(There’s a lot of misinterpretation going on simply because I joshed Tom O’Neil for going so over-the-top in his review and pointed toward odd but telling discrepancies in Jeffrey Wells’ take. So, I’m going to be measured here…)

I love Tim Burton. He has built a 22-year career on pure visual seduction. He has been pegged – usually by way of criticism – as a virtuoso of style above substance, but I have always found much to admire in his expressionist portrayals.

“Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” presented a certain opportunity. On the surface, many felt the marriage of Burton to Stephen Sondheim was a match made in heaven. More to the point, however, the chance for the director to plumb thematic depths such as this hadn’t been more apparent since his masterpiece, “Edward Scissorhands,” 17 years ago.

But before I talk about what didn’t work for me in this, the final big unveiling of the 2007 Oscar season, allow me to knock out the positive assessments first. They are considerable.

1) The design elements are perhaps some of the most accomplished of Burton’s portfolio.

That is saying something indeed. I would say only “Sleepy Hollow” comes close, a veritable orgasm of visual splendor no matter your opinion of the film.

Dante Ferretti’s production design captures the pungency of London less whimsically than we might have expected from frequent Burton collaborator, Rick Heinrichs. Colleen Atwood’s costumes are exquisite and varied. Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography makes every scene look like a painting come to life. The makeup effects lend a certain cartoon-ish quality to the blood that works better than I might have expected, and the bright red contrast against the monochrome is sheer morbid delight.

2) Johnny Depp is wonderfully subdued...

… if hindered by a lack of scope upon the character’s translation to the screen – but more on that in a moment.

Depp inhabits this film like a classic movie monster, and “Sweeney” announces louder than ever that this is one of our biggest stars. What’s more, while Depp sings well enough to be acceptable, he also manages to actually act while crooning, better than most performers we’ve seen. That’s no small feat.

I don’t think this performance is quite on par with some of the actor's prior offerings, however. I would count his work in “Ed Wood,” “Edward Scissorhands,” “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” and “The Libertine” as more accomplished. But Johnny Depp on a so-so day beats any number of actors on their best day.

3) Burton handles many of the musical numbers with outright artistic brilliance.

The best examples would have to be Depp’s “My Friends” duet with Helena Bonham Carter and Carter’s “By the Sea” sequence, which is hilarious in its cinematic vision. I’m on guard in musicals, and many of the numbers don’t work well in “Sweeney” (to my taste), but these two especially showed the director inching toward a certain greatness that made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck.

Also, the “By the Sea” number is the one that will win Dante Ferretti his second Oscar, and, perhaps, Colleen Atwood.

4) Borat steals the show.

In just two scenes that speak volumes to his charisma, Sacha Baron Cohen (who I haven’t seen singled out yet) pulls the rug out from underneath any actor within earshot. Burton’s decision to cast the “Borat” star in the pivotal role of Adolfo Pirelli was incredibly inspired, but moreover, it gives us another glimpse of Cohen as a screen persona to be reckoned with.

Now, I admit there are elements working against my liking this film going in. At the top of that list is the fact that sing-through musicals rarely work for me on the big screen. Speaking strictly in recent terms, Baz Luhrmann (“Moulin Rouge!”) and Bill Condon (“Chicago” – not so much with “Dreamgirls”) have proven that the genre can be a cinematic breed with cinematic ideals, so I’m not of the mind that it can’t be done. But my problems with “Sweeney Todd” do not so much involve genre specifics (though Helena Bonham Carter is a terrible singer). They do, however, lie in the basic desire for dramatic range.

Major Sondheim fans will fall in love all over again. When that organ booms across the Dreamworks logo, they will be lost in paradise for the next two hours. But much as I hate criticizing a film for what it isn’t, rather than what it is, I couldn’t help but wonder why some creative bridge wasn’t employed to draw the audience into Todd, rather than keeping them at arm’s length with a simple translation from stage to screen, minus this or that.

In reacting to the film earlier today, Jeffrey Wells said the story contains “a tragic, grand guignol metaphor about how we're all caught up with some issue of the past – needing on some level to pay the world back for the hurt and the woundings.” He hit the nail on the head as it pertains to what the film could have been.

Personally, I couldn’t shake the notion that Todd was a one-dimensional rendering, a character I couldn’t have cared less about due to a lack of connectivity. When tragedy befalls the man, the intended effect of sorrow didn’t wash over me. It could have been Shakespearean. It works on the stage, because the stage is a breeding ground for broad strokes – but film is a more intimate art form and, ultimately, these grand thematic ideas Wells mentions didn’t have room to grow.

