There Will Be Blood (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,581 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Phenomenal acting, not personally gripped by the story
breezey-120-83399531 January 2022
It has been a while since I watched a film where the acting and casting is so damn convincing - I have to start this review by saying that.

The plot is definitely off the beaten track anf the writing very very much a breath of fresh air.

Unfortunately this is a film that can come down to tastes quite a bit when the reviews come round, and although I can't necessarily critique it specifically, there is something about it that I just couldn't get gripped by, and the ending didn't truly satisfy me (though the end scene itself is probably the high point of the movie. Confusing review, I know)

This is not a negative review by any means, but 8-10 are reserved for films that truly get you talking, or have a huge emotional impact in my opinion

As a recommendation, this film is a definite yes. I believe that I am on the side of people who this genre doesn't appeal to much at all, but as a piece of film and a showcase of acting, it is utterly utterly great.
133 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent, gutsy filmmaking
Leofwine_draca13 March 2012
This is a compelling family drama charting one man's rise and fall as he ruthless exploits oil in the American west. It has everything you could want from a great Hollywood movie: subtlety, excellent acting, a thoughtful and intelligent script and quite wonderful cinematography.

It's a film in which the oil is a supporting character in itself, and the series of unfortunate deaths and accidents that beleaguer our leading man reminded me of Emile Zola's excellent novel, Germinal. Daniel Day-Lewis gives another assured performance here, living and breathing rather than merely acting his role, and watching his growing feud with the slimy preacher is the stuff of great cinema. All in all a wonderful, epic film, old fashioned in the best possible sense.
65 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Blood, Sweat & Fears...
Xstal30 April 2023
There's a prospector by the name of Daniel Plainview, a weathered type of soul, after all the things he's been through, now he's come across some oil, underneath Californian soil, and he's planning to extract, withdraw, accrue. He has a son that he acquired after a blow, now where he goes, young H. B. will also go, as he supports his father's hand, acquiring most of the scrub land, with the knowledge of the flow that sits below. But a preacher seeks to meddle, interfere, and Daniel Plainview's disinclined to be so dear, H. B's deafened by a boom, a long lost brother finds a tomb, there's no salvation, when your life's so insincere.

Two of the finest cinematic characters you'll encounter.
24 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Truth Hurts
alexkolokotronis15 March 2008
People did not like this movie for a simple reason: too negative. I can understand that this movie is so depressing in so may ways.

What it shows that Big Fish eats Litte Fish and none of us want to think about that anymore than most of us experience it in our daily life. It shows the battle between the evangelicals and the corporate business man. Or maybe even the battle between evangelicals of today and the non-religious people or atheists of today. Even worse is that this movie shows that religious people, priests are or can be as bad as a corrupt oil man. Maybe why people did not like this movie is because it might have offended them. Especially Paul Dano playing the priest. Both Daniel Day Lewis and Paul Dano are wrong and too extreme on their opinions. People are able to accept this. What people cannot accept is though that these same extremities and same misguided opinions from both characters are very much true in that they are heavily believed still today. Not all Christains are like Paul Dano's character and not all business man are like Daniel Day Lewis's character but many are like them. That is the world we live in.

Now is their any alternative or positive side? The answer is yes and that is H.W. the son of Daniel Plainview(Daniel Day Lewis). He epitomizes hope. He shows that despite being deaf and having a father who uses him as a ploy for better business he can still break free of the chains that he is being tied down by. What separates H.W. from the residents and evangelists of Little Boston? The difference is that he and his father are educated and they are not. That is how Daniel Plainview is able to manipulate and cheat them the Sunday family, even Eli Sunday(Paul Dano) the priest and preacher of Little Boston. From what H.W. sees and experiences he sees that much of what is around him is just wrong. He uses his experience that he had gained as a kid to break free of the corruption and chaos that could have taken over him. That is one aspect of the education I'am talking about: our experiences and understanding of what is happening around us.

Now to get to the technical aspects of There Will Be Blood. It is just truly spectacular in every way. First off the acting was amazing. Daniel Day Lewis gave arguably the best performance of his career playing Daniel Plaiview or ever since movies began to be made. He freaked me out and probably shocked many people. His thirst for power and money was at such a high level that it made me wonder about what people are really capable of. The deceiving, the greed, the thirst for power and the every man for himself attitude actually looked more real than ever to me. Without Daniel Day Lewis I don't think this movie could have achieved what it has. Paul Dano gave a great performance as Eli Sunday though people tend to disagree. I think he gave a great portrayal of an extremist evangelical priest of how he himself had his own thirst for power and how he was more blasphemous then respectful and gracious to god then how you would expect a priest to be. How could people not be shocked by these two characters, I was myself.

Why was the music for this movie not liked. I thought this was among the top five musical scores I have ever heard. The music perfectly gave you the feeling of the corruption and deception setting into the movie. It perfectly intertwined with the rest of the movie as the movie itself was ever growingly becoming more and more chaotic and surreal. Probably too shocking though.

Paul Thomas Anderson I believe gave the best directing job of the year. He was able to show the oil fields and its processes, the rise of an oil man, the way everyone can be bought even a priest and the hope that H.W. represented. This movie was never boring and it was as stunning of a directing job as Daniel Day Lewis gave as a performance for his role in this movie. The intensity of this movie was as high as a movie could possibly be and some of the credit for this has to go to the director. The cinematography and the music seemed to intertwine perfectly like the rest of the movie. It gave the sense of the time period and as said before the greed, deception, etc. The cinematography did not just give you a negative feeling but a feeling as if what you are watching is real.

