There Will Be Blood Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
There Will Be Greed. There Will Be Vengeance.
When Ambition Meets Faith
Set in the early 20th century, the film follows the rise to power of Daniel Plainview — a charismatic and ruthless oil prospector, driven to succeed by his intense hatred of others and psychological need to see any and all competitors fail. When he learns of oil-rich land in California that can be bought cheaply, he moves his operation there and begins manipulating and exploiting the local landowners into selling him their property. Using his young adopted son H.W. to project the image of a caring family man, Plainview gains the cooperation of almost all the locals with lofty promises to build schools and cultivate the land to make their community flourish. Over time, Plainview's gradual accumulation of wealth and power causes his true self to surface, and he begins to slowly alienate himself from everyone in his life.
| Daniel Day-Lewis | Plainview |
| Paul Dano | Eli Sunday |
| Kevin J. O'Connor | Henry |
| Ciarán Hinds | Fletcher |
| Dillon Freasier | H.W. |
| Russell Harvard | H.W. - Older |
| Randall Carver | Mr. Bankside |
| Kevin Breznahan | Signal Hill Man |
| Brad Carr | Signal hill man |
| Mark Flanagan | |
| Vince Froio | Plainview Servant |
| Hans Howes | Bandy |
| John Kerry | Oilman |
| Jim Meskimen | Signal Hill Married Man |
| Paul F. Tompkins | Prescott |
| Paul Thomas Anderson |
8.40 out of 10 (82003 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Fantastic Adaptation
posted on 29 Aug 2009There Will Be Blood is a masterful adaptation of Upton Sinclair's 1926 novel, Oil!.The film was directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, of Magnolia and Boogie Nights. Through actor Daniel Day-Lewis's spot-on representation of the ambitious oil tycoon created by Sinclair, one grows a respect for Daniel Plainview's enterprise, but the corruptive power of oil deteriorates the man's nobility, and along with it one's admiration for him.Witnessing blow by blow the destruction of Plainview's good intentions is contrasted by an off-kilter score composed by Radiohead guitarist Johnny Greenwood. From the opening scene, harsh, droning violins seem to foreshadow the troubles to come. As an unfortunate result of every business success, Daniel's personal problems multiply.When Daniel and his son, H.W., move to the barren town of Little Boston to exploit a sea of oil beneath it, he becomes acquainted with Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), a religious zealot who runs a popular church in town. Eli's presence is continually problematic for Daniel, as they are both overly ambitious in their own pursuits.As business continues to grow, Daniel becomes increasingly angry and withdrawn from the few close to him. In an emotionally climactic final scene, There Will Be Blood encapsulates the humanity of greed, and the corruption of power.In a land where the success of a movie is judged by how many times Adam Sandler can bring down the house by talking like a developmentally disabled 4-year-old, and accidentally sleeping with his grandmother, pet, boss, or self, There Will Be Blood will score no points. This is because There Will Be Blood is actually a phenomenally entertaining and intelligent film, showcasing two of the year's best acting performances. (Day-Lewis and Dano) If one thing is certain, it is that There Will Be Blood will be well noticed by people who actually appreciate good movies. So, when the Oscar goes to Daniel Day-Lewis for Best Actor, four people will know what movie host Jon Stewart is referring to. The rest of the award shows viewers will be left scratching their heads, asking themselves, There Will Be Blood? Is that the movie about the vampires in Alaska?
Oil.Obsession.Power.Cruetly.Daniel Day-Lewis...Brilliant !!!
posted on 29 Aug 2009Every rage inside should be released before it gets too unstable to be controlled. This movie is a piece of a one theatrical scene of great values of life and virtues yet not dared to be played. Greed, vengeance, blood, lie, murder, and hate are posted with biblical proportions. This is a "Godfather" comeback in an age of "Bullet time" cinematography, and it is a very pleasant feeling to see that such movies are made in the days of ours. Set in the early 20th century, the film follows the rise to power of Daniel Plainview, a charismatic and ruthless oil prospector, driven to succeed by his intense hatred of others and psychological need to see any and all competitors fail. When he learns of oil-rich land in California that can be bought cheaply, he moves his operation there and begins manipulating and exploiting the local landowners into selling him their property. Using his young adopted son H.W. to project the image of a caring family man, Plainview gains the cooperation of almost all the locals with lofty promises to build schools and cultivate the land to make their community flourish. Over time, Plainview's gradual accumulation of wealth and power causes his true self to surface, and he begins to slowly alienate himself from everyone in his life.
