . . . or Lack Of - Greg Vaughn, who portrayed the Charmed Ones’ great-grandfather, Gordon Johnson, was shown playing the piano in 1924. Unfortunately, it appeared that Vaughn lacked the talent to fake playing the piano. One can easily see that his fingers do not even reach the keys.


*The Confusing Warren Family Tree - This episode marked the only appearance of the Warren family (which began with Charlotte and Melinda Warren) tree. I came across some interesting entries that seem contradictory:

-Grams' age: According to the family tree, Penelope Johnson (the sisters’ grandmother) was born in 1937. She gave birth to her only daughter, Patricia Halliwell, in 1950. Are we really expected to believe that Grams gave birth to Patty at the age of 13? I rather doubt it. The family tree also stated that Grams had died on March 3, 1968. Gee, the creator of the family got the date of Grams' death wrong by 30 years and six months.

-Piper’s birth year: According to the family tree, Piper was born in August 1973. Yet, in one Season One episode, Piper had identified herself as a Gemini. Also, in another Season One episode, (1.03) "Thank You For Not Morphing",the Charmed Ones' father Victor Halliwell (later renamed Victor Bennett) made it apparent that she was three years older than Phoebe, who was born in 1975. The Season Three episode (3.09) "Coyote Piper" supported Victor’s words with its revelation that Piper had graduated from Baker High in 1990, making her birth date of 1972 very plausible. And I doubt that young Piper was less than two years old in "That 70s Episode".

-The name of the Charmed Ones’ grandfather: According to the family tree, the name of the sisters’ maternal grandfather happened to be Jack Halliwell. Yet in the Season Six episode, (6.11) "Witchstock", he was renamed Allen. All I can say is . . . what happened to Jack?


I wish I could say that "Pardon My Past"’s glimpse into the Warren family line was interesting. But it was filled with so many inconsistencies that I cannot help but harbor a little contempt for screenwriter Michael Gleason, who had penned this episode; and for Constance Burge who produced it in the first place.

"THERE WILL BE BLOOD" (2007) Review

"THERE WILL BE BLOOD" (2007) Review

I really do not know what to say about Paul Thomas Anderson’s 2007 movie, "THERE WILL BE BLOOD". This movie, based upon Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel "Oil!", is about a ruthless oilman in California between 1898 and 1927. I cannot deny that this is basically an excellent film and that Daniel Day-Lewis gave one of the best performances of career. I cannot also deny that "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" was basically well written, produced and directed by Anderson. I enjoyed it very much and consider it to be one of the better films released in 2007 But for some reason, I cannot muster any real passion for it. 

I must admit that there were times that I found the movie fascinating. One has to thank leading Daniel Day-Lewis’ riveting performance maintaining my interest. He portrayed the ruthless Daniel Plainview, a hard-working silver prospector who discovered an oil well, while prospecting for silver. On the very day he discovers his first oil well, one of his employees die in an accident and Plainview adopts the dead man’s infant son. By 1911, he is one of the most successful oil men in California. In order to convince many farmers and other small landowners to drill on their land, he uses his adoptive son, whom he names H.W. (Dillon Freasier), as his "partner" to project his status as a family man and a family businessman. Plainview is approached by a young man named Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) who sells Plainview an oil lead located on his family's property in Little Boston, California. Plainview and H.W. travel to Little Boston, and, pretending to be hunting quail, scout out the Sunday property and discover a good amount of seepage oil. Plainview attempts to buy the property without notifying Paul's father Abel (David Willis) of the oil, but Paul's twin brother, Eli (again Paul Dano), knows of the oil and raises the price to $10,000, the bulk of which he intends to put into the founding of his own Church. Plainview pays him $5000 up front and promises the other $5000 as a donation to the church. In order to ensure the monopoly on the Little Boston oil, Plainview buys the "ranches" of a number of the surrounding neighbors, with the exception of one property, which the owner, a Mr. Bandy (Hans Howes), was hesitant to sell.

