SINS OF OMISSION - Entry #2: Hard Eight (1996)

Running Time: 102 minutes
Directed By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Written By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Main Cast: Philip Baker Hall, John C. Reilly, Gwyneth Paltrow, Samuel L. Jackson
Click here to view the trailer

WHAT IS A "SIN OF OMISSION"?

As noted many times in the recent past here at the "1001 Movies I (Apparently) Must See Before I Die" blog, in the next 12 - 18 months the ultimate goal of this blog will transform from 'one man's journey to watch all 1001 movies in the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book' to 'one man's journey to create his own, personal canon of 1,000 favorite films and show "those 1001 people" just how it's done! Sins of Omission will become a regular feature on the blog where I'll take one film that WAS NOT included in any incarnation of the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book and DOES NOT appear on the next list of 1000 films that I plan to tackle, give it a formal review and make it a permanent part of my list, which is entitled: 1000 Films You REALLY Should See Before You Die: A Personal, Ongoing Canon of My 1,000 Favorite FIlms.

PTA'S FIRST AND BEST

Surprise, surprise, the prodigal movie review returns with the second entry in the "Sins of Omission" feature. This feature was originally intended to be a monthly feature, but after debuting with "Shaun of the Dead" (back in October), I kind of crapped out. However, the new year seems to have hit me with the urge to catch up on some old favorites, so expect a lot of these in the coming weeks.

Yes, in my opinion "Hard Eight" is Paul Thomas Anderson's best work, maybe because it's his simplest. The story picks up when we find John (Reilly) sitting outside a little diner, broke and down on his luck. The first words we hear are of those of Sydney (Hall), who offers to buy John a cup of coffee and give him a cigarette. Sydney is an aging, classy, wise, world weary man and John is a simple minded, somewhat dumb guy who is in desperate need of $6000, so he can bury his recently deceased mother. Sydney, telling John right away that he doesn't have $6000 to give him, instead offers him 50 bucks and a ride back to Vegas (where John has just come from losing all of his dough), where he plans to show John how to win back some of his losses. Back in Vegas, Sydney shows John a little trick on how to scam the casino out of a few dollars, but warns him from the get go that he surely won't make enough to bury his mother. John follows Syd's advice and ends up winning about $2000. Later, up in their hotel room, Syd promises to make a phone call to a friend and "work something out" in regards to John's mother. We flash forward two years and Sydney is now a father figure to John, being followed around by John as if he were a little, lost puppy. At a bar, within a casino, Sydney meets Clementine (Paltrow), another girl who Syd thinks could use a helping hand. She's a cocktail waitress at the bar and part-time prostitute and Sydney wants to gussy her up a little bit and take her under his wing (nothing sexual, mind you). John, who is already acquainted with Clementine, takes even more of a liking to her after Syd introduces her to their fold. However, that's just the setup and things take a dangerous turn when Clementine is stiffed by a "john".

I saw this film some time ago, probably after seeing "Boogie Nights", "Magnolia" and "Punch Drunk Love" and needing to find that elusive first feature from PTA, because there was a brief time when I was a big fan of his. I'm still a fan, however I've soured on both "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia", but still find "Hard Eight" to be the true gem of PTA's filmography. It's probably the one seen the fewest by the general public and being the man's first film, we have a very wide eyed and bushy tailed director, ready to show us what he's made of, before being tainted by fame and growing a large head. That's not a knock on the director himself, just an observation and an unavoidable process for anyone in the spotlight. I have nothing against PTA's newer works, as I gave "There Will Be Blood" a TOP 20 spot last year and have yet to see "The Master".

SPOILER ALERT!