But I am certainly no hater. I don’t want to pan the effort, and, actually, I want to see it a few more times. I still feel the movie on my skin today, you see. It is a marinade of flavor that can’t be ignored or even disregarded. I still, more than ever, think Burton is one of the screen’s greatest living commodities. He clearly had a blast working with this material, and in many ways I’d say “Sweeney Todd” might be the most “Tim Burton” Tim Burton film to date. But I nevertheless think it resides on the lower rung of his work. It might work for you, it will, I’m sure, work for many (and has) – but it doesn’t work for me.

I realize that the nature of my blogging -- lifestyle, shall we say -- this year has made it difficult to offer the same amount of full length reviews I have in years past. As a result, a few titles have slipped through the cracks and I haven't allowed some sort of space to give my thoughts on a number of the year's offerings. So I thought I'd offer up a few brief opinions to those films before plowing ahead into December.

"Atonement" (***1/2)
Strange that I've gone the whole season and not mentioned an opinion on the perceived Oscar frontrunner, despite having screened it twice and liking it very much. "Atonement" is a much smaller film than it's being depicted as, but it is very tight and a huge step up for Joe Wright, who already had fans in the wake of 2005's "Pride & Prejudice." His work here deserves every awards mention it receives, but high marks have to go to performers James McAvoy and Romola Garai, not to mention textured, beautiful cinematography from Seamus Mcgarvey and a Dario Marianelli score that raises the bar for the trade.

"Enchanted" (***)
I was with "Enchanted" until a rather creatively vacant third act took the film down the tubes. Everything leading up to that moment, however, was sheer delight as Bill Kelly's fresh screenplay was a cheeky and at times outright hilarious take on Disney's run-of-the-mill princess tales. And, of course, Amy Adams' star-making turn deserves all the praise it has received.

"Lars and the Real Girl (**)
I didn't go for this flick the way a lot of the movie-going community did. There was something incomplete about the tale and the tone, something unassured in the filmmaking, I couldn't put my finger on it. Ryan Gosling's performance is a diamond in the rough here, but I feel as though the rather intriguing Nancy Oliver story would have been better served by another, more creatively interesting director.

"Margot at the Wedding" (1/2*)
One of the worst films of the year. And beware of anyone who tells you "I know people like that." No one knows people like that.

"Persepolis" (***1/2)
Easily one of the year's best, I thank the movie gods year in and year out for films like "Persepolis." Kudos to France for entering this animated gem as their foreign film contender. Marjane Satrapi's poignant adaptation of her own graphic novel should be required viewing for anyone ignorant enough to paint an entire culture with the broad brush of prejudice.

Film editing is a craft that I often feel is not properly understood by the movie-going public. Many people seem to think the job is much more limited in scope than it actually is, and, indeed, fail to define it as the art form that it is. Rather, a film editor is responsible for a film’s coherence, pacing and mood, among other aspects. And in many ways, the less you notice a film’s editing, the more accomplished it may be.

Even so, the Academy tends to award showy editing, with action films, musicals and non-linear narratives tending to be major players every year. Early this decade, it appeared as though the category was incredibly tied to the Best Picture race, with match-ups of at least 3/5, usually 4/5 and, in 2002, 5/5 occurring. The last two years, however, have showed a match-up of 2/5. Perhaps we’re moving away from this?

I think it deserves main page attention, but Emily Blunt might be the sexiest actress on the screen this year.

Sure, I thought she was hot in that bitchy sort of way in last year's wretched "The Devil Wears Prada," but this year, in "Dan in Real Life" and, most especially, "Charlie Wilson's War" -- I've just never seen a girl set the screen on fire like that.

Alright, moving on to other matters...

A chart update. Finally.

Well, the absence of "Charlie Wilson's War" from all but two charts this week should give some indication as to my perception of its Oscar chances. I'm inclined to call it "Primary Colors"-lite, but regardless, at 97 minutes and feeling somewhat abridged, it's kind of turned out to be the race's ugly duckling. It's our own fault for elevating expectations, but Universal still has a very tight, easily marketable feature for the holiday season. "Hey, Merry Christmas. Remember when we fucked up in Afghanistan?? Haha." Etc.