You should not like this movie just because of the great technical achievements as you should not for any movie but for what it says and how it says it. I'm not even sure if you should enjoy this movie in general but you should not be blinded by your opinions. I applaud you whoever out there who can somewhat understand this movie and get past the lying and deceiving we do to ourselves. This movie really shows the humanity of human beings. Why is this rated-R?It has so many intense scenes that if you get inside this movie it is truly haunting. Now maybe this movie was too powerful for many people, it was probably even shocking for realists. Maybe though its not that surprising that so many people don't like this movie because the truth hurts. Not the truth about corruption or about people but the truth about ourselves.
757 out of 911 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
There Will be Praise
murtaza_mma29 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The world of cinema has seen and marveled a plethora of phenomenal performers, who over the years have entranced billions of viewers globally with their guile, grandeur, subtlety, eloquence and idiosyncrasy, but I dare say that none of their performances can match Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal of Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood, for sheer ruthlessness, panache, eloquence and cheek. Being the chameleon that he truly is, Daniel Day-Lewis incredibly musters up all his prodigious talent as an actor to conjure up his misanthropic alter ego, Daniel Plainview, whose perpetually smirked face bolstered by his malice filled eyes makes him one of the strongest and the most fascinating characters ever caricatured on the silver screen. Daniel Day-Lewis is at the top of his game and virtually unstoppable as Daniel Plainview, a portrayal that not only resuscitated him as an actor, but also established him as someone who wouldn't leave a single stone unturned to bring his character to life and perhaps it is this very attribute that has helped him in his endeavor to be the absolute best at what he does.

Paul Dano is absolutely brilliant as Eli Sunday and has complimented Daniel Day-Lewis in every sense of the word in spite of the fact that he barely had a week to prepare contrary to Daniel Day-Lewis, who had a whole year to prepare. Eli Sunday is ambitious, enigmatic, placid, pesky and pusillanimous and despite being highly contrasting to Daniel Plainview, ironically has many similarities to him, especially the uncanny demeanor that helped them both to inveigle others. It is the chemistry and the ever growing tension between them that makes the movie haunting and spectacular.

There Will Be Blood is a morbid tale of greed, betrayal and obsession adorned by some great performances, visually stunning cinematography and masterful direction. Plainview owns a mine with potential silver deposits and his assiduity finally pays off when he discovers a silver ore. He sells it to acquire a crew to help him with the subsequent diggings in the mine. After the mine runs out of silver, oil is discovered in it and hence begins Plainview's journey of insatiable greed and morbid obsession. In order to acquire more oilfields and to strike out further deals easily, he adopts a young boy and names him as H.W. to help build a facade of a benevolent family man for himself. It almost takes him a decade to establish himself as a minor oilman, but this moderate success further intensifies his avarice. Subsequently, a young man named Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) visits Plainview's camp and offers to sell information about his family's ranch, which he claims to have an ocean of oil underneath it. Plainview and H.W. travel to the Sunday Ranch pretending to be on quail hunting while hiding their ulterior motive of verifying Paul's claim. Being as perspicacious as he was, it didn't take him long to find the vestiges of oil in the cracks formed due to the recent earthquake. He tries to inveigle the Sunday patriarch (who almost cried with rapture on hearing the offer) to sell him the land at a moderate price (which he calls quail price and not oil price), but is stymied by owner's ambitious son, Eli Sunday (also played by Paul Dano), who asks him to pay an additional ten thousand dollars towards the building of the Church of Third Revelation. Plainview reluctantly pays him five thousand dollars as advance and promises to pay the remaining amount once the drilling starts. Plainview assembles his crew at the Sunday Ranch and builds the first derrick. He also buys almost all of the land surrounding the Sunday Ranch so he will have not only those drilling rights but also the right to build a pipeline to the ocean to circumvent the railroads and their shipping costs. Eli wants to bless the derrick before drilling begins but Plainview rebuffs him. Using the money given by Plainview, Eli builds his church projecting himself as a preacher, faith healer and prophet. Soon the church has many followers, most of whom are Plainview's workers. Eli's increasing influence on the people and his display of false divinity starts pestering Plainview, who is further flummoxed by congregation's frequent gatherings (the daily prayers prevented the workers from taking desired rest, thereby decreasing their efficiency). Plainview beseeches Eli to make them less frequent, but Eli dismisses him with disdain. Plainview's ruthless ego is badly jolted by Eli's stubbornness and he brutally assaults him and even threatens to kill him when Eli asks him for the remaining money. Eli returns home all covered with mud after Plainview's assault and takes out his frustration on his myopic father, blaming him for acquiescing to Plainview's naked ambition. H.W. is deafened during an oil rig incident and starts behaving as a brat. Disconcerted by the change in the mannerisms of his son, he sends him away. Eli soon gets his revenge when a fellow named Bandy forces Plainview to get baptized at the Church of the Third Revelation (as a penance for a murder that Plainview committed and of which only Bandy knew). While baptizing him, Eli humiliates him by repeatedly slapping him and calling him a sinner for abandoning his hapless child. This incident further intensifies the hatred in Plainview and sets the tone for a deeply haunting finale when they meet many years later.