Anyway, this for me is the one that I always get the most enjoyment out of. I think my enjoyment begins and ends with Philip Baker Hall and his portrayal of a complicated, closed book of a man, Sydney. I like the atmosphere, which again almost seems to revolve around the mood and demeanor of the main character. If all you know of Philip Baker Hall is that one Seinfeld episode or the more popular PTA films, where he has smaller roles, then please do yourself a favor, watch "Hard Eight" and really meet an actor who's bound to impress you. What is it about the Sydney character that keeps me wondering though? Why do I want so much to know more about this guy? I'm not sure. Why is he so nice? Of course, of course because he actually killed John's father, which we learn near the end, but to tell the truth, I never liked the revelation. I always liked to pretend one of the following: 1) Sydney misses his own two children (also a boy and a girl) and sort of recruits John and Clementine to take their place. He notes that his real daughter is about Clem's age and that his son is a few years older, which John could be few years older than Clem, meaning he's picked two candidates that are even the appropriate ages. I guess this explanation could still be and hey, maybe that's even why he killed John's father, so that he could (sort of) adopt his son. or 2) Sydney just likes making new friends, people that will do him favors when need be. He mentions to John that his intentions are unselfish and that all he wants in return is to know that John will do the same for him someday. He also talks about a "friend" in L.A., whom he calls to help John with funeral arrangements for his mom. Maybe Syd just likes knowing that help is only ever a phone call away. When you have money and friends, you have power.

Anywhoo, that's about that. I know when I first saw "Hard Eight" it was this hard to find, little hole in the wall picture. I'm not sure if it's still that or if it's gained more of a mainstream acceptance, considering it's the debut feature for a director who would go on to become a powerhouse in Hollywood, someone who always generates a buzz with the announcement of a new film. If it is still hard to find, then it's worth the hunt, although I'm sure places like Netflix and OnDemand have it at your fingertips. I think people who usually end up siding with my opinion are going to find that they love it and even people who disagree with me normally, may find that the top notch acting of both Hall and Reilly and the engaging story, characters and atmosphere are enough to side with me this once.

RATING: 8.5/10  It's not a full blown '10', but it's a solid, steady '8.5' and it holds up every single time I watch it, which has probably been a dozen times now.

January 8, 2014  12:59am

Read More

1000. There Will Be Blood (2007)

Running Time: 158 minutes
Directed By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Written By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Main Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier, Kevin J. O'Connor, Ciaran Hinds
Click here to view the trailer

BLACK GOLD

Earlier today, before watching "There Will Be Blood", I started to watch "Lincoln" (2012 - Steven Spielberg) and at about the one hour mark, decided I'd had enough and skipped out on it (more on that at the end of the month, in the monthly recap). Oddly enough, "There Will Be Blood" was another Day-Lewis picture that, upon my initial viewing, many years ago, I also skipped out on. With that being said, I was quite surprised with my final opinion after tonight's viewing.

Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) is an oil man. When the picture begins, we get about a twenty-minute piece that could be compared to the opening of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and his dawn of man sequence, as we watch Daniel go from discovering oil shale, to actually striking crude oil. We then skip ahead a few years and watch as Daniel goes from poor prospector to very successful oil tycoon, buying up land all over the West and establishing drill sites. His son, H.W. (Freasier) is his partner and Daniel uses this to his advantage, citing that he and his operation are a down to earth, family business. One day, Daniel is approached by Paul Sunday, who tells him that on his family's land, there is oil that seeps up out of the ground. Daniel is skeptical, but pays Paul $500 for the exact location of the his family's farm and goes to check it out. What he finds is a gold mine and goes to Abel Sunday, the family patriarch and offers to buy the land. However, Eli Sunday (Dano), Paul's twin brother, holds out for more money than Daniel agreed on with Paul, as he wants it to fund a local church. Eventually the deal is sealed and Daniel starts drilling, with seeds of bitterness planted between Eli and Daniel. Later, an accident at the drill site causes H.W. to be injured and lose his hearing, prompting Daniel to send his son away to San Francisco where he can be specially taught.

So, I think the first question that has to be answered is why did I give up on "There Will Be Blood" so many years ago? Well, we'll chalk it up to not in the mood at the time of the initial viewing and leave it at that. Honestly, that has to be it, because I was gripped by this picture from the get-go. The opening scenes, totally void of all dialogue, only served to have me give this picture my full investment, as I wanted to know more about this man, after I was finished observing his actions. This man, as I put it, is Daniel Plainview and he is played to PERFECTION by Daniel Day-Lewis. Honestly, I feel kind of silly for saying that, because literally everyone who sees "There Will Be Blood" comes out of it, whether they liked or disliked it, citing that, at the very least, Daniel-Day Lewis was excellent. Well, it's true and that's that. Acting rarely gets much better than this, as you obviously have an actor who is committed to transforming himself, committed to becoming this greedy, world hating oil man. Day-Lewis manages to accomplish a tricky feat and that's creating a character that is intimidating. Rarely do you watch a film and are literally intimidated by one of the characters, but Plainview brings about that feeling. And hey, big applause to Paul Dano, who not only hangs with Day-Lewis but hangs well, standing right alongside one of the most brilliant actors of our time and getting in his jabs as well.