Paramount Vantage is getting better Academy screening results for "The Kite Runner" than for "Into the Wild," which could be tricky territory for the studio to navigate. There has been no clear-cut decision from the studio to trumpet loudest for one and only one of it's trio of primed hopefuls. Some might hope for three berths, but the possibility is all too apparent for none.

"No Country for Old Men" is still an issue of discussion for those willing to discuss it, but I'm beginning to think the power of "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" might be enough for Miramax to overcome the foreign factor with voters. It doesn't hurt having Max von Sydow weeping on screen and breaking hearts as a result.

The Cate Blanchett rumor-mill was shot down by Tom O'Neil initially yesterday, though others made calls (who didn't?). So no use bringing up the supporting vs. lead brou-ha-ha.

I'll let the charts speak. "Sweeney" comes Thursday, after which all cats are out of the bag.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

The Contenders (by category)
2007 Films-by-Studio Rundown
Oscar Predictions Archive

Previous Oscar Columns:
11/12/07 - "11/5 Chart Update"
11/05/07 - "11/5 Chart Update"
10/29/07 - "10/29 Chart Update"
10/15/07 - "The Oil Man vs. the Demon Barber?"
10/08/07 - "Clean-up on Aisle September"
10/01/07 - "Still Anybody's Game"
09/17/07 - "Post-Toronto Update"
09/10/07 - "Notes from the Eye of a Storm"
09/03/07 - "Launching the New Season"
08/03/07 - "August Update"
07/01/07 - "The Silence is Deafening"
02/26/07 - "Forging Ahead: In Contention's Year in Advance Oscar Speculation"

2006 Predictions Archive

I had to make Buzzmeter choices today for tomorrow's rankings, and as a result those will be all over the place following a weekend of transition in the Oscar race. I decided to hold off on updating the Oscar charts until late tonight or tomorrow morning due to this evening's screening of "Charlie Wilson's War," which could answer a lot of the race's questions. We'll see soon enough.

More to come...

A question comes up from a friend every time I’m watching the Oscars: “What’s the difference between the two sound awards?” Well, when I was speaking to Randy Thom a few weeks ago, he used an interesting analogy: The sound mixer is to the cinematographer as the sound editor is to the production designer.

Like a production designer, a sound editor must come up with the dressing of a film’s soundscape. Thousands of potential noises and audible effects are created to fit the needs of the script. These are generated from numerous original sources, just like a production designer needs to find props and sets to suit the film’s visual look.

The sound mixer, working more in tandem with the director, will ultimately decide what is to go in the film’s soundtrack, combining not only the work of the sound editor but also the dialogue, music and other non-artificial audio elements, just as a cinematographer works with the director to decide what to actually shoot, combining the sets and props from the art department, adding lighting, camera positioning and, of course, the actors to the frame.

It’s a lengthy explanation, though you might just as easily consider a sound effect any sound manufactured and the sound mix to be the balance of everything you hear.

Well, it's been showing here and there for a few weeks, actually. Another handful got a peek tonight, and while it isn't a reviewable product (Denzel Washington is still working on the film), there are some comments worth making.

Like pointing out a star-making turn from newcomer Nate Parker for starters. If any whispers carry on past the film itself (which will have its champions), it will be this actor's potential at the start of a new career. One fellow viewer tonight made a comparison to a young Paul Newman, and he isn't far off, I'd say.

Well, I think I'm actually going to hold off this week on updating the charts. Nothing much to go on right now. Screenings of "Charlie Wilson's War" and "Sweeney Todd" are coming next week, so I may even give it another week after this one.

However, I will say that the perspective of my predictions are yet again becoming humorously skewed, this time as it pertains to "No Country for Old Men" (which, beyond the item I posted at Variety over the weekend, is stirring conversations in the negative regarding the film's Best Picture potential). Of course, everyone wants to paint my prediction biased because I'm not a fan of the film, but that's not the case when you don't see films I Iove in the top ten on the big chart. But that's the nature of things, people are selective about the rules they apply. So be it.

More next week. Gerard will have a column later in the week. Otherwise, enjoy the holiday.

Probably when I finally sit down to do my Buzzmeter rankings. FYI.

Roger Deakins’s status as perhaps Hollywood’s leading working cinematographer has been established for years. Hailing from England, the veteran lenser has earned five Oscar nominations in his career, for “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Fargo,” “Kundun,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” and “The Man Who Wasn’t There.” Other efforts have included “Jarhead,” “The Village,” “A Beautiful Mind,” “Dead Man Walking,” “The Secret Garden” and “Barton Fink,” just to name a few.

