No problem! It may depend on your cable company – for Time Warner I know TCM is basic cable and IFC and Sundance are in a separate tier called the Movie Tier (along with the Encore set of stations and a couple of others). It costs like $5 more a month to add that tier to your package. It’s not pay-per-view, and it’s not pay-per-channel like the premium HBO/Showtime type channels. I figure $5 a month is one rental, so it’s totally worth it to get IFC and Sundance.

Again, the exact tiers and pricing may depend on which cable company you have, but it’s probably similar among the big ones.

I think Plainview works because of his physical presence and his relentlessness. He makes Charles Foster Kane seem like Santa Claus, and it’s very entertaining. Had they tried to make him more grounded in reality, the performance would have been horrible, which is what I originally thought was a problem with the movie, but when I watched it a second time I could much more easily buy into it. I think it was because I didn’t have people on all sides screaming at me that this was the best acting ever seen.

My issue with Tarantino’s choice of words is that it implies something praiseworthy when it isn’t, its more an awesome act of resilience, no more heroic than a cockroach could be said to be heroic.

My complaint with the film has always been that it gives us this potentially great character and puts virtually no obstacles in his way, no arc to explore, and thematically relies on such a naively explored relationship between the power struggle of modern capitalism and religion. With a killer score, a killer performance, a killer aesthetic it is surprising how hollow the whole film ultimately feels.

I am not saying there is only one and only one definition of a word (which was your position on ‘nihilism’), I am saying of the variety of ways to use the word ‘heroic’, Tarantino choose a pretty unfitting one to describe Plainview’s character.

I’m not saying there isn’t this media-tinged usage of the word ‘heroic’ to sell newspapers and make people rise up and cheer every time someone beats the odds of survival, I acknowledge that that exists. I just find applying that to this film, like with all such sensational uses of the word, overly dramatic.

the desert crawl shows a perseverance to his character, a will to move forward, a base animal drive to survive… it does not, as Tarantino argues, make me think “he is heroic, he should be admired” nor do I think PTA even plays it that way in the film, as he says, its all virtually offscreen.

any of us in a situation of near-death would move forward as much as our bodies would allow, its instinct.

Jandy: I don’t want this to sound like I’m a misogynist or something, but I understand why TWBB would be pretty hard to get into for women. Then again, you’re not missing that much, but I think it makes sense that women would not respond to it the way men do.

Not that I am arguing Plainview being a hero, because in my eyes, he was not, but that doesn’t mean that he committed no heroic deeds.

My strong campaigning is due to the fact that the campaign for the opposition was immensely strong, so I had to beef myself up to match them. It probably misrepresented my honest opinion. This happens a-lot.

TWBB was definitely over-hyped, and there were things I liked ABOUT it (the whole wordless opening sequence I loved and the cinematography was great), but as a whole, I didn’t like it. I’ll just watch Magnolia again, thanks.

Though he’s still the best director named Paul Anderson, so he’s got that.

I rewatched There Will Be Blood last week (inspired by Basterds) and liked it much more the 2nd time. First time I couldn’t get into DDL, but this time it went down much easier. I think masterpiece-hype ruins these films for me on first viewing in the moment, The Departed was the same. Recently re-watched it and liked it alot more.

There Will Be Blood, really good. DDL good in it. Not as good as Mickey Rourke.

And Rusty, OMG, I thought I was the only one who wasn’t wowed by There Will Be Blood. I really didn’t like it. Really.

But on a moment to moment or scene by scene basis, there is brilliance in there.

In my imagination, the original scorcese cut has none of the ‘what the hell happened to that character, or sub-plot or idea’ that seems to plague the current version of the film.

I also think the problems stem from the opening street fight as well. It really is one of the worst things Scorcese’s ever done.

So, I think “train wreak” is a little melodramatic. Furthermore, Danny Boy Lewis is much better in this than in There Will Be Blood which has gotta be one of the most overrated films ever. EVER.

Some people did see this cut and liked it a lot.

Criteron, please stand up and deliver!