P.T Anderson once again proves his mettle as a director and manages to pack a punch with this poignant and a deeply disturbing masterpiece. The movie incredibly succeeds on every level and entertains immensely, while still delivering a strong message. It was undoubtedly the best picture of 2007 and one of the best of the decade. In fact, it was very remiss of the academy to keep up with its long earned notoriety and prefer a relatively mediocre 'No Country for Old Man' over this truly haunting masterpiece.

P.S. 10/10
149 out of 197 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The most flamboyant portrayal of materialism and its alienating effect ...
ElMaruecan8222 March 2011
It's about expansion, it's about capitalism, and whatever that caused the demise of the Wild West myth. "There Will be Blood" looks, smell, feels like a Western but this is an Anti-Western more than anything …

There's so much to say about this movie but it left me speechless at the end, Daniel Day-Lewis was hypnotic, giving a performance that reminded me of Orson Welles in "Citizen Kane", and Humphrey Bogart in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" ... He's definitely one of the greatest actors of his generation, especially in this performance that probably best defines the alienating effect of materialism. The 40's had Charles Foster Kane, the 80's had Gordon Gekko and the 2000's have Daniel Planview.

Indeed, "There Will be Blood" is not your typical 'soul corrupted by money and/or power' drama, as I said, it's all about materialism, ending with a pocket filled by gold and a heart made of the same stone you've been working on all your life, it's trusting anything that has a specific color, a specific smell, working on a land to find a greasy black liquid gushing from its womb, and never, never trusting or giving any credit to "nothingness" or "abstraction".

Daniel Plainview considers these abstractions with the most profound disdain. Nothing is free, nothing comes from nothing, nothing is unsubstantial. If one claims to be your brother, he has to prove it, if one should make a deal with you, he should talk business and not about education ... not because it's personal, not because it has nothing to do with business, BUT because it is NOTHING and nothingness irritates Plainview as if the only thing he could believe on had to be material. The rest is nothing, feelings are nothing, believing is nothing, these so strong and noble words for us, well, Plainview doesn't give a damn about them...

And more than anything, above all these abstractions, there is religion, God is Daniel Plainview's archenemy … this is the ultimate masquerade for him, the cancer that gangrenes the progress, an evil that transforms people into sheep, almost like animals, the biggest hypocrisy of all … Plainview, the capitalist, almost shares the same opinion than Marx who thought religion was people's opium. And because Plainview despises this hypocrisy, he tries to exorcise his hatred by using religion to achieve his plans, exploiting it, like he exploited his adopted son. No feelings, no sentiments, everything should serve a palpable purpose. The end justifies the means.

And ultimately, he gets rich at the end, he's a respected and feared tycoon, as the purest and most implacable illustration of the American dream. But is he happy? no! because power, prosperity, those are still empty words ... he believes in material, in things, in stuff he drinks like the iconic 'milk-shake' metaphor that still resonates in my mind as one of the most memorable hymns to greed and pragmatism. Plainview is greedy, but not evil, evil is still too abstract a word; because it implies the use of one own conscience while Plainview's conscience was dedicated to one goal: getting bigger, possession, expansion, territoriality.

And are we to blame him? Let's not forget the bleak cinematography at the beginning of the film where we could feel, the stink of the oil, the hardness of the rocks and the land as an incontrollable enemy ... let's not forget that Plainview spent half of his life stuck alone into dark holes made of land, stone, metal, oil, and raw matter, so close he could almost feel them, so close it became a part of him ...

"There Will Be Blood" is the quintessential film about materialism and its alienating power, when all that matters is matter!
35 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Remember Those Hollywood Studio Epics? Me Either. But We're Covered.
DSampson61214 January 2008
The year I was born was the same year Predator and Robocop came out. When I was finally old enough to appreciate films, Little Nicky was in theaters. I know, believe me, I know; rocky start. And often I would watch older films, or specials on older films, and be dazzled. You know the ones. Remember when they made Spartacus? Remember sitting in the movies and watching Gregory Peck play Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird? Remember the first time you heard "I could've been a contender" through theater speakers? Well I sure as hell don't. But I'll tell you what, now I feel somewhat caught up. Let's begin with the obvious. Daniel Day Lewis. No one's arguing about this. The man is a veritable God among ants on the screen. He takes his role by the reigns and I don't doubt him for a second. In fact, at times, I was downright afraid of the man. Lewis gives what is easily, EASILY the best performance of the past five years. But let's get serious about it. Lewis' Daniel Plainview is the most convincing, awe-inspiring, and downright mortifying character to take the big screen that I can remember. Here, perfectly in his element and at his best, Lewis could go toe to toe with Brando and Kinski, playing a part that oozes enough skill and pathos to earn him a place among Hollywood's, and perhaps the world's, greatest performances of all time. He gives those of us who missed out on the craft, depth of character, and technique of classic cinema a chance to admire a tour de force portrayal of a memorable, identifiable, and completely despicable character, and it's so damned refreshing that I can't stop singing the man's praises. Paul Dano has been taking a lot of fire for this whole thing. People continue to spout their disapproval of the film's casting, saying that Dano has no business rivaling the seasoned Lewis on the screen. Listen, lay down your swords a minute and consider the obvious. The guy was cast opposite the performance of the decade, he's not going to outshine Lewis and you'd be crazy to expect him to. In fact, I think that he and Lewis' back-and-forths are the films highlights, as we see the juxtaposition not only in the characters themselves, but also in their acting techniques. And the cinematography? Welcome to the old days of film. The glory days of Hollywood. Anderson gives us one of the most beautifully shot and directed films in recent memory, truly at the top of his craft on this one. Every moment feels more epic than the last, until the film becomes such a towering cinematic spectacle that the end leaves the viewer exhausted. It's truly an experience not to be missed. Yeah, we missed out on A Street Car Named Desire. And Casablanca isn't gonna be in theaters again any time soon. But in the meantime, There Will Be Blood is just about as good, and will likely haunt our generation as much as the Hollywood studio epics of the past...
932 out of 1,374 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of my top five of all time, For Film viewers not movie goers
lamoreauxba11 January 2011
There Will Be Blood. Chilling, Sublime, perfect.