His work can be seen on screen this year in three separate efforts: Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” The Coen brothers’ “No Country for Old Men” and Paul Haggis’ “In the Valley of Elah.” These films have highlighted Deakins’ talents yet again and will most certainly result in his earning more year-end accolades.

I had the opportunity to speak with Deakins on the weekend.

From today's Hollywood Reporter. It seems they are using "In Contention" as the title of a new awards analysis feature in the trade's struggling Oscar coverage department.

Now, I'm not TOO irritated, since that is a brand which will remain associated with my name in this funky corner of the web. But come on, did they have to go and use the same color scheme???

Shameless.

(Thanks to Sasha for the heads up.)

In 2006’s yearly recap column, I allowed myself a tie in my top ten list for the first time ever. It wasn’t just a tie, it was a tie for the #1 spot. In a year packed with, in my opinion, exceptional film product, I saw something in Darren Aronofsky’s “The Fountain” and David Lynch’s “Inland Empire” that indicated something unique: artistic progress.

At the time I wrote:

The art of filmmaking has stagnated. There are no two ways about it. Something good enough or even inspiring enough screens every year for audiences and critics, but nothing moves beyond that expected level of entertainment and/or narrative pleasantry. Nothing has attempted to push the medium toward another level of artistry in quite some time indeed, and filmmakers have settled into a steady, albeit accepted vein of typicality that seems almost as it should be. But it isn’t…and it shouldn’t.

2006 afforded two separate, diametrically opposed works of cinema that can finally be considered a part of another movement altogether. They are Darren Aronofsky’s “The Fountain” and David Lynch’s “Inland Empire,” and though qualification is a fool’s errand when it comes to each, both films combine to form the number one film-going experience of the year in this viewer’s opinion.”

2007 has so far been a strangely acceptable year for cinema. Lacking the spikes in quality I felt from many a film last year, the general flow has been characterized by wide-spread enjoyment at a large number of films, rather than passionate enjoyment of a select few. But when I came to the notion of reviewing two of the year’s steps forward, much like “The Fountain” and “Inland Empire,” I wanted to take a moment and digest them before going to print.

Robert Zemeckis’ “Beowulf” and Francis Ford Coppola’s “Youth Without Youth” are not brilliant pieces of filmmaking. They are difficult to qualify in the same way Aronofsy and Lynch’s films were, but they nonetheless fail, in many cases, where those films succeeded. There is, however, something exciting about what Zemeckis and Coppola, two veterans of the moving image, are doing this year in the shadow of Aronofsky and Lynch. There is, in fact, always something electric about an artist pushing theory and/or technology in the face of convention.

I realize these are dicey waters, drawing parallels between four films that are so very different. But I think this is the nature of an active movie-goer, picking up on the moments in the medium’s progression that symbolize something more than a finished product. Indeed, I sense something strong on the horizon. I won’t go so far as to prognosticate a “new wave,” but something is in the air regardless. But let’s look at the films.

“Beowulf” is exactly what Anne Thompson called it over the weekend: “good cheesy fun.” Zemeckis is playing with a lot of kitschy stuff here that has been lost in the critical community’s desire to anoint his film as “the future.” Nothing so serious can indicate such comedic trivialities, can it? Yet there she is, Angelina Jolie, essentially giving Beowulf’s sword a hand job until it melts in the most R-rated of fashion. There she is, rising out of the water wearing what appears to be stiletto heels (though I maintain they appear to be talons morphed backward in the APPEARANCE of stilettos). And there he is, Beowulf, naked as a jaybird while Zemeckis’ camera catches the right opportunities to conceal his grendel like a scene out of “Austin Powers.”

These moments are light-hearted and certainly “fun,” but they also take away from the levity the film aims for in other portions, specifically a denouement on the verge of exploding with thematic relevance. However, it isn’t the depth of the screenplay Zemeckis is aiming for here, it is the potential of the medium. And for the most part, he sticks the landing.