A masterpiece. THIS is powerful film-making.
posted on 27 Aug 2009From the first frame, where Jonny Greenwood's powerful score is married to the stark, barren beauty of the desert landscape of southern California, to the very last, in a blood soaked bowling alley, this film grabbed me hard, and never let me go.No film has ever effected me quite the way There Will Be Blood did. After the film was over I sat there and stared at the credits as they rolled by, then when they were over I got up and walked out of the auditorium. I felt like I was drifting, disconnected from reality. I can not explain it better than that. I didn't know what to think, I didn't know what to do, I didn't know what to say, I didn't even know if I wanted to move. The first time I saw Magnolia I wept through the credits, after There Will Be Blood, I watched the credits as filled with rage. This feeling of rage I can not explain either, I wasn't mad at the film, I knew I loved the film from the first fifteen minutes of it, I have no idea why I was so filled with rage, however, slowly over the duration of the credits, my rage subsided into nothing. Like I said, no other film has ever effected me like that, and confused my very emotions. THIS is powerful film-making.After Magnolia and There Will Be Blood, and his other films which were great in different ways (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, and Punch Drunk Love) I have no problem with putting Paul Thomas Anderson up there with Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, and D.W. Griffith. As one of the people who have changed American cinema. There Will Be Blood is ahead of it's time. I have never seen another film quiet like There Will Be Blood, and I do believe that it will have a profound effect on cinema. Paul Thomas Anderson is the best writer around today, not to mention the best director. There Will Be Blood is perfect down to every single tiny detail. He is a genius.Daniel Day-Lewis delivers a performance that is nothing short of the best performance I have ever seen on screen. He is a powerhouse. The subtle nuances of his performance are so natural and minute, that they are easy to miss at times. Daniel Plainview is not only an absolute, but a very rich character. Daniel Day-Lewis nails every scene, every line, every word. His performance in this film is nothing short of an evolution of acting. You can now imagine what kind of pressure this put on Paul Dano to perform in the supporting role, and perform he did. I thought his performance would be good, but not that good. Eli Sunday is a snake and Paul Dano embodies it perfectly, from his screaming, screeching sermons, to his disturbingly innocent smile, Paul Dano nails it. Dillon Freasier is as good as child actors come. Most child actors are pretty shitty, so I was naturally apprehensive, but pleasantly surprised in the end. He is very quiet as HW Plainview, but his emotions are still portrayed with the clarity of a veteran actor. Kevin J O'Connor is also great as Henry Plainview. The rest of the cast is tremendous as well. There is not a single weak performance in this film.The cinematography by Robert Elswit and Paul Thomas Anderson is beautiful. The best cinematography in a film since American Beauty. Enough said. The editing by Dylan Tichenor is great. He knows when to linger on a shot that is particularly beautiful, and it never seems slow-paced. The score by Jonny Greenwood (Radiohead) is powerful, unsettling, and beautiful all at the same time. The best score in a film since Thomas Newman's score for American Beauty. Once again, enough said. One of the most amazing things about this film is the Production Design by Jack Fisk every single set is a work of art. One of my favorite things about this film is the color. Ninety-nine percent of the color in the film is very bland blacks, browns, and the like. The only things that stand out in great contrast are the blood and the oil fire. Brilliant.There Will Be Blood is a triumph of modern film-making. It is perfect in every single conceivable way, especially the ending. It is a masterpiece. I am sure that even if it doesn't win the Oscars it deserves this year, it will someday be recognized by many people to be one of the greatest films ever made, which would only increase it's likenesses to Citizen Kane. In short: There Will Be Blood is the best film I have ever seen.
