Okay so here are my thoughts on a couple of Oscar-nominated movies I saw recently (one in theatre, one on DVD).

First, I'll talk about There Will Be Blood, which I rented the day it came out. This movie runs a fine line between being a masterpiece and being unwatchable. Why do I say that? Two reasons: Pacing and music.

Why is it that directors hoping to garner the Academy's attention feel the need to stretch a movie over two-and-a-half hours? While the length on its own isn't necessarily a problem (though I really feel movies are ideal in length between 1h45min and 2h15min at most) it's about pacing. In general it was pretty good, but there were sequences that were longer than they needed to be. This movie could have been cut down to 2h15.

But what really made it unbearable, at least for me, was the use of piercing music that ran for what seemed like five-minute stretches. No dialogue, just action with this music in the background. I understand why it was used, to set the tone and for dramatic effect. But all I can say is I'm glad I didn't watch this in the theatre. I actually fast-forwarded some of these points and just took care to notice if any characters' mouths were moving so I knew if I was actually missing any dialogue.

The point is, that stuff was unnecessary and actually put me off to the point where I won't ever watch the movie again. Which is unfortunate, because Daniel Day-Lewis was spectacular, as I knew he would be. He was really the only reason I wanted to see the movie at all. I loved him in Gangs of New York, and he was great in The Last of the Mohicans too. (I haven't seen his other movies, except for Ghandi. He was in Ghandi. I was surprised to hear it too. But he played one of the South African street toughs in the scene where Ben Kingsley talks about the meaning of "Turn the other cheek." Great scene, and when I pictured it in my mind, I realized it was a much younger Daniel Day-Lewis. He was 25 at the time.)

Anyway, back to There Will Be Blood, Day-Lewis was his usual compelling, utterly-quotable self. I love the Milkshake scene (if you haven't seen it, you have to - check it out on YouTube, and then check out the SNL parody). Also, the Salvation scene (better known as "I have abandoned my child!")

My only concern was that his character was a little bit too much like Bill The Butcher, his character from Gangs of New York, in that he is vicious without good reason. He has a goal/mission, but he kills people not so much in support of that mission, but more just because they annoy him.

I don't think that's a huge coincidence that his character is similar. Day-Lewis doesn't do many movies, and only accepts roles if he really likes the script. I just wonder how many screenwriters out there are developing scripts strictly tailored to Day-Lewis.

The other thing was that one of the taglines for this movie was "When Ambition Meets Faith." That's a little misleading - it makes it sound like Day-Lewis's character has a spiritual journey. That's not it all - instead he clashes with people of faith. That aspect of the movie was very interesting (spoilers coming). The question of whether his son's loss of hearing in the movie is due to the fact that he wouldn't bless the oil drilling, whether God let it happen, caused it to happen, or if He could heal him. And then you watch as the young preacher in the movie tries to challenge Day-Lewis and convert him to faith but then ends up being the one actually challenged. (spoilers over)

In the end, the movie was a little disappointing, because there was no element of redemption. Day-Lewis didn't really learn anything. And he's actually, from my view, just a bad person from beginning to end.

And there lies a common element with No Country For Old Men, which I saw in the theatre early on. This is another story about a real bad-ass guy, from beginning to end. No story of redemption, just a ruthless killer who takes out people in a matter-of-fact way. The difference here, he kills to accomplish his goal, getting his money.

This movie was very stylistic, and had some quotable scenes in it too, such as the "coin-flip" scene which is also in the above SNL parody. One of the main reasons I wanted to see this was because of Tommy Lee Jones, who was fantastic as always. This is a movie I would - and probably will - watch again. The pacing was great, acting superb and I don't remember any problems with the music. :)

And best of all, it was 2 hours flat. I just wasn't a big fan of the ending. But I won't spoil this one.

Here we go again… my picks for the year’s four majors. Why am I even bothering, seeing as I haven’t blogged for a year, it’s quite likely nobody will read this, and I’ve got a blog now in my day job? Tradition, I guess. And I’ve got other stuff to say too…

In the Masters, I like Vijay Singh. He’s come really close to winning this year. His putting has held him back a little bit, but he knows the course well, and knows how to win there of course. He can bomb it, and he’ll need it. I see him coming through this week.

In the U.S. Open, Tiger Woods in pretty much a no-brainer. It’s being held at Torrey Pines, the site of the Buick Invitational, which he has won four straight times, including this year, not to mention five out of the past six years and six times in his career. Also, it has been too long since he’s won one of these Opens, not since 2002. The drought ends this year.

In the British Open, it’s time for Adam Scott to finally step up and win a major. He’s got too much talent not to get it done. His putting tends to let him down – okay not quite like Sergio Garcia, who came up just short last year – but I don’t see it as being key to winning this one this year. At Royal Birkdale, as with any Open Championship, the key is staying in the fairway, and putting the ball in the right spots. Scott will get it done.

Finally, in the PGA Championship, as much as it pains me, I’ve got to go with Tiger again. The way he’s playing this year and lately, winning only two of the four majors would be a disappointment. He’ll close out the year with a vengeance.