As I had earlier stated, the heart and soul of "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" for me was Daniel Day-Lewis. His Daniel Plainview has to be one of the most fascinating characters in movie history. Certainly not in literary history, since Plainview was a character created for the screen by Anderson. I really do not know how to describe him. He seemed to be the epitome of those ruthless tycoons of the late 19th century and early 20th century. He is certainly not typical. Utilizing a John Huston accent, Day-Lewis captured all of the malevolence , cunning and emotional perversity of Plainview, as he draws the audience into the character’s unchecked greed for wealth and power. The ironic thing is that Plainview does not seem to care for the trappings of wealth. One example of this is his habit of sleeping on the floor, even when a comfortable bed is available. And even in that exclusive mansion he has built by the end of the film, he sleeps on the floor inside the mansion’s bowling alley. But the money and power, he definitely needs. And he needs an audience to witness his financial triumphs, judging how he had temporarily abandoned H.W. when the latter first lost his hearing in an accident and how he took under his wings, a man claiming to be a long lost brother named Henry Brands (Kevin J. O’Connor). Day-Lewis won both a Golden Globe and an Academy Award for his performance. Quite frankly, I was not surprised. It would have been a travesty if someone else had won.

It is a shame that the Golden Globes and the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Science could not acknowledge Paul Dano for his performances as the twin brothers – Paul and Eli Sunday, and Dillon Freasier as the young H.W. Plainview. Dano, who had first impressed critics with his supporting role in 2006's "LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE", had studied evangelism for his role as the Sunday twins. The Paul Sunday character made a brief appearance near the beginning of the story, but Dano’s performance as the other twin Eli really impressed me. Dano’s performance revealed the malevolence and greed for wealth and power behind Eli’s meek and religious demeanor – traits that seemed to match Plainview’s. Anderson could not find a child actor to portray Plainview’s adoptive son, H.W., so he had hired the son of a Texas state trooper who had pulled over the movie’s casting agent for speeding. Like Dakota Blue Richards in "THE GOLDEN COMPASS", Dillon Freasier turned out to be find. Especially for Anderson and the movie. With very few words, the young actor managed to convey all of his character’s array of emotions experienced in the film – from his intelligence and warmth, to his suspicions and resentment of Plainview’s relationship with Henry Brands.

Most of "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" seemed to be set during 1911. Sinclair’s novel seemed to be a condemnation of the oil industry itself and a response to the infamous Teapot Dome Scandal during the Warren G. Harding administration. Anderson does condemn the oil industry in California, especially in his revelation of how many small landowners were cheated out of millions of dollars through the manipulations of oil companies and tycoons. But for me, "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" seemed more like a character study than an expose on a major industry. But I must admit that it is a first-class movie and probably one of the better ones of 2007. Anderson paced the movie very well, making one ALMOST forget that this movie is fifteen minutes short of three hours. With actors like Day-Lewis, Dano, Freasier, Ciarán Hinds and Kevin J. O’Connor, Anderson managed to make the most of a first-class cast. Well, almost. Freasier gave a memorable performance as Day-Lewis' "son". Both Dano and O'Connor benefited from some choice scenes provided by Anderson. Unfortunately for Hinds, he seemed wasted in this film. In fact, my only memories are of him hanging around Day-Lewis' character, while the latter acted his ass off. I cannot say the same for Did it deserved its Academy Award nominations? Of course. But as excellent as the movie is . . . as first-rate as Day-Lewis’ performance was, it did not exactly rock my boat. Aside from Hinds' role in the movie, I have a few other problems.


As I had stated earlier, "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" seemed more like a character study, instead of an expose. And because of that, perhaps it could have been at least a half hour shorter. But when I said that Anderson had almost made me forget that this movie was nearly three hours long, I was serious. He ALMOST made me forget about the film’s running time. Until the story shifted to 1927. Frankly, I do not see why Anderson had even bothered. Following the time shift, the movie lost its epic scope. Even Plainview’s personality seemed to have lost some of its steam . . . until his last encounter with Eli Sunday. Speaking of those two, I believe that the make-up artist Kim Ayers may have done both Day-Lewis and Dano a bit of a disservice. Despite the fifteen to sixteen year difference between the two time shifts, I never really got the impression that either Plainview or Sunday had aged at all. There was barely a strand of gray in Day-Lewis’ hair and Dano still looked like a young man in his early twenties, despite the fact that Eli Sunday must have been at least in his mid-to-late thirties during this period. But the one thing I truly disliked about the film was its abrupt ending. One can say that the movie ended with the final confrontation between the two adversaries. But there is this feeling in my gut that Anderson had ended the movie in the middle of the story’s finale. He probably had a reason for ending it in this manner. Whatever reason he had, it has eluded me.

Despite the few quibbles I have with "THERE WILL BE BLOOD", I must admit that it is overall, an excellent film. It may not have rocked my boat, but I did find it fascinating. I also believe that it fully deserved the accolades and nominations that it had received, especially Daniel Day-Lewis' Academy and Golden Globe awards for Best Actor. And if you can deal with a two hour and forty-five minute character study, then I suggest that you watch the movie.