But when he gets baptized he does his best to do as little as possible to acquire the land, and when that doesn’t work he finally drops his guard and openly shows actual emotion. Those three lines he speaks about his son are powerful, and as quickly as he says them he throws his walls back up and attempts to get the hell out of there as quickly as possible. It’s a rare moment of honesty and vulnerability from a man that detests such actions out of anyone else. I think that clearly demonstrates that Daniel is willing to do anything simply to succeed.

And every scene after that Daniel descends into a bitter vitriolic mess quicker then he could beg for the blood of Christ.

****HUGE SPOILER****
It isn’t a coincidence that the second person Daniel kills is out of pure glee compared to the first, which was the result of Daniel being betrayed. The first occurred before the baptism, while the second was well after. Before the baptism Daniel had some semblence of self-control, while after he cared about no one but himself.

that sucks about the subtitles, glad you figured it out though, I was prepared to not go buy the DVD because of that. Lame.

Having a hard time finding the difference between the two DVDs online. I’ll take a look when I get to Best Buy one of these days.

potential spoiler** HERE**

**just a description of a scene from THERE WILL BE BLOOD**

I don’t know Matt. You think he’s definitely seeling his soul there? It seems to me he’s just doing what must be done in order to get the land. I thinkhe’s trying to placate the people in the church and the way in which he does it is humorous – I’m not wrong on the humorous account. I wasn’t the only one chuckling (Colin Covert).

However, it seems that as the scene wears on, he does sort of get into it and start feeling “the power.” That’s what makes the scene confounding. Is he sincere or is he just going with the flow. It’s one of the better scenes in the film, but for me, “powerful” isn’t the word I would use to describe it.

someone fucked up.

whats the difference betwen the single disc and special edition? is the SE longer? I was really pissed watching the DVD at times, theres is no ‘official’ subtitled track that matches what would have been with the theatrical version, its a completely DVD-centric for the hard of hearing subtitle track that includes anytime anyone coughs, puts up music notes for the soundtrack, throws up IN ENGLISH: and IN FRENCH: for when people are switching between languages. parts like with Buscemi shouldnt be watched with subtitles.. basically, i was flipping around with the DVD remote turning the subtitles on and off throughout watching it. sucks.

I thought the baptism scene was not all that powerful… more like confounding with a touch of humor (“gimme the water lord – I’m ready for the cleansing”) – the way he says it is pretty funny. My theater was chuckling anyway.

Pretty much loved the rest of – Nolte one was great, the Binoche one was powerful as hell, Portman and deaf guy, the nany singing songs to the baby – I even liked the old couple meeting in the bar. This is a must own for me, just haven’t gotten around to it yet. – I want the special edition.

This movie was similar to ONCE for me. Just so full of heart and charisma and beauty. Why anyone wouldn’t like this baffles me.

I just watched it, and really really enjoyed it. I think Alexander Payne and the Coen’s segments were my faves, and the Mime Ass one was up there too.

The only one I didn’t care for at all was the one with Willem Dafoe – it was awful random pretentious, instead of awesome random pretentious like that bizarre hairdresser part…

But yeah, seriously, the Payne segment alone bumped the movie up for me from a 4 star to a 4.5 or 5 star, and it would maybe now be in my top 10. I felt like I was watching my mom on vacation in a strange land, it was one of the cutest things I’ve ever seen.

On a site that says the same or worse about Chris Tucker, Peter Jackson, and whoever else they feel like.

Doug gets it, he thinks that site should be anything goes, just as the way they talk on the show. However he doesnt make the rules – its one standard out of one persons mouth, and one standard for everyone else.

Kurt, that’s an interesting observation.

well, I’m not. What is and isn’t allowed on that site is a joke, and their ability to delete is frequently abused.

I was talking about her post in general and the ire it stirred. I feel kind of bad about it in retrospect. Especially after she apologized for her obliviousness. I’m glad Rodney deleted my post. I’m not quite sure why her comment was deleted but it may be for the best.

Kurt – you put my FAVOURITE film of 2007 as your number 1 film and Andrew – you put the BEST film of 2007 as your number 1. Spooky!:P

“Killer of Sheep” is a fantastic film but one that I must admit I don’t think I could ever watch again. I’ve picked it up on more than one occasion on DVD, contemplating a purchase, but I know I’ll never see it again. It’s certainly a piece of film history and now that I’ve seen it, I can see similarities in a number of other films and with other film makers (particularly Portugal’s Pedro Costa who has been making films – and essentially an entire career – in this vein for years) but I can’t bring myself to watch this one again, at least not any time soon. That said, if the price was right, I’d be up for adding it to the collection solely as a loner piece. I think it’s well deserving of its spot in American film history and well worth at least one viewing.

1) Kurt – you must catch up on 12:08 East of Bucharest. I actually brought it up on another thread yesterday (something to do with replacement movies). It’s absolutely hysterical and now available on DVD.

2) Bug was fantastic. Happy to see it on both of your secondary lists (it also made mine).

Bugger. I got sidetracked and now can’t remember the rest. It’ll come to me.

FYI – favorite and best are two different things.