What is the academy thinking? This is a horrible, long, disjointed story!
posted on 27 Aug 2009I just wasted 3 hours of my life watching this movie. I'm fairly sure when I look back at my 5th grade writing, that a story is supposed to build to a climax and then work it's way down a bit. This movie flat lines in terms of no plot development and the use of the words flat lines also works for it's more common connotation. I don't want to spoil this for anyone that may want to see this as I hate when people do that but I couldn't even figure out the main protagonist and antagonist as the focus shifts so often, never getting into enough depth with any of them.I'll admit the acting(Daniel Day Lewis) is superb and the cinematography makes for a very authentic feel, but I guess I put too much stock in the story. How about some good, old-fashioned entertainment. I guess I blame myself as I rarely like the same types of movies as the Academy does, but I don't think I'm wrong in this case.
Painfully pretentious: a director out of control of his material
posted on 27 Aug 2009A few months back, I was reading all these reviews of TWBB and I was thinking: Wow, this movie really divides the (commenting) public. Upon reading the comments I was thinking that I tended to believe the more critical comments more than the highly positive gushing (excuse the pun) that appeared on this board. I was enjoying following the controversy but was thinking that spending $10 to see the movie was maybe a waste of money.Finally, I decided to rent the movie through Comcast's On-Demand and contribute my voice to the debate. I was further reassured that I wouldn't be wasting my money because the 8.4 rating it received from IMDb reviewers indicates that the positives outweigh the negatives by maybe 6 to 1.Well, IMDb reviewers, at least those for TWBB, are a lot more gullible, superficial bunch than I thought. This movie is a wretched mess...Paul Thomas Anderson has lost a lot of my respect with this effort. Where to begin... First I'll start with the positive: Pluses: Daniel Day Lewis was good but a little bit of a self-caricature as Plainview. He was believable but also too much like a version of Bill the Butcher. Another plus was the cinematography, in particular the shots of the landscape and also some of the interior shooting and the mining scenes were well done. It was a pretty picture despite the subject matter. I gave it 3 out of 10 stars because of these positives.Minuses: The biggest minus is that the film seems to graze over its subject matter in a superficial way: Anderson seems not to fully grasp and understand the nuances of the history and human interactions which he is filming. The characters just sort of appear there as if they are figments of his imagination which he then tries to, puppet=like, make dramatic interactions between without a deep context or narrative momentum which actually compels the characters to act in the way they do. It is though the characters are arbitrarily deciding to "make drama" for our consumption. All this despite the sumptuous scenery and the jabs at historical accuracy that seem in parts quite plausible.If Anderson is trying to make it a "Brechtian" drama with alienation effects and all, the embarrassment deepens because of the lack of a real social message in the film. There is not really a conflict of ideas in this movie...people on this board are reading into it their own ideas, but they just aren't there in the film. What for instance does Plainview represent? Is it unbridled greed? Why doesn't Standard Oil represent that? Plainview represents a psychotic version of greed (in the end) but what is universal about that? Not all capitalists or oil men are paranoid and have anti-social personalities.Similarly, the Paul Dano character is equally non-universal and just odd. He seems to have little deep religious conviction but simply spouts the words. Yet we don't have a sense at all why he has latched onto religion to further a personal agenda of greed? power? lust? It's just there and not given any context. On the other hand, the content and type of religion he is espousing bears a very tenuous relationship to anything I recognize as the main conflicts in American Christianity. His boyishness has no meaning in the context of any bigger ideas, nor his own power hunger. So, this character just doesn't say much beyond it being a very confused collaboration between a director, a screenwriter and an actor. Furthermore his acting is just excruciatingly bad. It was quite awful.A further sign of Anderson's lack of control of his material is the way the music added almost nothing to the movie. It was like "What's up Tigerlily"...a music track was grafted onto the film almost randomly. The music inspired tension at odd times...I could sit you down and explain how almost invariably the music, while not unlistenable at times, was out of synch with what was happening on screen or created a false manipulation that ruined a potentially more subtle moment.The most interesting thing, then, about this movie are 1) that Paul Thomas Anderson could make such a mess and not have anybody in his team or studio tell him that he was full of crap and 2) that so many IMDb readers/commenters are taken in by the TWBB package enough to project onto it their own thinking about this subject. My take on it is that people see the beautiful package and also the subject matter and how it MIGHT have been handled and write their own little script to it.Should Anderson be credited with inspiring all this enthusiasm and creative interpretation? I don't think so. I believe if he listens only to this adulation that his next movie will really fall apart in a way that even these folk will no longer be able to overlook the flaws. As is, I'm hoping TWBB gets pulled down from its perch at #73 on IMDb's list to a less elevated position as more people discover what a substandard piece it is.
