Now, how do I say this …? Despite really enjoying Daddy Day Care, I still came to this expecting the absolute worst after the reviews and, well, just look at the re-casting they did. It’s almost as bad as Splash, Too, lol. The presence of Cuba Gooding Jr. not only makes it worse but adds the whole dimension of depressing to the picture. I mean, really: what happened to him?!

But you know what? It grew on me. I laughed. Loudly in places. I mentioned about the toilet humour in the first movie that I liked how it threatened to go too far yet never quite did. I’ve gotta say, here, the gross stuff does go a little far – you could almost make a direct comparison between the “I missed!” scene in the first movie where evidently a little boy with potty problems gives Eddie Murphy’s bathroom a new coat of brown paint, yet all this is played from Murphy’s expression, and a scene here where a kid vomits all over the inside of Cuba Gooding’s tent – I guess Gooding’s expressions aren’t as convincing, because he has to have some of the vomit drop on his forehead. Later, we get the full-on Problem Child/Little Britain style projectile stuff. Not necessary. But I did laugh.

In the end it has just as solid a family message as the first, and I was honestly slightly stirred especially by the son taking matters into his own hands to win the contest, also the climbing wall smashing down on all the trophies Scattered throughout are a number of scenes with a very cute girl called Telise Galanis who hopefully has a future. I truly had no problems with it. Yes, the first is better, duh, it was first. But this one really deserves some kudos for overcoming such mindbogglingly bad casting issues.

“Will you say multi-dextrose for me again? It’s too cute.”

I really expected this to be an intolerable nightmare saved only by Elle Fanning, so I was pleasantly surprised to find myself laughing through it a lot more than is probably acceptable, even a couple of l’il tears in my eyes in places. Angelica Huston is practically perfect if a little familiar (she even gets a similar ending here to her character in Ever After) as the evil headmistress of a first class pre-school trying to thwart the relatively restrained Eddie Murphy’s attempts to start a more homely form of daycare, and Lacey Chabert is fun as her sidekick. The kids are adorable almost without exception – they all have their “moments”, particularly at the end when announcing to parents being shown around Huston’s school how they’ve benefited from the daddy day care. Steve Zahn is perfect as a Trekkie who’s able to handle the kids better than anybody since he accidentally read Dr. Spock’s Baby and Childcare.

The movie’s mood veers effortlessly from toilet humour that threatens to go too far at times yet never does and is actually surprisingly effective (“I missed!”) through to pure schmaltz and heartstring tuggery. For family entertainment, I found it almost literally bang in between the astonishing R.V. and the abysmal Yours, Mine and Ours that it most resembles … I don’t know what that means to anyone else, but to me it means I really have no objections, I loved it.

Can’t help but mention Kermode yet again on this movie, but what can say, his review was probably his best since whenever it was he last spoke at length on The Exorcist, lol. Three times really is the charm on this movie, and I’m glad I didn’t feel compelled to try and write anything on the second viewing on Oscar day.

The second or third time is the time you’ll watch this movie and actually start to realise how packed with potential interpretations it is. There’s the look between Day-Lewis and his son after first encountering Paul Dano’s Eli. The first time I saw this look, I hadn’t really cottoned on to the fact that it was a separate character to Paul at the start (that realisation alone could save you a whole viewing, so pay attention). This time I saw it entirely from Day-Lewis’ side; in relation to his powerful stance on family matters; he simply realises how much Eli looks like his brother … something he’ll never see in his son, just as later when duped by an imposter, it’s the kind of thing that crushes the seemingly uncrushable Daniel Plainview. Well, that and religion. Who knows what I’ll see in that look the next time I see it.

There’s the sweeping shot of the barebones railroad town following the scene with Paul, that beautifully minimal Jonny Greenwood loop playing over as the camera pans from an empty railroad, past the empty platform, all the while following Plainview’s little motorcar that seemingly appears out of nowhere, completely selling us the space in which the rest of the movie will play out.

Someone criticised me in my review of Sunshine for calling Danny Boyle the new Kubrick. Though I still stand by that statement in terms of the quality of that movie, repeat viewing notwithstanding – and even though apparently the movie Paul Thomas Anderson watched most during the creation of this marvel was actually a John Huston movie, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre – I have to say, if it’d been shown to me at random without credits, I could have been fooled more easily into believing this was somehow Kubrick’s lost last masterpiece before believing it was made by the Paul Thomas Anderson that made Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch-Drunk Love. Just the 2001-like opening, that oil-slicked rod completely reminding me of the monolith with all the eerie primal meanderings that preceed it, and the symmetrical, theatrical finale in the bowling alley, nevermind what falls in between. It’s pure perfection. But watch it 3 times – the first time with as little interruption as humanly or even inhumanly possible.

Addendum: I almost forgot the one thing I really wanted to say in this review what with my mood of late. I noticed reading the old review how even I got fooled into following the herd and describing this as a very masculine movie below, for which I can only apologise. Do not assume that because it’s mainly populated by penis-bearers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that this means it’s necessarily a “man’s movie”. As far as I understood it this time around, I can’t imagine a more anti-male film. It’s all about the destructive nature of greed, self-righteousness, pride … that is, of being that horrendous stereotype associated with the Y chromosome. Even I won’t deny the unfortunate truth of gender stereotypes in history ... I only ask that people don’t let them influence their expectations of the future. I guess if you view everything in terms of sex and gender you won’t be able to help seeing it so; but you’d do a lot better to view it simply as cinema that’s true to its world. (Addendum addendum?: I hope she doesn’t mind me mentioning it if she reads this but I was really buoyed by my sister saying she never once considered the lack of female characters in the movie.)

