More Daniel Day Lewis Trashing- Page 3

[James885]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 10:26am

Well Bettyboy it's very interesting that you mention that as there's a very similar situation with Cate Blanchett, who is nominated for her role in the film Elizabeth: The Golden Age, which was severely trashed by the critics.

Updated On: 2/21/08 at 10:26 AM

[broadway86]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 10:37am

Well Bettyboy it's very interesting that you mention that as there's a very similar situation

I wouldn't call that similar in the least. Elizabeth got mostly mediocre reviews. The vast majority of critics and audiences apparantly loved Blood, calling it a future classic, and such.

Cate Blanchett, who is nominated for her role in the film Elizabeth: The Golden Age

As decent as she was, I STILL can't believe that happened. Especially over Amy Adams, Nicole Kidman, Tang Wei, Helena Bonham Carter, Angelina Jolie, and other superior performances.

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 10:45am

I was very disappointed Amy didn't make the cut--and surprised Von Sydow didn't get in either.

But I'M NOT THERE's reviews were pretty mixed as well--but most critics lauded Cate's performance.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 11:49am

To be perfectly honest, I don't really read or trust critics. I sometimes think they all are full of self doubt and read what other people they respect write, mirrror it and it all just trickles downhill.

I trust my friends and many of the posters on here (who are all cinema-philes and theatre-philes in their own right)more than most critics. The critics can hail TWBB, but I have yet to come across someone I have talked to who didn't think it was somewhat boring and could appreciate it maybe once, but would never imagine in a million years sitting through it again.

I think classics are films that are easily enjoyed over and over.

[broadway86]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 11:53am

and surprised Von Sydow didn't get in either.

I'm even more shocked that his performance didn't get any awards traction at all.

I think classics are films that are easily enjoyed over and over.

Agreed, which is why I think Blood will become one. I liked it more the second time, and even MORE the third time.

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 11:55am

Well, betty, I'm no expert, but i'd def sit through it again. I think I would almost need to in order to catch all the things I missed the first time.

The critics are also looking at things like point of view, technical filmmaking, story structure and thematic elements that don't have ALOT to do with the enjoyment of a film--like CITIZEN KANE. I can watch it many times, but not on a level with something like REAR WINDOW or FARGO.

Many of them went to film school and have been trained to "look" for certain qualities and craftsmanship that doesn't figure into entertainment value.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 12:04pm

B86 and lildog, I agree with you both completely. I sometimes, however, feel that all that education sometimes puts a wedge between the critic and the actual audiences. Sometimes too much knowledge is a dangerous thing. I also hate condescending remarks, whereas someone schooled in the history or technical aspects of film or theatre will infer that someone is "too dumb" to have appreciated something if they didnt like it. Those kind of arguments hold little weight with me.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 12:39pm

"I have yet to come across someone I have talked to who didn't think it was somewhat boring and could appreciate it maybe once, but would never imagine in a million years sitting through it again."

Well, I've seen the film three times so far. And I've enjoyed every second.

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 12:44pm

You're right on with that, betty. Many critics are already against something with popular appeal thinking that if regular people like it, there must be something wrong with it.

BUT critics do see EVERYTHING that's released. And the more you see, the less you like.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 3:25pm

I loved the movie and I loved Day-Lewis in it. I didn't think his performance was anything above or beyond what the screenplay offered. How did people expect the character to act, speak, or behave? Some believe his performance to be over-the-top, but there's no mention of the director. Obviously, the director wanted exactly that style of performance from Day-Lewis. I thought his performance was completely appropriate to the setting and true to the character. I have seen many affected self-aware performances, especially in period pieces, but I didn't feel that way about Day-Lewis.

Now, William Hurt, on the other hand...can that man speak one sentence without twisting it with slow deliberate counter-inflection? Every film, every character.

The critics can hail TWBB, but I have yet to come across someone I have talked to who didn't think it was somewhat boring and could appreciate it maybe once, but would never imagine in a million years sitting through it again.

Talk to my parents. As much as I enjoyed the film, they were positively gushing. They couldn't stop talking about it, and my mother didn't even want to go see the damn thing in the first place. They plan to buy the DVD.

My fave this year is still No Country For Old Men. Many people called it boring as well. Such is the world. No film pleases everyone. There's no mystery in that.

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 3:33pm

I went in with two strikes against it as well, Mister--and I became a convert. I hope PT does a great job with the DVD, like he did with BOOGIE NIGHTS.