The eyes are lifeless. It is difficult to argue that unfortunate side effect of performance capture technology. Much of the drama throughout the film’s first two acts suffers due in some part to this, because one can’t sense a genuine connection between the characters. The third act, however, is when “Beowulf” springs to life like no film you have ever seen. The hero’s dragon duel contains a breath-taking moment around every turn, gives itself entirely to the 3-D environment and works together with Alan Silvestri’s amazing score like nothing I’ve seen since the creative action film explosion of the mid-90s. This is where Zemeckis pushes the envelope, and this is where “Beowulf” reflects the passion of an artist bored with the boundaries of his medium.

“Beowulf” is not a great film, but it is a great step toward wowing future audiences with the capabilities of a mere 100-year-old method of storytelling.

Where Zemeckis is taking daring steps with technology, Francis Ford Coppola is defying preconceptions of screenwriting in “Youth Without Youth,” perhaps the most ambitious film of the year. Taking off from the novella by Mircea Eliade, Coppola’s work gives some context to recent comments he has made regarding his colleagues’ lack of artistic hunger.

The film tells the story of Dominic (Tim Roth), a linguistics professor who survives a lightning strike only to find his youth rejuvenated and his intellect embossed. He seizes the opportunity to complete his search for the beginnings of human language, all the while capturing the attention of Nazis, falling in love and exploring the levels of human consciousness.

Yeah, it’s trippy. And it is foolish to give much more of a plot synopsis beyond that, because this film lives and breathes by its own rules.

The press notes for “Youth Without Youth” begin with an interview with Coppola, apparently being conducted by an alien (yes) striving to understand this notion of human consciousness as Coppola attempts to explain it. In doing so, the director explores the ideas himself and in many ways, that interview is a great lead-in to the film. It captures a lot of the mood and theme the director is striving for behind the camera and on the page.

The film FAILS COMPLETELY – but that isn’t the point. The point is how far and how thin Coppola stretched himself here. He seems to have done to his mind on “Youth Without youth” what he did to his body and psyche during the filming of “Apocalypse Now,” challenged it, destroyed it, dared it to come back for more, all the while nurturing it for doing just that.

The real star of the film is cinematographer Mihai Malaimare, Jr., who was charged with some captivating visual eccentricities. The camera never moves, by the way (beyond, I believe, one instance that included either a zoom or a dolly, I can’t tell which). This is unheard of in today’s filmmaking environment, but it was an interesting decision, given the demands it places on context and composition.

I knew upon seeing each of these films that I would not be able to complete a proper review for either, but I had to write something. “Beoowulf” and “Youth Without Youth” are their own worst enemies, but that is the hallmark of high art, I think. Neither deserves a medal for ultimate result, but both should be heralded for attempts at destroying the mold.

Thank God someone is doing it.

Almost no movement on the charts this week as we try to make sense of the upcoming slate of holiday product, other than pulling back on "No Country" once again. Hey, I was the only guy saying "Letters from Iwo Jima" would get nominated last year, so I don't have much issue being alone. And those detractors I said would be coming out of the wood-work are doing just that, in the form of Academy members that aren't as sold on the film as the critical community has been.

I'm beginning to think 2007 will be the year we all stop listening to critics so much when it comes to these things. Common sense tells us that critics don't vote for Oscars, but year in and year out, people start to think this critical darling or that will make it into play -- and invariably, they come up short in the big race. At the end of this year, when films like "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead," "Michael Clayton" and, perhaps, "No Country for Old Men" fail to grab the Best Picture nominations many are predicting, maybe we'll all sit and finally take stock of that notion.

But I'm by no means foolish enough to think I could be out to lunch on this one. Lots of good films this year, lots of diversity, lots to choose from.

The charts:

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

The Contenders (by category)
2007 Films-by-Studio Rundown
Oscar Predictions Archive

Previous Oscar Columns:
11/05/07 - "10/29 Chart Update"
10/29/07 - "10/29 Chart Update"
10/15/07 - "The Oil Man vs. the Demon Barber?"
10/08/07 - "Clean-up on Aisle September"
10/01/07 - "Still Anybody's Game"
09/17/07 - "Post-Toronto Update"
09/10/07 - "Notes from the Eye of a Storm"
09/03/07 - "Launching the New Season"
08/03/07 - "August Update"
07/01/07 - "The Silence is Deafening"
02/26/07 - "Forging Ahead: In Contention's Year in Advance Oscar Speculation"

2006 Predictions Archive

Makeup in the filmmaking medium does far more than just make an actor or actress look good. In fact, it can often do the opposite. It becomes an essential part of character-building, allowing actors and actresses to disappear into the world of a film, and it is awarded every year by the AMPAS in the form of the Best Makeup Oscar.