Give me a break
posted on 27 Aug 2009What a mess! This film had no plot, no direction, and went absolutely nowhere. I can't believe people are giving it a good rating (is it because of the acting? - which was good but nothing spectacular).Usually the egghead types can get away by saying they love a bad film because it's artsy. However, there is absolutely no deep message, or redeeming value in this movie... so what's there excuse? I read one review that stated that those giving this movie a bad review just can't appreciate good character development. What character development? The main character started out as a selfish asshole, continued to be a selfish asshole throughout the movie, and ended as one - so how did he develop? Yes, a good movie should have it's characters develop, but focusing on the main character without a plot is a snooze-fest. I can't believe I stayed awake throughout this entire movie just for that horrible ending.The only thing I can think of is the politically correct message of bashing Christianity (America's favorite pastime these days). In this movie Christianity was bashed literally and the politically correct crowd must have loved it because I can see no other reason why anyone with an intellect higher than that of a chimp would see anything worthwhile in this movie.
Very long, drawn out, and in the end pointless
posted on 25 Aug 2009I went into this film not really knowing anything about it (apart from Daniel Day-Lewis winning the Oscar). And I left without really knowing anything about it.The film starts with a fairly long segment without any dialogue, which actually I thought was quite good. A brave move in this modern day, and one which I think worked. I couldn't quite work out why the central character was mining for silver one day, then suddenly drilling for oil, but that's immaterial.The second act (after DDL has adopted the son of a dead worker, for what one would imagine are altruistic reasons) involves the mining of oil in a small Northern California town. Again, this worked pretty well - going to the town, buying up drilling rights from the townsfolk by conning them etc. Then HW (the central character's adopted son) is made deaf in an accident, and suddenly the film changes direction.Most of the second half of the film is confused, and in the end pointless. One minute you feel sorry for the central character, having to send his son (whom he clearly cares for) away to school. The next he doesn't seem to care about anyone but himself.The whole "long lost brother" subplot could have been excised from the film without any real loss to the story. In fact, most of the last half of the film could have been lost, and this would have been a better film.I haven't read the original book on which the film is based, but I assume it is a character piece, with several vignettes in the life of the central character. On film, this just didn't work.If you are convinced to go and see this film, take a cushion, as it is overtly long. 3 / 10 mainly because the central performance is so riveting.
Stupendously abysmally horrendously boring!
posted on 25 Aug 2009If Daniel Day Lewis would not have played this role as a titan of the screen, I would have abandoned watching the movie from somewhere at the first hour. Instead, I watched all 2 hours and 40 minutes of complete and utter nothingness!Let me dispel some misbeliefs that you might have. If you think this is like a darker Dallas, where oil competitors are outsmarting each other, think again. There is nothing smart in the behaviour of the characters and almost no killing. Is it some gory piece of Scarface mutilation? Not at all.All that this movie is doing is showing how one man is slowly creating an oil company from nothing, while losing any humanity he might have had. You may know the type, smallish angry people that care less about their own success than about the lack of success of others. You will be watching this man for 160 minutes and start wishing for that darn blood!Bottom line: you will look at the screen and scream "what the...?". My advice, don't watch it.
