IMDb user comments for
There Will Be Blood (2007)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 78:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

777 comments in total

---

446 out of 674 people found the following comment useful :-
Remember Those Hollywood Studio Epics? Me Either. But We're Covered., 14 January 2008

Author: DSampson612 from Philadelphia, PA

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...

---

349 out of 553 people found the following comment useful :-
A powerful and emotionally draining masterpiece., 21 December 2007

Author: dsbnh from San Francisco, California

A movie that hits you like a fever, There Will Be Blood is not the type of story that gets told very often. A multi-layered portrait of all that comes with a desire for power, There Will Be Blood will leave audiences feeling exhausted and with a bitter taste in their mouths.

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, the film is presented in an assured and confident manner. Anderson is the most naturally gifted filmmaker of his generation, a fact that is evident here. Packed with breathtaking shots and scenes of boiling intensity, the movie makes no apologies about its tendency towards the grandeur inherent in telling an epic story that spans decades. Perhaps the first thing that will strike viewers will be the unavoidable use of imagery that comes naturally when setting a story in the old west. However, Anderson's latest effort also packs enough depth and complexity to let you know that it never relies solely on this foundation. Although ripe with symbolism, There Will Be Blood does not settle for merely the pretense of poignancy by imagery. Instead it gives us complex characters that prove to be the soul of the story.

The film is anchored by the powerful presence of Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview, a silver miner turned oilman. Day-Lewis' performance is a thing of beauty. Equal parts larger-than-life and nuanced, his Daniel Plainview perfectly embodies the spirit of a salesman while putting across the multiple layers required for the portrayal of a man with an all-too-human desire for power. Critics of Daniel Day-Lewis performance will say that his portrayal is far too theatrical, a criticism also given to his portrayal of Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York. The reality is that Day-Lewis does not carry this to everyone of his performances. However, he knows when a character is supposed to be showman. Plainview is a salesman and without his swagger he would be nowhere as a businessman. What is truly outstanding is that, unlike lesser actors, Day-Lewis is able to bring out the more human aspects of Plainview that make him a fascinating character to watch.

Joining Day-Lewis is Paul Dano as Eli Sunday. Dano balances out his character appropriately, giving Sunday the calm and silent demeanor that stands in sharp contrast to his passion for religion. While Dano does not deliver the performance of his career in this film, he does show hints of tremendous talent in his portrayal of an evangelical preacher that stands in opposition of Plainview's search for power. The rest of the cast simply takes a supporting role amidst this struggle.

Providing the score for this conflict is Johnny Greenwood's haunting score. Greenwood manages to accentuate the barren desert setting with a score that is both minimalist and entrancing. Although it never rises to the showboating highs of Howard Shore, the music enhances the dark, pessimistic, and emotionally taxing tone of the film while never taking center stage away from the performances.

There Will Be Blood is an achievement in cinematography, acting, writing and film-making unlike anything released in 2007. It is a film that puts its focus on wholly unlikable characters and dares to take you in deeper despite this fact. Like Raging Bull, it is a character study of a man who you would not normally want to know and who you will be unable to forget about after it is all said and done. You may not want to revisit this film anytime soon, but it will be for all the right reasons. It is a powerful and emotionally draining experience.

---

338 out of 576 people found the following comment useful :-
A film that will leave film-goers pondering for a long time, 6 November 2007

Author: toolfan-hess from United States

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.

---

204 out of 314 people found the following comment useful :-
'Blood' and oil do not mix, 8 January 2008

Author: gregeichelberger from San Diego

*** This comment may contain 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.

---

123 out of 196 people found the following comment useful :-
There will be hype, 13 January 2008