SPOILER ALERT!!

So what's it all about? I honestly thought there would be something more to "There Will Be Blood", some big revelation at the end of the picture or something that wrapped everything up neatly. That "something" never came and what we're left with is a picture that simply explores different themes and never really wraps anything up, neatly or otherwise. Anderson's use of music (eerie, would best describe it) and religious overtones, only served to keep my suspicions peeked - suspicions that something else was coming, but again I reiterate, that the "something" never came. So instead of having a story driven picture - one that goes from Point A to Point B - you have a movie that explores themes; more specifically greed and the greed of this particular generation. At this time, you had greedy men coming out of the woodwork, I'm sure. Not only was there oil ripe for the drilling, but, as we see in the movie, greed in the form of a false prophet, a conjurer of cheap tricks, if I may borrow a phase from Gandalf. At first, I personally was on the side of Daniel. At first it seemed as though we were dealing with a pretty straight-forward fellow (as intimidating as he may have been). He wanted to take care of his son, a son whose mother died in child birth and he wanted to capitalize on the times and the resource that was spewing from the ground. We, of course, are meant to see Eli as the villain, as we are given to assume throughout the entire movie that his motives are not genuine and that he's really just as greedy as Daniel, and even worse, because I viewed Daniel's greed as more motivated (he had a son to care for). Oh well, I'm going down a path here, with no possible exit, so I'll just let my jibber-jabber speak for itself.

And what about the revelation that H.W. was not Daniel's son? Was that true or was that Daniel trying to hurt H.W. for leaving him and possibly even trying to hurt him for going deaf. I got the feeling that Daniel resented H.W. for getting hurt, because he didn't have his normal son anymore and was forced to care more diligently for H.W. - something he didn't want to be bothered with. If Daniel was telling the truth, then it's obvious that Daniel DID, at one time, love H.W. as a son. It's obvious during his reaction when he gets hurt, his reactions when someone else speaks ill of him and even when they're riding the train together, when H.W. is a baby, at the beginning of the film - that look they share. I found their relationship to be just as fascinating a part of the film, as any other themes or ideas that were explored.

All in all, I'd call this one a big win and something that I could really grow to love and something that COULD end up rivaling "Le Trou" for that #1 spot. Right now, I'm still chewing it over, but I'm really enjoying what the taste that my buds are soaking up. Oh and for you Kubrick nuts, this film seems to reek of Kubrickian inspiration. Not only those opening scenes, but also the bowling alley scene and even the way the picture just seems to end out nowhere. Isn't there a Kubrick picture that does that - just ends very abruptly? Is it "Clockwork"? I can't remember...

RATING: 8.5/10  Big thumbs up from this guy and I needed it. After wavering heavily on "Shoah" and despising "1900", it's nice to see a couple of hours of the last seventeen (of movie watching) be fruitful. However, for the people who say this should've been the Best Picture of 2007...sorry, "No Country for Old Men" is still better.

MOVIES WATCHED: 652
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 349

April 8, 2013  1:35am

Read More

920. Boogie Nights (1997)

Running Time: 155 minutes
Directed By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Written By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Main Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Burt Reynolds, Julianne Moore, Heather Graham, John C. Reilly
Click here to view the trailer

"JACK SAYS YOU'VE GOT A GREAT BIG..."

After watching "Safe" the other day, I needed just a little bit more of Julianne Moore, so I turned to P.T. Anderson's break-out film, "Boogie Nights", starring not only Moore, but a host of other very talented actors...and Mark Wahlberg.