Forget speechless, this film left me BREATHLESS
posted on 25 Aug 2009After viewing this film, I was truly breathless. The wind had been knocked out of me by the performances, the music, the cinematography. Everything about this movie is flawless. Daniel Day-Lewis has truly outdone himself. He had, at that point, already secured his spot as one of the greatest actors (if not THE greatest) today, with films like In the Name of the Father and My Left Foot, but this is by far his best performance. Although cliché, I could truly watch this man recite the dictionary; no, I could watch him READ the dictionary, as the first 20 minutes of TWBB proved to me. If you haven't seen this magnificent film, go watch it right now. If you have seen it, go watch it again.
An epic performance
posted on 23 Aug 2009What I have seen in this almost 3 hour movie is that cinema at its best as an art. The script, the music, the shots and the performances have left me in awe.It was evident that Daniel Day Lewis earned the Oscar even just by the ending scene of the movie. However, the music and the movie itself couldn't win an Oscar which I think is not fair.The music has been similar to the old classics in the sense that it did not create a feeling for the moment to unfold, it created a feeling for the whole movie in itself to unfold. There was a general totalitarian feeling in this and it was very attractive.It is too early to say that this one is to become a classic, but it surely holds most of the aspects of the classics we have yet seen until today.It was great to watch Daniel Day Lewis perform brilliantly and he simply underlined the fact that he is currently the best drama actor around.
Throne of Blood
posted on 23 Aug 2009Daniel Plainview builds himself a throne of blood with his bare hands but money can't buy happiness.This movie is one of the greatest examples of a loner and schizoid personality disorder. schizoid personality disorder is characterized by at least four of the following criteria : 1)neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family 2)almost always chooses solitary activities 3)has little,if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person 4)takes pleasure in few, if any, activities 5)lacks close friends orconfidants other than first-degree relatives 6)appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others 7)shows emotional coldness,detachment, or flattened affectivity
Revitalizing, masterful, and utterly terrifying.
posted on 21 Aug 2009What 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.
A Character Study But We Leave Wondering Who Is This Man?
posted on 21 Aug 2009Although well done in many ways with a great mood and great acting, I felt deprived of information watching this film. Who was Daniel? What was his childhood? What is the secret hinted at in the film in Daniel's family history but never revealed? What is the story with his brother? Did he ever have a woman in his life? Who was his lieutenant, a man he seemed to trust? The movie had a chance to really tell us what kind of life would have produced this emotionally stunted nihilistic violent man but it does not. The story of the early days of oil was interesting, but the film is less that story than the story of Daniel and it is incomplete.
Bi-Polar
posted on 21 Aug 2009There Will Be Blood, praised by critics and award ceremonies alike, has had major buzz since it was released on the silver screen. I followed the buzz and I've looked longingly at the film, but with trepidation. I've been here before, this ain't my first rodeo, I know films of this ilk. Many times the praise of critic amounts to: much to do about nothing. I've enjoyed some, Brokeback Mountain for instance. Most of the time though films like The Hours, Lost in Translation, and About Schmidt, which were all critically acclaimed, fall flat on this viewer. There Will Be Blood, officially joins the ranks of those unremarkable films.The film has some high points. The acting is superb, the characters are interesting if a little schizophrenic. The premise of the movie is sound and I enjoyed the cinematography and overall tone of the film.Unfortunately, this film falls into the genre of film that I am not easily impressed, the character study. Morality and greed are surely the topics of conversation in this picture. But, as with most character studies, the film devotes to much time to fleshing out the characters than furthering a coherent and meaningful plot. I'm not asking for back story to explain motivation, but I never got the feeling of any sort of direction in this film. Many events unfold made by the main character that seem to come from left field because you can never really understand what he is thinking or what type of person he truly is. This sentiment is shared with several characters in the film. I know that the complexities of human emotions cannot always be pegged into simple good or bad, but nonetheless the plot feels lacking. And the ending only exacerbates these feelings of schizophrenia and misdirection.It isn't a terrible film, but definitely not of the caliber as other films in IMDBs top 250. I can only hope time will lower this bloated score.