The award is actually designated for both makeup and hairstyling. But in my humble opinion, the category has tended to ignore the latter more often than not.

This category will become much clearer after the announcement of the seven bakeoff finalists later in the season. As in the Best Visual Effects category, seven finalists are announced prior to the date when the nominations are announced, and three of those seven finalists become the nominees.

We had some technical difficulties yesterday with viewing individual entries. It should all be cleared up now. Sorry for the trouble.

After intense initial doubts on my part, I'm jumping onto that "No Country for Old Men" bandwagon that is galloping away at full speed. There are detractors, and they will come out of the woodwork soon enough when the film releases. But Miramax is also more and more placing a direct and concerted emphasis on this being their big hopeful, and that says a lot. Big things are going on here in town this week for the film's premiere and you can see all involved REALLY hoofing it. "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" might be the more emotional film, but then again, when I spoke to Miramax president Daniel Battsek last week about "No Country," he made it a point of saying he "strongly believe[s] in the ability of this film to move people."

Sometimes it's simply about whether a studio is willing to go all out. Additionally, producer Scott Rudin (who again has a massive slate of product on display this year) probably senses "No Country" as his own best bet, expecially given that it looks like a Capra film next to "There Will Be Blood" (a contender still seen as a major possibility in the big category - usually by those who haven't seen it).

Elsewhere, "Into the Wild" is stirring the pot but somehow seems like it could still come up short. Will it hold the same majesty on the small screen as it does on the big screen? Eric Gautier's is some of the best work behind the camera this year, Sean Penn is working it, but that nasty feeling is floating around that parents in the Academy could lack the empathy for McCandless that is called for. We'll see.

Also in the animated field - the reaction that "Beowulf" was a solid gold possibility might have been a knee-jerk. Zemeckis doesn't consider motion-capture animation (it isn't) and the branch obviously felt the same way given the snub of "The Polar Express" in 2004. So maybe a true animation legend, Matt Groening, can slide in behind. Regardless, I think the phenomenal "Persepolis" may prove to be the frontrunner in due time.

Ah well, enough yapping. Here's the update:

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

The Contenders (by category)
2007 Films-by-Studio Rundown
Oscar Predictions Archive

Previous Oscar Columns:
10/29/07 - "10/29 Chart Update"
10/15/07 - "The Oil Man vs. the Demon Barber?"
10/08/07 - "Clean-up on Aisle September"
10/01/07 - "Still Anybody's Game"
09/17/07 - "Post-Toronto Update"
09/10/07 - "Notes from the Eye of a Storm"
09/03/07 - "Launching the New Season"
08/03/07 - "August Update"
07/01/07 - "The Silence is Deafening"
02/26/07 - "Forging Ahead: In Contention's Year in Advance Oscar Speculation"

2006 Predictions Archive

Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood” might be one of the most fascinating films ever crafted. It is operatic and sinister, all at once beautiful and magnetic in its depiction of a deplorable human being through and through. But there is a deeply buried empathetic virtue to the character of Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) that suggests some twisted personal connection on the filmmaker’s part.

There is plenty to be said and speculated upon regarding Anderson’s dicey relationship with his father, and portions of that may have played into the creation of this film, which is based on the novel “Oil!” by Upton Sinclair. Whatever the case, “There Will Be Blood” is a stark narrative that counts among the best films of the year for its sheer artistic brilliance and, indeed, defiance.

Taking his lead from Sinclair’s portrait of turn-of-the-century oil men, Anderson’s effort has already drawn comparisons to Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane.” Such comparisons may be exaggerated, but it isn’t out of the question to consider Daniel Plainview in the same wheel house as Charles Foster Kane. I would wager that the character is a weird combination of Kane and Howard Hughes, with dashes of Frankenstein, the Wolf Man or some other movie monster thrown in, because “There Will Be Blood” is just that – a monster movie. It twists the viewer’s sense of expectation into knots and then casually releases the tension, only to wrench them back up again. It’s an imperfect film that terrorizes the mind nontheless, and I loved every second of it.