First I must say the Soundtrack is amazingly disturbing and sets the tone of the film from the first scene. Many forget the amount of mood that sound sets.

The film held me enraptured from first to last second.

The story is perfectly displayed. Ever thing is laid out before the viewer in an intentional pace.

The film is for viewers with imagination and foresight who can see through the shams of modern movie plot and into the realm of literature.

The acting is simply stunning. Daniel Day Lewis can portray lines with a single expression and does in this film.

I'm sure many will not enjoy this movie and all I have to say to them is go watch Transformers 2 again.
189 out of 267 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best of the last decade
TheLittleSongbird6 February 2011
There Will be Blood! What a fine film! In fact I would go as far to say it is one of the best of the last decade. Visually, it is stunning, I loved the skillful cinematography and shots and the scenery was amazing. Jonny Greenwood's music is atmospheric and haunting as well, the script is lyrical, hysterical and sometimes even baffling, the story is excellent and thematically rich and the pace is fine, quite slow but deliberately so.

There Will be Blood is brilliantly directed by Paul Thomas Anderson and the characters are intriguing. In fact to me the character of Daniel Plainview makes the movie. Magnificently portrayed by Daniel Day Lewis, he is quite complex- while monstrous and cold-hearted, because of his love for his adopted son I wouldn't necessarily call him completely evil either. Paul Dano also does a fine job as Eli Sunday.

Overall, a truly fine film and one of the best of the last decade in my view. 10/10 Bethany Cox
57 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unapologetic Tour de Force
helenkirkwood0718 February 2008
PT Anderson's name already means something, or I should say something else. His self assuredness alone gives me shivers. A modern artist with such clear and severe vision of the world. Boogie Nights, Magnolia, even Punch Drunk Love have an Wellesian disregard for what's in or out. His films are landmarks that may infuriate some, confuse others and mesmerize the rest of us. Here, with the rigorous tale of an impervious oil man, PT Anderson outdoes himself. He has Daniel Day Lewis as his accomplice in a performance that would be as difficult to match as it is difficult to describe. There is a monstrous beauty here that not even a broken nose can disguise. The saga is filled with long silent moments of tension that take place in a cinematic canvas and an actor's head. PT Anderson must have known that this was going to be, not only not a mainstream opus but a hard pill to swallow. I for one stand up to applaud his daringness.
249 out of 381 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Disappointing and empty film, with an amazing central performance
Hancock_the_Superb3 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is an ambitious, slimy oil tycoon who begins building up an empire in the southwest using his considerable charm, his adoptive son H.W. (Dillon Freasier/Russell Harvard), and ruthless business acumen. He descends on the town of Little Boston, California, building a huge oil derrick and enriching the town. He clashes with Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), the fanatical young preacher, develops a strained relationship with his son (who is deafened in an accident), and solidifies his empire - but at the same time begins to unravel as a person.

"There Will Be Blood" has received mountains of acclaim, as one of the best films not only of the year, but of the decade - and by some, of all time. It's easy to see why, as the film has a great deal going for it: an interesting-on-paper story, impressive direction and cinematography, and most of all, an amazing performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. But at the heart of TWBB is an emptiness, which not even the greatest performance can assuage, and that is the character of Daniel Plainview.

The film begins promisingly, with a brilliant fifteen-minute opening scene devoid of dialogue, as Plainview and his associates dig out their first oil well. The introduction to Plainview as a slippery, manipulative man is well-done, and the first two hours or so are gripping. I sat engrossed, comfortable in knowing that all of the build-up would lead somewhere great. Unfortunately, towards the end, I realized that the opposite was true; the film wasn't leading anywhere, and indeed my enjoyment of it largely ended with a painfully contrived and ridiculous anti-climax.

The movie has a number of problems in narrative structure. It doesn't have much in the way of a traditional storyline. This is not inherently a bad thing, but the detached nature of the film makes it hard to care about what goes on. The only fully developed thread is the troubled relationship between Plainview and his son H.W., whom the former views as prop to manipulate his competitors and showcase his success. And even this is dropped like a potato at the end of the film. There is also the digressive nonsense of Plainview's "brother" (Kevin J. O'Conner) which adds nothing to the film.