The plot is, I guess, loosely based on the life of popular adult film star John Holmes and tells the story of Eddie Adams a.k.a. Dirk Diggler (Wahlberg). When the film opens, Adams is working as a dishwasher in a nightclub cicra 1970s and is approached by adult film director Jack Horner (Reynolds). Adams has built a reputation for himself around town for being very well endowed and through the grapevine Jack hears about it, picturing dollar signs and envisioning his next BIG star. It doesn't take much from Jack to convince Eddie to enter the world of pornography and Dirk Diggler is born. Jack's vision is to turn adult films into real films, where people not only come for the joy of self pleasure, but also can't help but stick around for the story. Along with Dirk, adult film actress Amber Waves (Moore), actor Reed Rothchild (Reilly), Jack and crew see their vision through, making tons of money for anyone involved in their productions. The film shows the rise and fall of Dirk Diggler and follows various other characters, as the we segue from the 70s into the 80s and as the porn industry transitions to videotape, rather than film.

SPOILER ALERT!

My opinions on "Boogie Nights" have changed since the last time I saw it, which was a shock to me because I really had this one pegged for a heavy rating getter. "Boogie Nights", to me, was the cinematic equivalent to a child with ADHD. The film was just way too busy for me and despite it's two and a half hour running time, it seemed to be too rushed. Take the soundtrack for instance, which consists of over two dozen popular hits from the 70s and 80s and rarely lets up from beginning to end. We go from one song to the next, with Anderson keeping the film vibrant, which wasn't necessarily a good thing. There were also a few scenes that didn't feel needed. For instance, as much as I loved it, the whole scene with Alfred Molina just felt tacked on as a way to draw parallels between Molina's character and the real life Eddie Nash. There were also, perhaps, too many characters, which took too much focus away from the main characters at times. You've got the main story of Dirk Diggler's rise and fall, Amber Waves and her custody battle, Buck and his dream of opening a stereo store, Little Bill and his promiscuous wife, Scotty and his crush on Dirk, Floyd Gondolli and his pressuring of Jack to switch to video, plus you have Heather Graham and John C. Reilly running around on the side, participating in any plot line where they're needed. I like P.T. Anderson, I really do, but he seems to have this problem where he thinks he's the greatest filmmaker that ever lived. This production was just so trumped up that it came off like a house with too many Christmas lights. You had the huge cast, the constant music, the tracking shots, the underwater shots, the montages and so much more that it looked like Anderson was desperately trying to polish a turd...and guess what, he succeeded on some levels.

"Boogie Nights" isn't bad, by any means. If you want to spend two and a half hours watching a movie, this is a good way to do it. The cast, for the most part, turn in great performances and really this is a who's who of a new wave of actors that would be a force to be reckoned with in the 21st century. You've got Don Cheadle, Philip Seymour Hoffman, John C. Reilly, William H. Macy, Julianne Moore, Alfred Molina, Heather Graham and Mark Wahlberg, all of whom started to take off in the mid-90s and are still prevalent actors today. Add to that Burt Reynolds, Phillip Baker Hall and a few others and you've got one hell of a cast.

What was the real message of "Boogie Nights" though? We can examine the character of Eddie Adams and watch him go from this innocent, seventeen year old kid, wide eyed and bushy tailed about his future, sure that someway, somehow he'll be a "bright, shining star" and watch him fall, being eaten up by a corrupt world. But is it a corrupt world or is it just a world where a life of drug use and pornography is easy to get sucked into? At the end of the film we watch Jack go around his house and greet the various members of his makeshift family. He's the patriarch and like Philip Baker Hall in "Hard Eight", he's the one who took these people (Dirk, Reed and Rollergirl) off the street and gave them something and now looks upon them as if they were his children, with Amber playing the part of the mother. There doesn't seem to be anything corrupt at all about that, in fact, it's a very sweet moment and a fine way to end this sometimes sleazy film.

RATING: 6.5/10  Lets call it a '6.5' for now, but I'll definitely reconsider my thoughts and we'll see what happens come RECAP time. By the way, speaking of "Hard Eight", that's a movie that definitely should've been included in THE BOOK, not to mention "Punch Drunk Love".

MOVIES WATCHED: 525
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH:  476

September 14, 2012  3:49pm

Read More