Author: jed_priv from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I like Upton Sinclair and I like Daniel Day Lewis (DDL) (esp. impressed with Gangs of NY), but this movie is a flop in so many ways I can't recount them all here. Generally. it suffers from a deeply flawed screenplay and what I would presume to be the misdirection of DDLs considerable talent. In roughly 2.5 hours, the movie does almost nothing to either account for or reveal in any particularly interesting way the moral bankruptcy of Plainview. Insofar as DDL's performance is concerned, it is particularly overacted at the scene of his baptism, when his overt contempt for the proceeding could not be more apparent. While we can sympathize with his plight and laugh with his sarcastic murmurings, it is simply unbelievable that such a manipulative person in desperate need of the critical lease for his pipeline wouldn't at least fake the requisite sincerity, especially as we know the Plainview character is a capable performer and has a history of doing so. The 30 minute over-dramatized coda explains nothing and adds nothing and thus the movie's conclusion is abrupt and unsatisfying. We already knew that Plainview was brutish and that Eli Sunday was a fraud. Some better explanation for the distance between D Plainview and H.W. would have been welcome, but none was offered.

A WEEK LATER: Everyone I speak with in NYC who has seen this movie agrees that it is weak and over-hyped. How is this rated the #28 best film ever made on IMDb, higher than Chinatown, Taxi Driver, M, Vertigo, The Third Man, Clockwork Orange, Raging Bull, Rashomon, etc... etc... ???? Are the voters here truly tasteless or just studio shills?

TWO WEEKS THEREAFTER: With another 1000 votes in the tally, its clear that the IMDb audience thinks this is the 16th best film ever made -- which goes to show how very little great cinema they've seen. Despite their rating, the film is no better than The Treasure of Sierra Madre where Bogart essentially gives DDL lessons in how to play the miner succumbed to greed -- a performance for which he didn't even grab a best actor nomination! (Admittedly, TWBB is perhaps more "true to life," and benefits from incredible staging (sets and rigs) but I take this to be a function of the present climate where audiences are willing to accept an overt "indictment" of capitalist speculation as opposed to the more restrictive clime of 1948 in which the subject had to be reduced to a comedy.) Interestingly, I just read on wikipedia that "(The treasure of Sierra Madre) is director Paul Thomas Anderson's favorite film. In fact, he watched it every night before bed while writing his film There Will Be Blood"

---

96 out of 155 people found the following comment useful :-
Last Nail in the Coffin for the IMDb Top 250 List Credibility, 24 January 2008

Author: dcpulliam from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The idea that this film is one of the top 250 of all time (let alone top 25!) is preposterous. This is the first review I've submitted, and I do so because I feel compelled to express my outrage that a movie such as this could garner such a high rating, and may by itself destroy whatever credibility the "250" list may have retained.

Count me in the "Emperor Has No Clothes" crowd. Look, I loved "Boogie Nights" as much as anyone. It was a masterpiece, a work of genius. Nostalgia for that film is the only reasonable explanation I can construct to understand why so many have rated "Blood" so highly.

Daniel Day-Lewis gives a fine performance, yes, but what else is new? Though well-acted, I found his character simple and uninteresting. I am stunned by those who seem to regard Plainview as a new and terrifying character, a soulless messenger of a new evil (I chuckled when the goat-ranching rube whom Plainview aims to exploit introduces himself as "Abel")"No Country For Old Men" and J. Bardem covered that territory far more effectively. Plainview seemed like a pretty straightforward sociopath to me.

Paul Dano, who I think is a fine actor, is terribly miscast as the evangelical preacher. He lacks the charisma and presence to credibly portray a charlatan. He was shrieky, and bizarre, not smooth, charming,confident, or anything else that suckers people into falling for scams. He was utterly unbelievable in his role, and it was too large a part to make such a mistake, set, as it was, against the furnace that is Daniel Day-lewis.

Which leads me to the kid who played Plainview's adopted son for the greater part of the film. I am loath to criticize a child, but I can only assume this boy had the "look" as a prop desired by the director, b/c he displayed no ability as an actor. When called upon for dialog, his stilted performance is painful to behold. I cannot believe there wasn't another kid who could've hit his cues more effectively, more naturally.

I actually found the ending one of the few interesting, thought provoking aspects of the film, but by then it was far too late to breathe life into the bloated behemoth that had strewn itself out on the screen the previous 2+ hours.