Another flaw is the movie's lack of context. Though it is set in the early 1900's - a turbulent time when the US government led by Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson were tearing down business monopolies - there is no political or historical context beyond super-titles and a few brief mentions of Standard Oil. As the film was essentially a character study, I wasn't expecting an in-depth examination of politics and history, but a few illusions to the time period beyond "1911" flashing on the screen would have helped. The attacks on the hypocrisy of religion and big business are socialist primer material (unsurprising given the source is an Upton Sinclair novel) and bring nothing new to the table.

The basic problem of the film is in its lead, Daniel Plainview. Not in Daniel Day-Lewis, mind you, who gives one of the greatest performances in recent memory, but in the character itself. Plainview would be an interesting supporting character or villain, a slimy, manipulative man who thoroughly hates everyone besides himself. But there really isn't any depth to Plainview, and thus the film has a hollow center. He doesn't develop over the course of the story; he remains the same character throughout, a bitter, greedy misanthrope, and after awhile he becomes little more than a caricature of an evil businessman.

The main reason to see this film is Daniel Day-Lewis. While I wasn't particularly enamored of his turn as Bill the Butcher, Day-Lewis's amazing turn as Plainview almost overcomes the script's shortcomings. Day-Lewis is a fascinating premise, and the brilliance of his performance conversely accentuates the weakness of his character. If it were in aide of something better, Plainview would be the most memorable character in the last twenty years of cinema. As it stands, it's still a remarkable achievement, and if Day-Lewis doesn't win an Oscar there is no justice.

Other than Day-Lewis, the cast is non-descript. Paul Dano has received acclaim for his performance as Eli Sunday, but the role requires little more than elementary ham acting. The film's climax in particular illustrate the weakness of his performance. There are a few names in the supporting cast (Ciaran Hinds, Kevin J. O'Connor), but they remain in the background throughout. Cinematography, music and direction by Paul Thomas Anderson are all fabulous, with memorable set-pieces such as the oil explosion and the aforementioned beginning stand-out, but they do little more than cover up the weakness at the heart of the film.

"There Will Be Blood" looks like it should be a great film, but it is a deeply flawed movie with a weak central character. Nonetheless, it's worth a look, and if nothing else Day-Lewis should make it interesting.

6/10
185 out of 304 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A film that will leave film-goers pondering for a long time
toolfan-hess6 November 2007
PT Anderson delivers perhaps his best work with "There Will Be Blood". Unlike "Magnolia", the film's daunting runtime is not very daunting whilst watching it. All acting in the film was solid, even the work of the child actors. Daniel Day-Lewis in particular delivered a truly phenomenal performance, capturing the power of greed, fear, insanity, and comedy simultaneously, at many points throughout the film. At no point does the time period distract from the power of the film. Sometimes period pieces cannot be appreciated because they delve too deep into historical details -- turning the experience into more of a documentary than a narrative set in the past. This is not the case for "There Will Be Blood", as human interactions are the focus of the film. Johnny Greenwood's chilling score is very strong, benefiting from the elegant minimalism that he show's in the band Radiohead. The cinematography is also spectacular. Robert Elswit beautifully captures the essence of the environment and the tension amongst the characters. All in all, this is truly a perfectly crafted film.
572 out of 954 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The parts were greater than the whole
g0dolphins18 February 2008
This is a most difficult movie to comment on, and I find it hard to put into words as to the reason. I think I enjoyed the movie, but how, why? Did I enjoy Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal as the leading antagonist? Most defiantly. DDL has provided us with many memorable performances and his role as Daniel Plainview is no less in intensity as was Butcher Bob, nor any less authentic as Nathaniel Poe. Did I enjoy other aspects of the film? Sure! The period piece was of considerable interest; how oil can transform your life, for better, worse or otherwise. The cinematography was beautiful and telling. I fully appreciate the hard, dirty, bone weary work that this occupation would entail. The rag tag day-to-day existence for those working the oil fields, and the land from whence it came. The score too was beautifully blended, adding to the epic scope of the experience. Paul Dano was very convincing too as the prophet/preacher of the small community where Plainview acquires vast tracks of land. His character was equally complex, and I felt he complimented DDL quite adequately. Even the story had many merits, as we came to understand the type of people who produced oil, and how the product of its labor and influence can impact those who were associated with its extraction. So one would think that the buzz and hype around it in February 2008 are worthwhile, yet I cannot seem to agree. There is something missing, something that falls short of the expectations. Too many people are of opposite opinion regarding this movie; it is either a masterpiece or drivel. I find it is neither, although I am much more likely to lean towards the former. For that reason alone I should be what, somewhere five or seven on a scale of 1-10? Perhaps it does, I just wish I could feel it. So should I give it a 7 and stop wasting time lamenting over it? Yes, a 7, for reasons I can explain but not feel confident about. It pains me to do so, therefore I can only conclude that my expectations for this movie were not met.
97 out of 171 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
'Blood' and oil do not mix
gregeichelberger8 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
With all of the hype surrounding Daniel Day-Lewis' performance (he was, in fact, given a Best Actor nod from the San Diego Film Critics Society, for whatever that is worth) in the P.T. Anderson-directed tale of early American oil speculation, "There Will Be Blood," I can only relate my extreme disappointment.

This would have made an interesting 90-minute movie, but, unfortunately, it runs over 140-minutes, most of which is smeared with plasma and petroleum to the extent every character is sullied and unrecognizable as a human being.