February 19th 2008:

I was lucky enough to (through no effort on my part, honest, it just kinda happened; I’m not that much of a nut lol) pretty much follow Mark Kermode’s advice on how to watch this movie verbatim – that is, almost empty cinema (about 3 other people in there with me I think, lol), decent sized screen, central seat (five rows back – can’t believe I used to obsessively want to be as close to the screen as possible, it’s a wonder I didn’t break my neck) ... and believe me, I’m glad I saw it like this. It does demand, at the least, your full attention. Usually I’d shun such advice – I always say a great film will grab my attention despite the attention I give it, the screen size, etc – but for Paul Thomas Anderson following his last hat trick of masterpieces? I’ll pretty much do anything.

I’ve said a few times since the nominations that this would probably be the film I ended up rooting for at the Oscars. That this film makes No Country for Old Men look positively mainstream pretty much ends any real hope I had that it had a chance, lol – I’m actually inclined now to think it’ll be Juno or Clayton that takes the gold, so similar and difficult are this troublesome pair.

This film and No Country for Old Men (Assassination of Jesse James perhaps completing the threefer) are like a characteristically perverse inversion of the old “waiting for a bus” thing – you’re waiting around for hours and then three show up at once. I don’t think anyone was particularly “waiting around for” these movies last year – except in that vague, ongoing way we’re always wanting something to blow us away and change the way we look at film. Yet show up they did anyway, and demanded to be seen. I’d love to know if the film makers concerned were aware that what they were doing wasn’t so unique – the whole thing’s like a mini New Wave to me.

If you noticed I’m babbling, it’s ‘cos I know it will take another viewing for me to feel like I know what I’m talking about on this one – it was churning around in my mind and slotting itself together even as I was walking home, and I think there are still a few things I surely missed. What I can say is, from the moment Daniel Day Lewis’ pickaxe first thwacks into that rock, it’s like Paul Thomas Anderson was doing the same thing to my skull – it’s really a movie that gets inside your skin … in fact, more than that, in this case you almost get inside its skin. And I guess I do now understand why this movie has unfortunately been seemingly reduced to nothing but Day Lewis’ performance in critics’ and awards circles. You come away from the movie almost feeling like some of him has rubbed off on you in some strange cinematic transference. He’s almost the ultimate anti-hero: almost in that by the time the movie’s over, though you know exactly why he did the things he did, you’d really be forgiven for not having a shred of forgiveness for him.

But it’s not just Day Lewis’ movie. Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier and all the supporting cast are perfect; Jonny Greenwood’s score, like Nick Cave’s for Jesse James in fact, is no iPod material in its dissonance but perfect support for Anderson’s imagery (No Country of course had no music so there’s another thing that ties these films together), and the sound ... I thought No Country’s sound was good, but, again that pickaxe, just wow … if it wins any Oscar outside of Day Lewis, and I hope it does, then I hope at least it’s that one.

Like I said, it’s gonna take at least another viewing for me to truly put it all together – and I’ve never been more excited about seeing a film a second time in my life … could even be the first time I see a movie more than once on the big screen in a long time if my multiplex still has it next week. BTW I can also understand how some people will absolutely hate the movie – as a PTA fan even I felt twinges of disappoint over how it lacks the slickness particularly of Boogie Nights and Magnolia. Kermode compared it most to Punch-Drunk Love and I’d agree – the scene around the son’s accident, score and all, reminded me completely of that movie’s most chaotic moments, particularly in the music department. It’s still a very different Paul Thomas Anderson though – I’d almost not even know it was his movie if I weren’t told … a few themes carry through, but visually it’s much grittier. It’s incredibly, almost repulsively masculine, too – which, if you know me, make the fact that (I think – that 5th heart is still pending) I love it even more of a testament to how good this film is.

I guess my only worry about this movie is that it’s gonna tread on the heels of the slightly better The Lookout come Oscar time (that is to say, eek, next month – time flies …). It has a very similar feel to it, that’s for sure, but it’s great in completely different ways.

Without doubt, Philip Seymour-Hoffmann deserves an Oscar nomination. Like the guys in Rescue Dawn, I was intrigued at the start after all I’d read as to how relatively typical his work is; but by the end, you’ve witnessed an explosion, an actor genuinely pushing themselves to scary places. I also found the movie similar to Fargo, though I don’t know if that’s just the similar (though no less transfixing) Carter Burwell score talking.

With Sidney Lumet at the helm (just how many things are there here to get excited about?) I found myself trying to remember Family Business, too. Though you couldn’t ask for a better triple act than Albert Finney, Ethan Hawke, and Hoffmann (not to mention Rose Harris as the mom of the family) – and Hoffmann is completely believable as Finney’s son – I couldn’t help thinking that the feeling of the characters being family there came over better (of course, Broderick as Connery’s grandson, now I think about it, is even harder to swallow, lol).

It’s a movie that I’ll come back to though, for sure. The opening is brilliant thanks to Lumet, the ending electrifying thanks to Hoffmann; the middle took some adjusting to, I let my attention slide and got momentarily lost, but I’m sure it’ll grow on me. I haven’t seen Find Me Guilty though I want to despite my obvious concerns about Vin Diesel doing serious … in fact, looking at his filmography, the last Lumet movie I saw was Night Falls on Manhattan which I don’t remember … which really kind of makes this movie less like a “return to form” than some kind of miracle. I get excited about Sidney Lumet still making movies because the guy made Dog Day Afternoon, Network and Serpico, and his book “Making Movies” plain makes you love the guy and want him to make movies like this all the time. I hope he’s got more of the same in him still.