---

118 out of 199 people found the following comment useful :-
There Will Be Stink..., 8 January 2008

Author: ibanezman6 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

First off, I'd like to say that I have enjoyed most all of PTA's films. I loved Boogie Nights, thought Magnolia was an ambitious, but not great picture, and thoroughly enjoyed Punch- Drunk Love. I, like many others have eagerly awaited Paul Thomas Anderson's latest film, There Will Be Blood. In fact, I drove almost 120 miles and waited 2-3 hours in line to see it, as that was the closest showing of it. I bought into all the hype, read almost every review, watched any and all interviews of it that I could, expecting a "masterpiece" as so many IMDBers put it. People even had the audacity to say it's one of the best films of the decade. Some big words and shoes for a film to fit.

Nevertheless, after the wait, I found myself disappointed and terribly bored with this film. The movie's pacing and editing was SO slow and too long (nearly 3 hours), I felt that the editor should have had another much needed run in the cutting room. For instance, certain shots in a scene went on forever as the camera stays with a character for 5 min or more, never changing angles, creating a needlessly slow pace. There were many scenes with little to no dialog adding another dull layer. Now I appreciate films with silence that present cinematic art ( "3-Iron" and "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...And Spring", two movies that are nearly all silence) yet here it granted the film unevenness. People are claiming this film had beautiful cinematography, yet I fail to see what was so unique. Perhaps the theater I was at had an inexperienced projectionist or something, but the shots, lighting, and composition were rather dull and the camera movements uninteresting. I mean how hard is it to shoot wide-angle barren landscapes and campfire scenes and follow actors with steadicam/tracking scenes? Although this wasn't a stylized movie, rather an attempt to take you into the 19th century, I thought the cinematography was mediocre at best. I've seen better work from Robert Elswit and other DPs.

Worse than mediocre however, is the music/soundtrack, which was so obnoxious and used out of place, that it just may have worsened the viewing experience. The horror-like, intense and unnerving score that was mixed way too loud in the soundtrack, doesn't even seem to match the images or the story. The music isn't "bad", but it does not fit well. The music, which attempted to create tension among the characters exemplifying greed and corruption, seemed extremely forced and vexing. Here is this rather slowly cut/paced movie displaying an ugly landscape or early America undeveloped showcasing a man being SLOWLY corrupted, scored side-by-side with this imposing, experimental, enormous, horror-like score that was woefully out of sync with the film and apparently wanted to call attention to itself, not assist the story.

Acting... Well, although there is praise left and right for Daniel Day Lewis and Paul Dano, I felt both performances were lackluster, Paul Dano's being much worse. There were many times that I felt like Dano was just reading from a script and not embodying the character, for instance, the first time we are introduced to him, his lines are weak and artificial with strange speech pauses and insipid facial expressions. DDL was also nothing special. His accent was, well... certainly not mind-blowing, and didn't make me think of anything uniquely "American" as that was what he was supposedly trying to portray. In many scenes he was overacting and Dano was underacting, or vice versa. I couldn't get into the two personality types as they were undeveloped. Although the audience is supposed to dislike DD Lewis, I didn't care for any of the characters and completely lost interest in the film about 40 min to an hour into it. DD Lewis is a great actor and that may be an understatement, but he certainly did not shine in this picture. Yet at the same time, he may have been the only redeemable thing in this movie.

I can only assume that since PTA is known for giving minimal direction and following his scripts closely (he has stated this during commentaries of his films) the acting was flawed and pulse nearly-dead, due to the weak script/adaptation. There were some major/minor holes in this film, but I didn't care. I was too bored, and couldn't care about any underlying tones of greed and religion since the characters neither really embodied either very well. Some characters appear, some disappear never to be seen again, certain scenes that were supposed to be climactic and intense came off as comedic (the audience I was with, laughed a great deal during these scenes) and I wondered if that was the way PT Anderson intended it, or it being the audience I sat with. I don't know. For example, during the final scene where DDL and Dano's "discussion" turns into a near fight, the scene comes off as if it were slapstick and had the audience busting out in laughs.