Best of 2007
posted on 19 Aug 2009I've only seen Daniel Day-Lewis in three other films and I loved his work in each one of them. Of the four movies I have now seen him in; There Will Be Blood is by far his best one.Daniel Day-Lewis plays Daniel Plainview. His character starts out as an ordinary man in the late 1800s that is in search of oil. The first fifteen minutes or so of the movie is very interesting for it has no dialog. Rather the film is expressed through the thunderous score by John Greenwood and the actions of a group of men including Daniel who dig deeply into the earth to find oil. With an accidental drop of a heavy metal object, they find their price.The film then swiftly turns to the turn of the twentieth century. Daniel Plainview has become quite a businessman as an entrepreneur of oil. He gets a tip about an earthquake oil in the middle of nowhere. He checks it out and discovers that he has located a new place to expand his oil empire. Persuading the towns' people with the promise of money, he gets them to leave from their land. He then meets his contender; a young man named Ely (Paul Dano) who claims to be a prophet. Ely grabs a hold of the towns' people to follow his church while Plainview digs his wells. Ely then soon learns that Plainview is not going to keep his promise of giving the people their money, but to keep it all for himself. Ultimately, it turns into a game between these two men as Ely turns the people against him and Plainview tries to stabilize his power, wells, and reputation. Daniel's dream of finding oil slowly turns against him as he realizes that he can't get enough of the oil and the wealth it can make him. He slowly passes into madness and becomes a cold-blooded murderer against those who stand in his way, hence the title There Will Be Blood. Daniel Day-Lewis is simply brilliant and nothing short of Oscar worthy. He plays a very frightening character as someone who seeks for riches, but then transforms into someone that anyone would not want to be. He would do anything to get his way, even using his own son H.W. Plainview as a prop to get some sympathy as a "family man". He speaks with a dry monotone, but his eyes hold a cold disdain towards others. As he says straightforwardly to one of the main characters in the film, "I look at people and see nothing worth liking…I don't want anyone else to succeed." Paul Dano plays two roles in the film. Although neither character is in a scene together, he does an excellent job. He is almost the comic relief as Ely, particularly when gives his sermons that are so corny that make me want to roll over with laughter. I'm surprised Paul kept a straight face in some of his scenes he performed in the film. To me, most movie that are over two and half hours are very long. Well, this movie does not drag one bit; I was engrossed by it from start to finish. Director Paul Thomas Anderson captures the film wonderfully from the distant landscape shots to the intense facial up-closes of the thespians. The works of cinematography, art direction, film and sound editing were all marvelously and worth the Oscars nominations each are given. But the one thing I did not like about this movie was the music. I often felt it drowned the film, particularly in the beginning when Daniel raises his hand up covered with oil. The music was so loud that it reminded me of a tornado alarm going off. Perhaps this was caused by the surround sound in the theater I was in.Otherwise, I was very impressed with this film. I give this a 10/10. This is the best movie I have seen for 2007. -This movie has been nominated for eight academy awards including Best Picture.
There Will Be Boredom
posted on 19 Aug 2009This movie had fantastic acting, beautiful visuals, and a tremendous authentic feel to it. On the other hand, the story was slow in parts, the soundtrack was ghastly, and the movie was a tad pretentious. Let's face it, Daniel Day Lewis is one of this generation's finest actors and deserves any accolades for his performance. What I don't get is why this movie is being touted as the one of the 20 best movies of all-time. It was OK. Some great things, some not so great things. Could it have been shorter? Probably. But there are plenty of fantastic, epic 3 hour movies for all kinds of taste (Braveheart, Lord of the Rings, Gone With The Wind, etc). I just don't think this was one of them.If you are a fan of DDL, then you will likely enjoy this movie. It had some funny moments and several great scenes. But it is boring. Heck, there isn't a single word spoken for the first 30 minutes. OK perhaps I am exaggerating, but it seemed like 30 minutes. In fact, during the first scene, I thought, "That has to be the most boring job in the world." 60 minutes later I realized I was mistaken - a film critic having to sit through this movie would be the most boring job in the world. However, it did improve, if only slightly.In the end, this was really nothing more than a turn of the century period piece about the oil rush. There was a lot of "I'm going to buy that land!" and "I like to quail hunt" and "we believe in God, you heathen!" I think I expected too much and was let down. I wanted Gangs of New York and The Last of the Mohicans and instead I got The Aviator....a fine movie, about a crazy rich guy. Don't give me my money back, just warn me next time.