The film opens on Plainview in the desert of the Southwest in 1898, the latter days of westward expansion and yet the beginnings of American capitalism in the West. Drilling in the dry, powdered rock of the region, a lone man on a search for the beginnings of a new, lucrative life, Plainview inhabits the entire first reel of the film (15 or 20 minutes) largely by himself with not a line of dialogue in sight. An eerie, locust-like score rises and falls, drones throughout and recalls the scratching of nails on a chalkboard, much like the early portions of “The Exorcist.” Indeed, composer Jonny Greenwood’s work throughout the film is wonderful in its ambition and ignorance of convention.

A few years trickle by as Plainview adds onto his enterprise until finally, oil. A black-tarred hand reaches to the sky and suddenly you sense the influence of Stanley Kubrick on the film. Like the apes who discovered weaponry in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” Plainview has come upon the object that will dictate America’s destiny for the next century and more.

Yet more years pass and Plainview has established himself, along with an adopted son he claims as his own, in the business world of oil. New opportunities arise in various communities where Plainview can take full advantage, and finally, Day-Lewis speaks. It’s the beginnings of one of the year’s most dynamic performances, an absolute terror of a turn from one of the screen’s most gifted actors.

Anderson’s film moves forward, dabbles insistently in religion (Paul Dano’s work as Eli Sunday, an evangelical preacher taking advantage in his own way, illuminates a lot of the film’s interior) and soon enough moves quickly, forcibly toward a conclusion, and indeed, a final line that will go down as one of the cinema’s greatest. I can’t conceivably ruin the ride for you here, as “There Will Be Blood” MUST be experienced personally and without much in the way of preparation.

Daniel Day-Lewis has spit out a tour de force performance like it was on the agenda before breakfast. He makes it look so easy that one must think he has oil in his veins. As mentioned, Anderson has buried empathy so deep within him that it’s almost unnoticeable (and surely will be to passing viewers…i.e., the AMPAS). But it’s there. Plainview is a man willful in his ignorance of the saviors of religion, love and family. At the first spark of potential fraternal camaraderie, we see it in Day-Lewis’ eyes. He wants to feel that warmth, but he detests it all the same. Indeed, he might be the epitome, the embodiment of hate. For some, it will be impossible to look away from the performance. For others, the closest exit won’t be close enough.

Paul Dano is somewhat capable in a role that seems to be a bit out of his artistic reach for the most part, but who could keep up with Day-Lewis in a film like this? Still, Sunday is a maniac in his own right, a terribly interesting foil to Plainview that leads to a battle of souls if nothing else.

And in that final sequence, even though Dano comes off a touch awkward, even though Day-Lewis flies so far off the handle it’s as if he is chewing through the concrete of the set, it all feels appropriate. The tone, the ultimate chill left in the viewer’s stomach, the entire scenario seems skillfully plotted by Anderson, deliberately constructed and exactly as it was going to be.

So it goes that Paul Thomas Anderson remains one of the cinema’s greatest living treasures. Shrewd in his decision to move to unoriginal material, perhaps wary of the pitfalls of the writer/director mold, perhaps not, he has taken yet another leap within a cinematic resume that keeps getting better and better, more and more impressive. “There Will Be Blood” is a horrific work of mastery that I don’t imagine any other filmmaker would have ever been capable of accomplishing. Take Stanley Kubrick, breed him with Terrence Malick and wallow the result in the world of Robert Altman’s “McCabe & Mrs. Miller” and you might come close. You might.

Thoughts on Oscar-potential up at the Blog, with reaction to misguided public opinion of last week's Variety item.

In my first Tech Support column 15 months ago, I opened by discussing Randy Thom’s acceptance speech of the 2004 sound editing award for “The Incredibles.” Thom remarked how awards like Best Sound Editing are often deemed by the media to be “technical awards” when, in fact, they are awarded for artistic decisions. Bringing to light this articulation has hopefully proven itself to be the purpose of the “Tech Support” column here at In Contention. (And on that note, I sometimes wonder whether this is the best name for the column.)

Last week, I had the chance to speak to Thom and another Hollywood sound editor, Ethan Van der Ryn, about the projects they have in play this season.

A giant in the world of Hollywood sound, Randy Thom won his first Oscar in 1983 for Philip Kaufman’s “The Right Stuff. He has racked up a career nomination total of twelve, and this year, he lends his talents to Brad Bird’s latest film, “Ratatouille,” as well as Robert Zemeckis’ “Beowulf.”

Ethan Van der Ryn is a two-time Oscar winner for “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” and “King Kong,” both from director Peter Jackson. This year, he served as supervising sound editor on Michael Bay’s “Transformers.”