Perhaps Anderson wanted it that way, after all, it's really only Day-Lewis¹ character (the lubricious Daniel Plainview) that even comes close to developing; the others are simply there to keep him company and accept his violent tirades.

Yes, times were tough in the early hardscrabble years of the American West, but this guy makes Jonas Cord ("The Carpetbaggers") look like Mother Theresa.

We first meet Plainview in 1898 mining for silver in Arizona. After a nasty fall in which he breaks his ankle, he discovers oil in the shaft. After a few years, he has a crew and a few successful wells.

One day, a fellow worker ­ there with his infant son (for some reason) ­is killed and Plainview adopts the boy, H. W. (Dillion Freasier) for no other reason than to have a cute face to show while he cons the public (see "Paper Moon").

These are some of the movie's best scenes, with Plainview - and H.W. in tow - visiting backwoods bergs and convincing a gullible populace into signing away land rights for a fraction of what they were worth. Plainview, with a sinister soft-spoken demeanor plays psychological games until the rubes are all but ready to GIVE him the oil rights in perpetuity.

Several years later, a visitor tells Plainview about a ranch in California that is soaking in oil, so Pop and son head out there, under the pretense of hunting quail. There they meet the Sunday family, addled dad, Abel (David Willis), a few non-descript females and an Evangelist son, Eli (Paul Dano, "Little Miss Sunshine").

Plainview and Eli do not hit it off at all, and this is the conflict that sets up the second act. It doesn't take much to finagle Abel out of the Sunday Ranch, as well as the surrounding property, but several tragedies cause many in the town ­ especially the young preacher ­ to wonder if they made the right move in letting Plainview into their midst.

When H.W. is rendered deaf in an explosion and disastrous fire, we wonder if the whole enterprise is worth it.

Up until this point, I was willing to go along with this film as not only a historical drama relating the days of the early oil industry, as well as a chronicle of rural religious fervor, sort of "Oklahoma Crude" meets "The Apostle."

The problem is, the picture does not continue to walk that thin line. We are now subjected to scene after scene of Plainview¹s descent into madness and murder ­ but with little or no motivation for either.

For example, he beats Eli severely and mocks his church; meets a man who claims he¹s his brother; abandons H.W. and generally spirals out of control.

He's business savvy, however, and plans to build a pipeline to transport his vast oil reserves to the coast (thus eliminating the cost of railroad shipping). To do this, though, he has to build through a local hermit's (Hans Howes, "Seabiscuit") land.

The only way to accomplish this is to humble himself before Eli and the congregation and be baptized, obviously a fate worse than death to Plainview who seems to have no morals, whatsoever.

Now that he¹s joined the church and gotten his pipeline built, does he enjoy even one iota of his success? Absolutely not.

In one of Day-Lewis' many monologues, he gives us his motivation for being such a bastard, "I do not just want to succeed, I do not want anyone else to succeed."

Still, that does not explain his psychotic, murderous frenzy, and the longer the film goes on, the less cohesive it became.

I can accept his tirades early on, and even a bit of his unmotivated violence near the middle of the film, but Anderson pushes things to the extreme limit. He's even admitted that he watched "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" before beginning to film "Blood" - yet he still did not learn anything about coherent film-making.

Friends, this is by far one of the most depressing and oppressive films of the year. In fact, it makes "No Country For Old Men" look like "Mary Poppins."

Then, at the conclusion, after watching more than two-plus hours of this evil, hateful man succeed over and over again, we're treated to another brutal, pointless murder -­ this one coming out of nowhere.

Like "The Last King of Scotland," in which Forrest Whittaker won the Best Actor award, this is another performance-driven, but deeply-flawed motion picture.

Day-Lewis will certainly be nominated for this, and he may actually win, but that does not mean one will enjoy the experience of watching that performance.
541 out of 1,036 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stunning
tranquilbuddha27 December 2007
This film raises the game for everyone out there. I have loved all of Paul Thomas Anderson's work, including his greatly underrated Punch-Drunk Love, but this is a huge leap from any of the previous movies into a realm, as others have said, inhabited by classics such as Treasure of the Sierra Madre - and then some. Every element of this film is astonishing, from the opening twenty minutes, which feature virtually no dialog, to Jonny Greenwood's score, which I have heard criticized as too imposing but which seems just about perfect to me (and brings to mind the non-Blue Danube elements of 2001 at its most experimental). Daniel Day-Lewis' performance is in a league of its own: his voice, his mannerisms, his physical movement, his stunted emotions, are flesh and blood, and hauntingly so, in a way that even Tommy Lee Jones in In The Valley of Elah (which I thought was a pretty staggering performance) can't quite attain. I will watch this film again and again simply to see something so raw and so moving and so gut-wrenching. This is why I love movies; this is what made me want to make movies when I was fourteen years old.
398 out of 654 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Powerful Blow
pacific-oconnor16 February 2008
Who is Paul Thomas Anderson? There is something about him that does't belong to this earth. That could be a compliment or not, it's all up to us. That's what make his cinema so damn unique. At the end of the day it's all up to us. But the abrasive way in which he visits universes and throws his views to us is so powerful, so arrogant, so enthralling, so infuriating that the experience leaves you baffled and suspicious. but also enchanted, transformed. Here, Daniel's saga could very well be the saga of a Hollywood maverick. So little time for sentimentality. Daniel Day Lewis seems to understand it all and he adds his unmistakable humanity to another monster, after his butcher in Gangs Of New York. His performance goes beyond anything we've seen recently anywhere. From Upton Sinclair to Paul Thomas Anderson via Daniel Day Lewis an unmissable work of art.
237 out of 385 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The greatness of this film is in the non-cohesion/coherence and in the complexity of the sum total of who you actually are (protagonist more specifically)
rodrigokevusko2 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
We see the protagonist's downfall after what happened to his son. From then on, he begins to act in a totally inconsistent and unpredictable way, but always aiming at the prosperity of the company.