A film that will leave film-goers pondering for a long time
posted on 17 Aug 2009PT 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.
A 3 hour shaggy dog story
posted on 17 Aug 2009I don't know how this got 8.5 on IMDb. I guess from this point on I will only be trusting IMDb for low-grossing foreign films or movies prior to 2006 or so, because no longer is a recent high rating on IMDb trustworthy. First In Bruges, and now this.In a way, the director is like Tarantino. Tarantino steals a bunch of stuff from other movies and puts it together in an entertaining way. Ultimately, his movies have no point other than perhaps to revive the failing careers of washed-up actors.TWBB is like a Tarantino flick without the entertainment value. PTA is like someone who has watched the same number of movies as Tarantino but not really understood what he was watching and how the movies worked. So you have a great actor, some pretty scenes, some violence. You have dynamics, light and shade. You have some scary violin(?) sound effects to give foreboding. Sounds good, right? Wrong.All those things must be put together in a logical manner for them to make a great movie. You can't just throw the elements of a great movie into a metaphorical blender and expect to produce genius, even if your great actor delivers a great performance.In the end, it's like a 3 hours shaggy dog story; the story is dragged out as long as possible, the punchline is delivered with enthusiasm even though it makes no sense whatsoever. A Kubrick or Leone would be looking at this movie like a general in charge of an air-force base looks at a cargo cult "air field", with a kind of speechless amusement and wonder that it was implemented let alone conceived.Next time I will be reading reviews, taking note of the director and/or letting the movie sit and gather votes for several years before taking a punt. There is 100 years of better cinema to be had in the weekly rental section.
Disappointed
posted on 17 Aug 2009I was really disappointed with this movie. The high ratings and Daniel Day Lewis starring had my hopes up, but they were dashed in the first 30 minutes. I kept waiting for something interesting to happen, but the movie provided me with dry, boring entertainment for far longer than a movie should have lasted. The story may have been an interesting tale, but there was no character development for anyone but the lead actor, there did not seem to be any continuity for the most part, and the ending left you wondering why you stayed and watched for so long. I can say that I've only seen 3 films that are worse/more boring than this one. I will certainly NOT recommend that anyone take precious time out of their day to watch this dry, drawn-out regretable film.
The sucking sound you hear is not "Oil."
posted on 31 Aug 2009Unfortunately for me, I read "Oil" by Upton Sinclair before I saw the movie. There is nothing in this movie that is remotely similar to the novel except oil - so it could have taken place in Saudi Arabia with Peter O'Toole on a camel. 1. The names have all been changed except for the Watkins siblings. 2. The son is the main character, not dad. 3. The son is an actual son who also has an older sister. 4. The son does not go deaf and is certainly not sent away. 5.Paul does not tell about oil on the Watkins land. 6. The son is 13 at the start of the novel. 7. When the son is a young man he dates several interesting women including a movie star. 8. Dad is basically a good guy who does bribe people to get what he wants, but also has a good business sense. 9. A main feature of the novel is the unionization of the workers and the son's involvement in socialism. 10. Paul is a major character, almost the perfect person, who cares about the needs of people and their working conditions. 11. Paul is killed in the end when hit over the head during a union busting riot. 12. Eli, although a charlatan, never renounces his faith. 13. The church of the third revelation was a joke set up by dad, but Eli took it and ran with it. 14. The son does not marry a Watkins. Although attracted to Ruth, he is also put off by Ruth's unhealthy devotion to Paul. 15. The son does marry Rachel who is also a socialist and together they found a school for others of like belief. 16. Dad is never baptized. 17. Dad never kills anyone. 18. Dad marries a psychic and dies a few days later setting up a fight over his estate. 19. Dad's partner ends up with most of the money. 20. Dad and son love each other very much. I realize that movies are not books, but this was torture. I might add that the music sounded awful. Suntne