In summary, this film was a major let down for me as I had high hopes for it, and was a fan of all of PTA's films. The film's execution, writing, and direction was empty and flawed, resulting in an uneven, and painfully boring film. I supposed there are different strokes for different folks, but the film really stinks.

---

167 out of 310 people found the following comment useful :-
I Drink Your Milkshake!, 28 September 2007

Author: tommyknockers-1 from Boston, MA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Just so you know where I'm coming from... I think Magnolia is one of the most overrated films I've ever seen. But this... This is a damn Kubrick-level masterpiece. Flawless. Saw it from a folding chair in a overflowing theater at the Alamo's Fantastic Fest in Austin - there were moments where I'd look back and see every jaw in the room dropped. Its less overtly political than I imagined - more about the psychology and emptiness of the lust for power. See this as soon as it comes out - this is going to cause a ruckus (especially coming out on Christmas, Jesus!), and its much better if you don't know what to expect. Except for blood.

---

43 out of 63 people found the following comment useful :-
The Perfect Yawn, 15 February 2008

Author: noukmetdewijdebroek from Dublin

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Let's start with an understatement. Overstatements enough all around. This wont be the first you read about this film - this will be comment 124453. Unfortunately you probably spent some money, and more importantly, a good deal of time to see what's all the fuss about.

Your reaction will be one of the three possible reactions to this film:

1) Everyone thinks this is excellent! So I officially think this is excellent too! Especially since I am into art-house, I can not afford to call this boring piece of sh*t a boring piece of sh*t.. I will just give it a 10 on IMDb and next get something Spanish with tits in it to cheer me up.

2) What's the fuss about?? This is a well done, well acted period piece that is worth my time if I would stumble upon it on a Wednesday night on TV.. It might make me go to bed late just to see where it goes. It has some freaky and unrealistic stuff in it (DDL stuffing the priests face with mud for no apparent reason? among others) but hey, they took the money and effort to re-enact the time period and set a slightly boring drama. 3 drops of blood will be involved in the very last scene. Ow sorry, spoilered anything there? :P The DDL that we knew from Gangs Of New York was asked to change nothing except costume and give it a go, gang leader and oil baron is basically the same ballpark anyway.

3) The world has gone mad. DDL does an OK job, yeah alright, but does he save this little paper ship filled with heavy pretensions not to sink? No way! WTF is this film trying to tell us (me) ? It has NO character development AT ALL, which is pretty amazing for a piece that stretches over decades. Characters are defined from the beginning, and from there on static. Not exciting to watch them go around their unpleasant business for a few hours. (If they were even more unpleasant that might be the case, but it's all within limits, very decent middle-of-the-road unpleasantness) The few interesting bits are far apart, and exactly those are far-fetched. We have the "healing priest" guy, having those Texan (or what are they) farmers believe whatever he wants.. Farmers are usually the "wanna see first believe you then" type. Ah well I dunno, in Texas they might be like that :P But then the bit where DDL stuffs mud in the priests mouth for no reason at all! And slaps him around a bit! Interesting scene, maybe the best, but again.. WTF? There is no notion in the film that would explain this or whatever leads to it.

And then we have the ending.. OK it IS nice, and well acted and all.. But it is f*cking ridiculous! I would welcome it in any film with a comical undertone.. But for this film that has been taken /taking itself so very serious, it makes no sense at all! DDL is victorious in the end, and confronts his longtime enemy with his victory.. and then instead of savouring it, he kills him off in (again) a mad unprovoked rage! well i can go on but i wont, bless you all :) i liked magnolia though.. that wasn't realistic, but didn't pretend to be either. and it managed to convey the sentiment it tried to.

god i hope this will plummet some more in the ratings... but i am afraid that generations to come will check the IMDb top 250, see this scoring a 9, download it, and then decide that us "oldies" have no taste whatso-ever and just go get the newest pulp crap.

thank you all pretentious farts for acting like you actually enjoyed this film. my children will benefit huge improvements in reaction speed for playing more games and watching less movies.

---

70 out of 118 people found the following comment useful :-
A Powerful Blow, 16 February 2008

Author: Michael O'Connor from Canada

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 78:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history