But that's not the point! That's not the big picture.

It doesn't matter what actually happened for him to start to get out of control. It could have been the son's deafness, it could have been his greed; what really matters and what the film shows, that is:

THE COMPLEXITY OF HUMAN BEING!

All this complexity actually comes from the total lack of self-knowledge. And the movie shows just that. We spectators are also unpredictable. Some more, some less. And there are some, like the protagonist, who are sick people who refuse to look inwards, so they externalize their suffering to others. The film is ultimately about the disease that is self-ignorance. And no matter how much money you have, you will still suffer...
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
There Will Be a Masterpiece. Daniel Day Lewis is HIM
mohnomachado28 June 2023
This film is masterpiece on all levels. The acting from everyone, but especially Daniel Day Lewis, is amazing. The writing, is superb and fits the time period. The on location shooting, phenomenal. The script and direction from Paul Thomas Anderson has never been better. Yes, this is a slow burn, but on multiple rewatches, it doesn't feel long. In fact the slow burn feels more nuanced every time I watch this picture. Oh and we can't forget about Robert Elswit's gorgeous cinematography of California in the late 1800's. It's one of the best movies shot on film of all time, and he deservedly won the Academy Award for this. I love "There Will Be Blood" and it's reflection of capitalism and religion that can be seen even to this day. Thank you PTA and the rest of the cast and crew for creating a truly cinematic experience that will last forever in my head, and one that I will continue to revisit for a long time.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel Day-Lewis does a great job playing a maniacal and, shall I say, oily character
lee_eisenberg17 April 2008
I had heard about what a great movie "There Will Be Blood" is. A friend of my family said that she didn't really like the movie, but described a certain sound in it.

Well, now that I've seen the movie, there are a few things that I can say about it. First, Daniel Day-Lewis does a great job playing the completely maniacal, amoral, self-aggrandizing oil magnate Daniel Plainview. Second, Plainview's speech about how he'll bring all the modern amenities to the small town; that brings to mind the fact that the whole American west now does have all those things...they put all these things in the middle of the desert, prompting everyone to use a lot of water, resulting in water shortages. Third, the subject of petroleum calls to mind present-day international politics. Finally, I would say that Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano each individually are better than the movie as a whole (not to diminish the film).

Probably the most intense scene is the final segment: there's what Plainview does to his son and then to Paul Sunday (or is it Eli?). All in all, it not only adds up to a very good movie, but Paul Thomas Anderson ("Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia") is showing himself to be a very good director.
24 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Truly a piece of work
Smells_Like_Cheese27 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
A few months ago I saw the trailer to There Will Be Blood, at first I was a little put off, it looked very strange and a typical drawn out drama. But then a little later, I saw a different trailer that was much better and looked more interesting. So now it had all this hype and is now nominated for 7 Oscars, including best picture, finally it came to theaters in my home town and my mom and I just saw it. Now, I'm just going to get a complaint out, I think this movie was still a little drawn out, it kind of took on a Kubrick type of feel with the first twenty minutes that had no dialog. But that was the only thing that threw me off. While I'm not as in love with this movie as much as everyone else is, There Will be Blood is going to be a sure classic down the line. The direction, the acting, the script, the sets, everything about this film was done beautifully and shows the utter greed and madness that can turn men into monsters.

Daniel Plainview is an oil man, he's in the business with his son, H.W., and he goes around buying land very cheaply, and makes thousands and thousands of dollars when he strikes oil. But when he comes a town called Little Boston led by the tip of a boy named Paul, he buys the land promising the church that he will donate five thousand dollars to it. Eli, the leader of the church, claims he is a prophet and goes to the extreme to prove so with his followers. When Daniel's team is draining oil, his son is blasted away from an explosion of oil and looses his hearing, Daniel at this point just goes mad and meets a man who claims to be his brother, but he later finds out that this man lied to him. He abandons his son and is loosing all sanity, but when the church comes back to him, he claims he is saved. Years later though, he goes from business man to monster and is going to "drink Eli's milk shake", you'll see what I mean when you see the film.

There Will Be Blood is a film of utter perfection, the reason why I'm rating it so high is because it is a perfectly made film. There's nothing wrong with it, when I said it's a little drawn out, it's just my opinion. But Daniel Day Lewis pulls in a flawless performance and became Daniel Plainview, especially the end, he pulled in such a chilling side and didn't over do the dialog, which I'm sure any other actor would have done. But one performance I am particularly impressed with is Paul Dano's as Eli/Paul, Eli really got to me and was incredible during his sermons, he held his own up to Lewis. He's come a long way since the silent rebel in Litte Miss Sunshine. There Will Be Blood is a GOOD movie, I mean good in the highest regards, because how many of us can say when a film is just utterly good? Not too often. There Will Be Blood is going to be a good contender this year for the Oscars, but we'll just have to see who'll take the best picture award, because we have some good films that are competing.

10/10
67 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Revitalizing, masterful, and utterly terrifying.
blake-9127 December 2007
What is evil? What is hate? How low can an individual go with one's actions and still be considered human....? These, quite possibly, are the biggest questions raised in There Will Be Blood.

Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis, the tycoons at the helm of this dig for moral oil, tell a story that takes the archetypal anti-heroes of 'Citizen Kane' and Travis Bickle of 'Taxi Driver' to a whole new, 21st-century level. The film, using Lewis's character Daniel Plainview, walks through incredibly dangerous cinematic territory that questions religion, plays with the nature of greed and hate and evil, and with it all, draws terrifying parallels to the world we live in today. The film and its main character claw so deep through the limits of humanity and the landscape of hell, that you'll be thanking the Good Lord for the silver screen that divides you from this horrible world Paul Thomas Anderson has portrayed. But despite how safe you may seem in your cushy seat, you will undoubtedly walk out of the theater with all kinds of new demons and ghosts buzzing in your head and ripping away at your subconscious. In this way, Anderson has abandoned his primary previous influence of Robert Altman to take more of a Stanley Kubrick direction, creating moral allegories that creep into your psyche and don't ever leave. You should be scared. Very Scared.
382 out of 668 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Unbearable Film Scoring/Music
kozansahin12 July 2021
This is my second attempt to watch this film after 13 years and I failed again to complete watching it. At the first time, I thought maybe I wasn't in the right mood and I couldn't get into it enough. But this time I realized that the director's choice for using a sinister, disturbing film scoring (music) going on ALL THE TIME no matter what is happening on the screen kills it for me. This is something that happens with cheap TV films or amateur student shorts, a veeery wrong use of scoring. Of course, since this is a big movie with enough budget, the scoring and the recording and mixing is brilliant. So, it's not about the music or the composer but the director's choice.

I get that most people don't even notice this kind of thing and enjoy the film but I couldn't help it. Maybe it's because I'm a musician.

Undoubtedly Daniel Day-Lewis is an incredible actor and he acts brilliantly in this film too.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Industrialism is a Filthy Business
LeonLouisRicci7 February 2014
Industrialism and Capitalism can be a Dirty, Ugly Thing just like Sucking Oil from the Earth. Like a Vampire the Insatiable Oil Tycoons have not a Scintilla of Conscience about Humanity at the Price of Their Grandeur and Survival as Larger than Life Demi-Gods.

This is an Ugly Film with a Lead Character that Exudes Ugliness. There is a Human Being with a Soul there in Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) that can be Witnessed on Occasion with His Infant Son and even up to and Including the Pivotal Tragedy of a Rig Accident.

After that though, He is Completely Corrupted by Greed and Steroidal Ambition. He is now as Handicapped as His Son. The Film isn't any Fun and it is a Hard and Filthy Story about a Hard and Filthy Industrialist. An Almost Demonic Persona that Thinks He is Owed all He can Get because He gets His Hands Dirty.

It is a Mesmerizing, Haunting Movie that is a Reflection of a Time when Simple Folks, like Sheep Herders and Ranchers are Easily Hoodwinked by Smooth Talking Money Men and Equally Silver Tongued Evangelist. It's the Second Birth of the Nation, the Beginning of the Twentieth Century.

There are No Heroes Here and no one to Root for, it just Holds up a Soiled Mirror to Our Past as it Shines a Light on Our Present. Like the Blood of Our Veins, Oil is Still the Life of Our Nation. Director Paul Thomas Anderson Hardly Manages to Hide the Fact that this Commodity, in 2007, is Still a Source for much of Today's Suffering. It is not a Pretty Picture and Neither is This.
25 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Technically Perfect, but Boring and Without Emotion
claudio_carvalho29 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
In 1898, the lonely mining explorer Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) finds silver nuggets in the shaft and a couple of years later her is in drilling business. When the young man Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) sells the information that there is oil in the lands of his family in Little Boston, California, Daniel travels with his son H. W. and buys the ranches in the area. He finds oil and brings prosperity to the locals and increases his fortune. Along the years, Daniel builds an empire but H. W. loses his audition; he meets a man that tells that he is his step brother; he faces the opposition of the preacher Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) from the Church of Third Revelation. The powerful Daniel destroys his competitors but becomes lonely and insane in the end of the 20's.

The overrated "There Will Be Blood" is technically perfect, with awesome performance of Daniel Day-Lewis. Unfortunately the rise of the oil man Daniel Plainview is too long, boring and without emotion. This character is not well developed in the beginning, and during the first fifteen minutes there are no dialogs. The other characters come and go without any development. It would be better off watching the fantastic "Giant" again instead. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Sangue Negro" ("Black Blood")
80 out of 144 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I Know It's Good But......
johnharapa16 February 2021
Totally confused, but never fear, I got it.

Performances, cinematography, actors, Daniel Day Lewis, blah blah blah - all great.....BUT.......

......I simply didn't like it.

I won't say any more than that.
27 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed