MUBI

This one surprisingly decided to come on tv and I immediately became fixated on the screen knowing all the hype this gets. Then the justification with all its craziness started flowing in, first with the dinner scene and the guy who brilliantly plays Eli which was all really ominous and gloomy. Then out of no where comes the explosion scene (don’t ask me how they shot that) which left me regretting ever watching such an epic scene in an unsuitable room on an unsuitable tv, and from there on out the film looked pretty promising. The church scenes were also really great not to mention hilarious, a friend beside me asked me if I they ever hit me in church and it was all just one frivolous moment.

Then came the ending which initiated one of the biggest flat-line experiences I’ve come across in cinema and left me wondering what was the point of it all. I respect this film for all it is but the room for improvement it has could shelter a hundred homeless families. The music here is also overused like in one scene where someone is walking all alone and you hear his footsteps on gravel which to me could’ve evoked some sort of quiet peaceful calmness of being alone in the wilderness… I’m gonna watch some Bresson now.

Three times is a charm and my esteem for this film has reached a pinnacle. Paul Thomas Anderson is truly a great director and “There Will Be Blood” is his finest achievement to date. He has captured an important part of the American story and provided us with one of the most fascinating characters on film in Daniel Planeview. Daniel Day Lewis’s portrayal of Daniel Planeview is breathtaking in its complexity and emotional scope. Planeview loves and hates with equal passion and his inner workings are slowly revealed. His nemesis Eli Sunday is equally complex and Paul Dano’s Sunday is quite effective in trying to indict Planeview’s conscience.The films final conflict between these two opportunist is powerful and telling. Between the bookmarks of this powerful epic we witness one of the most interesting father son relationships ever filmed. This is a film of great beauty and internal conflict. This is a film that stays with you for days. This is probably the best film of the decade. It provokes strong feelings. This is the definition of great cinema.

There will be blood est un film monstrueux, difforme, sublime et repoussant. A l’image de Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) et de l’ouverture matricielle, sous-exposée, du film. Adapté de Oil! de Upton Sainclair, le film s’est étendu d’abord à la fondation historique et économique des Etats-Unis, puis en hyperbole explicite grâce au personnage principal – métaphore inévitable du même pays.

Premier acte : Paul Thomas Anderson se joue du spectateur en adoptant la reconstitution historique, parfaite en sus. Les violons dissonants de la partition (le seul adjectif adapté serait inconcevable) de Johnny Greenwood ouvrent puissamment le film sur un paysage rocailleux et ingrat surexposé du Midwest avant de s’intéresser de plus près à ce qui se trame sous le soleil de plomb, et sous sa terre aride.

Daniel cherche des pierres au fond d’un puits, qu’il semble avoir creusé lui-même, et au premier indice décide de faire sauter une paroi. Il montera suffisamment vite pour éviter le souffle, sa descente sera infiniment plus périlleuse, presque mortelle… ce n’est qu’un début. En 2h30, PT Anderson sera dans une telle économie de mise en scène qu’elle prendra paradoxalement une ampleur mythologique. Rugissant d’un bord à l’autre du cadre, Daniel Day-Lewis (curieux partage du prénom avec le personnage) sera comme un lion en cage, à l’ambition sans borne et au dessein machiavélique.

La « petite » histoire de Daniel ne laisse pas de place pour l’accident, encore une trajectoire que partage l’Histoire, a posteriori tous les évènements sont liés. Assimilant un siècle d’Histoire américaine, PT Anderson semble jouer avec le temps, confronter la religion et l’économie dès les prémisses d’une richesse abyssale, celle d’un or noir qu’il métaphorisera constamment en sang sacrificiel. A quelques plans du début, déjà, un père bénit son fils d’un doigt apposé sur le front, lui laissant une marque noire là où dans d’autres cultures elle est écarlate.

Le scénariste-metteur en scène prénommera ses deux jumeaux Paul et Eli, ce dernier fondant sur les terres nouvellement acquises par Daniel l’Eglise de la Troisième Révélation. Entre hypocrisie et trahison les émotions brutes sont vite étouffées par l’incroyable avidité de l’homme qui veut se débarrasser du monde. Cette confession malavisée sera l’aune d’appréciation du spectateur que PT Anderson n’épargnera guère, exigeant – avec justesse – une interprétation qui ne doit pas être manquée.

Faussement linéaire, son scénario se permettra quelques dates ici et là, peut-être un compromis dans une œuvre qui par ailleurs ne s’en autorisera aucun. Chaque plan est immédiatement justifié dans sa longueur, jamais expédié, le film imprégnant graduellement un rythme d’une cruauté qui refuse le mépris. Dans sa quête effrénée d’une autarcie vis-à-vis de l’humanité, Daniel se découvrira moins misanthrope que profondément psychopathe, il est le monstre qui enflera au fur et à mesure de sa réussite.

Ses confrontations face à un autre travesti, Eli, le faux prophète, seront celles qui détermineront le mieux le propos et la pensée de PT Anderson. Se libérant d’un carcan historique incommensurable, il insuffle à son film le pouvoir subversif et délétère d’une perversité mise à nue. Dans son entreprise il risque cependant de rendre imperméable de nombreuses clés de compréhension, inaccessibles au plus grand nombre tant sa mise en scène procède de l’épure la plus complexe. En simplifiant à l’excès les choses il les complique incroyablement car tous les indices sont éliminés car accessoires.

Il s’agit certainement de l’un des plus grands films américains de ces dix dernières années, sa construction est telle qu’elle en devient profondément vertigineuse. La lucidité avec laquelle PT Anderson traite Le sujet contemporain avec une forme tragiquement moderne en fait l’une des charges les plus virulentes, les plus justifiées et les plus intelligentes de son époque… encore faudrait-il la comprendre et comme dit Daniel « Pour moi, seules les apparences suffisent à comprendre les autres ».

One of the best movies i’ve seen in a long time. The story was so gripping and powerful. Daniel Day-Lewis was so powerful, you couldn’t help but completely idolize the character of Daniel Plainfield. Paul Dano was also very gripping as a religious yet greedy false prophet. It felt so complete and epic when the movie ended, it was like ending a very prominent point in one’s life. Finally, it completely restored my faith in the movie industry.

Film perfection to me requires a few things: exceptional acting, comprehensive score accompanying and molding with the happenings on screen and in the character psyche, cinematography, and depth. If any film has reached the status if perfection, There Will Be Blood has hit that mark. In years to come this film will, and should be, considered one a standard of modern film making and every facet attached to it. Daniel Day Lewis is remarkable, leaving me speechless each time I watch this film. Friends, THIS is how a film should be.

Film ini akan sangat, sangat membosankan para penonton awam yang pada awalnya berniat menonton film ini hanya untuk ingin tahu bagaimana jalan cerita film yang meraih 8 nominasi Oscar, memenangkan 2 diantaranya, termasuk Best Actor untuk Daniel-Day Lewis. 15 menit pertama film ini adalah tantangan awal. Adegan penggalian Daniel Plainview untuk mencari perak, yang nantinya akan berubah menjadi mencari minyak. Cerita film ini juga diwarnai dengan kisah ketamakan Daniel, perlawanannya akan suatu hal yang disebut agama, dan kisah hubungannya dengan sang anak, H. W.. A good one, walaupun kurang yakin kalau suatu saat ada yang menawarkan menonton film ini lagi, saya akan menerima…

Rate: 4 / 5

when this decade blows over and people reminisce about the films of the naughty’s (i suppose thats what they will call it. 2000 -2009) this film will stand out as a classic, a triumph among the countless no-brainer blockbusters to be realesed in the same period. the film (based on the book ‘OIL’) is a truely wonderful spectacle, with masterful cinematography, and a exceptional cast of familar and un-familiar actors. this truely is a gem. there is nothing about this film i can criticize. its got it all. im pleased that such a talented director created this film, if the script was put in the hands of any other director; i belive it would have failed to acomplish what it has to date. So all in all, it is a film i highly recommed, to any type of moviegoer. it cant lose.

The opening sequence has no dialogue and minimal music. It’s quite impressive and almost a short film in itself.
The moment Daniel Day Lewis, as Daniel Plainview, speaks, it was like being hypnotised. I was reminded more than a little of John Huston in his characterisation of Daniel Plainview. At least his thick growl was uncannily akin to Huston’s voice I thought. This is very much right for this character – he has a gruff air of sincerity and earthy common sense but it’s only a facade. A trick to get what he wants. He shamelessly uses his son in the same way. And it works every time. Daniel Plainview is a deeply unpleasant man but he is utterly mesmerising to the people who meet him and we, the audience, are as much in thrall I feel. Slowly and insidiously he steals the land, left and centre, right from under the people’s noses. In fact, apart from the odd exception – Eli and Mr Bandy – everyone gladly hands it too him on a plate. But even Eli and Bandy have their own agendas for not giving in to him. Bandy for righteous reasons and Eli for greed.
Paul Dano, as Eli Sunday, has a lot to act upto and it’s to his credit that he holds his own in the scenes the two men have together – as they constantly lock horns, one trying to get the better of the other. When we first meet Eli he’s meek, mild mannered. He seems kind and thoughtful. But he is just another snake in the crib. And it’s not long before he starts hissing. Daniel calls Eli a false prophet. He’s right of course but so is Daniel (it takes one to know one!). He’s just more successful at it. That’s because he knows that the immediacy of money is always more seductive than the path to righteousness.
This is a stunning looking film and much of the story is told with the point of the camera. One very subtle moment, Daniel is telling the towns-folk of what he will do for them. As he preaches, the camera moves in slowly and seems to pan towards his son, who stands at his side and so you watch him and you become aware of him – empathise with him as his face twitches slightly and you note the lost expression. But then the camera carries on panning towards Daniel and the boy is forgotten as we – like the towns-folk – are in thrall of Daniel’s words again. This is why I love this film. This film is full of these subtle moments but you don’t even realise it. How else can you feel so much for H.W. – a character who hardly utters a word? Consequently, when Daniel packs his son off on a train, his loss as a screen presence is so great, that when he returns, the relief is palpable.
The score is like nothing I’ve heard before. Greatly enriching what is also a very densely constructed film. A great example of this is when the oil-well explodes. The pandemonium is all the more highlighted by the strange percussive cacophony played out on the soundtrack. When H.W’s eardrums burst, it would have been very easy to hammer the message home and to play the whole scene in silence but the makers know we only need those few seconds of muffled near-silence to get this message across and it’s what we are given. Then the percussion carries on.

There Will Be Blood is as near to perfect as a sprawling craggy epic can get. There is very little wrong with it. It’s flaws are minimal and it’s greatness is overwhelming.

For me, what does it take to create a perfect film? Outstanding acting. Innovative musical score. Subtlety. And gripping reailsm. There Will Be Blood excels in all of these categories….and even more. Daniel Day Lewis has always been one of my favorites (who can forget the final scene in The Crucible?), but here, he completely blows me away. With Paul Dano, they create two of the most unforgettable characters I’ve ever seen on screen. Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood crafts one of the greatest musical scores my ears have ever had the pleasure of hearing. It’s almost hard to describe in one review. My only advice is to watch it. Watch it and see the greatness.

For the first fourteen minutes and twenty seconds of “There Will Be Blood,” Daniel Plainview doesn’t say a single word. And yet I’ve rarely been more fascinated with a character. Without a single line of dialogue, actor Daniel Day Lewis and director Paul Thomas Anderson invoke an intimately powerful connection with the protagonist that is as disturbing and mysterious as our own subconscious. Anderson’s thrown convention out the window – even his own. Gone is the engrossing dialogue that characterized his works like “Boogie Nights” and “Magnolia” or the hilarious non sequitur of “Punch Drunk Love.”

If a filmmaker wants to transport you into another time, he has several tricks up his sleeve. Hollywood has created all kinds of ready-made formulas. Think of the grand costumes of “Gone With the Wind,” the hokey pageantry of an old-west shoot-em-up like “Rio Grande,” or even the colorful colloquialisms of “O! Brother, Where Art Thou?”

Yet somewhere in our DNA lives the memory of that past, the hardships, the putrid fears, the primal hatreds that we’ve carried down through the years – a shared memory that transcends all of Hollywood’s tired clichés. And I’ve never actually believed that until I heard Daniel Day Lewis’s opening lines of the film, “Ladies and gentleman, if I say I’m an oil man, you’ll agree.” Certainly after fourteen minutes and 20 seconds, any spoken word at all is bound to have a dramatic effect. Yet there’s more to this than tension and release. There isn’t anything I can point to in the dialogue or the delivery to explain it. It’s just an ineffable authenticity in Daniel Day Lewis’s acting that I’ve only felt a few times in all of my life.

One of Anderson’s most artistic contributions comes with his use of music. The score is probably a director’s greatest temptation. Overwrought music is often the last-ditch tool used to smooth over an awkward scene, a poor performance, or even an entire cinematic failure. (Not convinced? Revisit the Mendes/Hanks fiasco “Road to Perdition”).

Johnny Greenwood’s mostly original score finds a new orchestral language for communicating tension. His Ligeti-inspired strings tonally converging and diverging, an irritatingly insistent percussion cadence worthy of Stravinsky himself – these tell us as much about Plainview as does anything else. Which isn’t to say it tells us much. Unlike a Wagner opera, the orchestra fills out not so much the emotional depth as much as psychological impenetrability. What else would you expect from Radiohead’s lead guitarist?

It’s odd to use the words “intimate” to describe a film characterized by terse dialogue, detached cinematography, and unexplainable action. Yet that’s what this film is. It’s an intimate look into the unknown. Filmmakers, like the rest of us, presume to know too much, to communicate too much. We’re too afraid to explore the unknown in ourselves and others, and to leave space in our thoughts. The beauty of “There Will Be Blood” is that it gives in, admits its ignorance, and sails across our subconscious, across humanity’s ambiguities.

This was no easy feat. To do so, Anderson had to somehow transform Upton Sinclair’s “Oil!” from a polemical pro-socialist labor novel into a largely non-political (and bewildering) examination of the soul. Along the way, he discarded large portions of the book, while cleverly salvaging others, including a frightening and cinematically fresh look into the sinister backwoods world of turn-of-the-century evangelical Christianity. The novelty of this representation is due in large part to the preacher played by actor Paul Dano. His snake like contortions, abusive, slobbery healings add a new spin to this well-worn narrative feature. It’s certainly on par with his memorable performance as a Nietzschian teen in “Little Miss Sunshine.”

The film is not a masterpiece. Its final act veers dangerously close to classical Greek territory with a conventionally dramatic father/son confrontation. In fact, most of this act feels out of place; Plainview’s opulent demise into decadence and alcoholic seclusion seems more fitting of a popcorn drama. Thankfully, the final scene saves the entire production. I won’t spoil it for you, I just have four words: “I drink your milkshake.”

I have a confession, a deep dark dirty that just might kill all future reviews from me regarding a certain setting: I don’t like the desert. I don’t like the way it shoots, I don’t like the expansiveness, the colors, the light. I always feel like halfway through a film shot in one I need a shower. And then to clean off and polish my shoes.

And PT Anderson really bought it with this one — the desert really comes to life, and by life I mean in all its drabness, its caked over empty, its basic blah. I mean, yes, there’s almost an existentialness to it, but he didn’t find that, he didn’t have control of his script, he didn’t have control of the lighting (the showing I was at, half the scenes seemed underexposed).

But…and there is always a but — Daniel Day Lewis is phenomenal. Granted, it’s almost a second turn as Bob the Butcher or whatever his name was in that Scorcese monstrosity, but it’s still a role that’s a blast, and dammit if he’s not the most charismatic-textured baddie around.

(Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:15 am)

There Will Be Blood —-an insanely beautiful picture from Paul Thomas Anderson. This film can arguably be the best film of the 21st century by far. After seeing There Will Be Blood for the second time since the day it came out of the theatre, I have to say that it still gave me a freshly and satisfying feeling that I’ve felt when I first saw this film. An amazing cinematography by Robert Elswit will leave you breathless from one moment to another. Paul Dano as Eli Sunday incredibly played the mentally calmed but powerful character opposing Daniel Plainview as Daniel Day-Lewis, who gave an eerie performance that garnered him an Oscar for Best Actor. It’s a must see, must have gorgeous masterwork that will stand the test of time. 9/10.

I may go out on a limb here, but am I the only one who thinks this film is awful?

Everyone discusses about how deep and complex the film is, but it’s symbols of religion and big business are so heavy handed it comes close to being a political cartoon of the 19th century where all the symbols are written in for you. The fact that big business destroys religion in the end and that the child in the beginning is practically baptized in oil is to the point of ridiculous.

Daniel Day Lewis’ character is John Huston if he were starring in a Looney Tunes short. It’s not so much as he’s hit his lows at the end as he’s just become a joke. I’m sure Mr. Anderson certainly tried he damndest to make it a great ending, but instead it becomes a joke of Daniel Plainview strutting about and yelling about milkshakes. And I’m sorry, becoming an alcoholic is a cop out of trying to make a character go crazy, especially when he starts drinking before everything goes wrong. For some reason too, he turns against his son after he loses his hearing, but no more than a few scenes before he sends him away, he’s grasping him as the only thing he loves. This isn’t complex, it’s bad character development,

The music score is just awful too. It’s an attempt to do what Kubrick would do with the music of Ligeti and Paderewski, but it’s all music that seems to never hit a climax and still still stuck with the thematic of popular music (which I would have no problem with, but if you’re going to do a score like this, do it right).

The influences of great directors is all there: Kubrick, Malick, Altman, John Sturges, but it does nothing in comparison to the films they all made. It’s a shame too. Everything P.T. Anderson has done to this point I was a fan of (especially Punch-Drunk Love, one of my favorite films of the last decade). He’s still young though. There’s so many movies left for him to make, I hope he next few films don’t disappoint.

Plainview is a complex character. I think Day-Lewis plays him just a bit hammy especially toward the end. Plainview is anti-social and does some nasty things, but you can’t say that he doesn’t care for the well-being of his employees and son (and abused children). I didn’t like Dano in the preacher role. He was too young (didn’t age at all in more than 16 years) and screamed like a girl. Are you supposed to feel sorry for the preacher? Is religion supposed to be the obvious superior to business and western development? No, the preacher is unflattering to the image of a church as a thing that saves everyone’s souls. The church and the oil business are more alike than different. I’m not a huge fan of the music either, that’s not to say that the composer from a rock background will not become better in the future.

I agree with most people that this is the most Kubrick-esque film perhaps since Eyes Wide Shut and I think Anderson is his rightful heir. He is either a very skillful mimic or a master of style… moving effortlessly from Robert Altman-ish ensemble pieces to this. I really think Anderson is one of the most talented American directors.

Regardless of comparisons… this movie is uneven but what movie isn’t? Even Full Metal Jacket and Clockwork Orange is choppy at times. I saw this twice when it first came out and I was mesmerized. I think it’s a very effective film… a scathing criticism of soulless American industrialism and greed and a fascinating look into the early days of the oil industry, a subject that is rarely portrayed in cinema. Production design is top notch and the score by Jonny Greenwood is haunting and of course Daniel Day Lewis.

Wonderfully melancholic and bleak as hell, There Will Be Blood is the dark side of the American Dream fully realized as a nightmare. Great performance by Day-Lewis and incredible photography all around. Cool music by Greenwood, too. Just “off” enough to betray the near insanity of Plainview.

It’s a wonderful film, if you like the darker side of the human condition, but dreary and boring if you don’t. Personally, I think that it’s a brilliant film and well worth checking out.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s dark slice of Americana starts with Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) digging in a hole for gold in 1898; when oil is struck, his descent into utter madness begins (or was he mad to begin with?) Loosely based on Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel Oil!, Anderson’s script focuses on two towering figures: the brutal, animalistic Plainview, and the idealistic and manipulative faith-healer Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). Both need each other — Sunday is needed so Plainview can access a property with an “ocean of oil underneath”; Plainview is needed so Sunday can expand his congregation and give him legitimacy. Both need each other to amass great wealth. Each, in his own way, is an unforgivable capitalist. When Plainview’s faithful son is injured in an explosion (he becomes deaf), all the father can do is stare at the burning oil derrick, in hunger and awe. This particular shot could have come from a silent film like von Stroheim’s Greed; in fact, though the film has been compared to Citizen Kane and Treasure of the Sierra Madre, I think it owes a greater debt to the silent films of von Stroheim , and also Murnau and Lang, and the naturalism of novelists such as Dreier, Norris and Zola. Robert Elswit’s cinematography is both ethereal and rooted in a brutal reality — combined with Johnny Greenwood’s creepily dissonant score, at times the film seems as if from another age altogether. Although the film is ostensibly about the quest for oil and the nature of capitalistic greed, ultimately it comes down to two opposing polarities: Plainview (the name implies a forthright vision) vs. Sunday (brightness and light) and how they each destroy each other. Though Plainview is a crook, theif and murderer, we have sympathy for him as he tries (and fails) to be a good father to his adopted son, take care of his oil workers, and achieve his vision; and yet Sunday elicits no sympathy at all through his venality and opportunism. Bizarre, Howard-Hughes-like final sequence initially seems out of place with the rest of the film, but it makes thematic sense and is in keeping with what the film is ultimately about: how when two towering figures work to rape their land and people together, untimately they must destroy each other. He who is the more hateful, and the more insane, shall be the victor. Film would be flawless were it not for a curious emotional distance; Anderson writes dialogue (and directs his performers) without using any colloquialisms, contractions, or slang — this extremely mannered style helps to give a sense of determinism, but also keeps us at a distance.

After spending some time exploring his inner Robert Altman with his earlier films, PT Anderson stripped down his approach and made There Will Be Blood, a radically different type of film more influenced by Stanley Kubrick or Bergman.

Essentially the film is a character study of Daniel Plainview and his ruthless, relentless drive to succeed as an oilman at all costs. Plainview is played by Daniel Day-Lewis in an inspired and mesmerizing performance as a single-minded, almost demonic figure, willing to lie, cheat, steal and even kill to ensure he comes out on top. The story centers on Daniel’s relationship with his adopted son and his rivalry with a fire and brimstone preacher named Eli Sunday.

But this is all at the surface. Underneath it all, There Will Be Blood is a story of the two powers that built and dominated the 20th century; namely big business and religion. Neither power is given a particularly noble representative in either Plainview or Sunday, but then neither power has been wholly noble. Under Anderson’s microscope, we are treated to a dark and engrossing ride.

Blood, oil and liquor combine to create a captivating portrait of tycoon Daniel Plainview in the latest film by Paul Thomas Anderson. Set during turn-of-the-century California, ‘There Will Be Blood’ draws inspiration from the Upton Sinclair novel ‘Oil!’ of the 1920s. As the title change suggests, the film is hardly a strict adaptation of the novel.

Though the film revolves around Plainview, expertly interpreted by Daniel Day-Lewis, ‘There Will Be Blood’ also relies heavily on Plainview’s young son, H.W. (Dillon Freasier) and the eerily seductive preacher Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). For Plainview, these two characters represent the most important and most destructive relationships of his life. On the exterior, Plainview’s concern for H.W. serves to justify his maniacal industrialism. He brings his son along with him on business as his partner, a tactic that seems to increase his success. When the pair arrives in Little Boston, Plainview must contend with the moral scrutiny of Eli Sunday. Cognizant of his town’s hidden wealth, the preacher quickly demands money from the oil man for the enlargement of his church. What ensues is an intricate struggle between industrialist and evangelist that defines the film.

Freasier and Dano succeed in holding their own even in the midst of Day-Lewis’ immense performance. From scene to scene, the father-son relationship between Freasier and Day-Lewis is as convincingly real as the seething hatred that exists between Dano and Day-Lewis. Even on his own, Dano exhibits tremendous skill in his disturbing portrayal of a revivalist preacher. This is a far cry from ‘Little Miss Sunshine.’

Not only that, ‘There Will Be Blood’ is a departure from other films by Paul Thomas Anderson. As a period drama, it bears little resemblance to either ‘Punch-Drunk Love’ or ‘Magnolia.’ Nevertheless, ‘There Will Be Blood’ succeeds in no small part due to the involvement of many long-time Anderson collaborators, ranging from producers to the film’s editor. The strength of the film’s artistic attributes, most notably its cinematography and production design, is the greatest indication of its authorship.

One artistic element that defies familiarity is Jonny Greenwood’s score for the film. The Radiohead guitarist and film composer signifies something of a change from Jon Brion, an ideal choice for Anderson’s previous films but less compatible within the context of ‘There Will Be Blood.’ Relying heavily on rhythm and strings, Greenwood’s score is at once hypnotic and dissonant, at times evoking the subtle terror of a Shostakovich string quartet. Silence dominates many scenes, but in others the score translates the tension flawlessly.

Often the mere sound of Day-Lewis speaking adds requisite tension to the film. His character speaks with an unusual accentuation that only increases with drunkenness. When he speaks with other characters, his voice is the only one that seems to matter. His most revealing scene feels like a soliloquy even in the presence of his long-lost brother Henry. With firelight in his eyes, the tycoon tells his brother, ‘I want to rule and never, ever explain myself.’ As the film’s tagline warns, ‘The quest for oil reveals the dark hearts of men.’

To a large extent, it is difficult to ignore the moral implications of a film such as ‘There Will Be Blood.’ While Plainview struggles to reconcile his responsibilities as a father and an entrepreneur, Eli Sunday must reconcile two conflicting personas within himself. Both men betray themselves and others in the course of their self-actualizing quests. By the end of the film, there is little doubt as to the degree to which Plainview embodies both the self-made man and the self-destructive cost of the American Dream.

I still have no idea why everyone thought ‘No Country For Old Men’ even came close to the mastery of this film. Gave me a wailing headache after I saw it in the theatre and I was all the more impressed. Some of the best directing, casting, acting, cinematography, sound, editing, and scoring I’ve witnessed in my life, period. It’s political relevance (in case you didn’t notice) put me back in the spirit of films like Citizen Kane and Giant; except for the fact that it was so much more brutal, and all the better for it. Profound, unflinching, stark, gorgeous, direct. There is oil, and there will be blood…

I think there are certain films that, remove the central performance, and there’s not alot left. There Will Be Blood is one of those films, The Wrestler (and Raging Bull) are others.

The power of the acting takes over the film, which otherwise demonstrates PTA’s mastery of the story. His direction is sparse, none of the visual tricks of his earlier work here. This is wise, as it allows DDL to take over the screen. His portrayal of a man whose ambition is the end of all means is the best piece of acting I’ve seen this decade.

So why did I remove a star? because the climax fucking sucks. No modern masterpiece falls apart at the end like this one does. Say what you want, but it’s a dud.

The Best Film of the Decade. Nothing else is even close in intensity, including No Country… which it is, unfortunately, compared to regularly. The Monuments of Cinema are created around the perfect blend of Directing, Cinematography, Acting, Film Score, Writing, Editing, Costume & Set Design, etc. etc. and There Will Be Blood is one of the greatest pieces of Pure Cinema I have EVER seen. It’s the best film to be in theatres since Eyes Wide Shut & The Thin Red Line closed out the Century of the Motion Picture. Daniel Day-Lewis is absolute Gold. I cannot say enough about him other than he proves to be the best actor around Everytime he steps into the realm. The other tour-de-force of the film is Johnny Greenwood’s score. Yes, it does reach for the hair-raising heights of Pendereki in The Shining. Brilliant work.
Paul-Thomas Anderson is putting together one of the most wonderful and promising bodies of work and it is personally very exciting and inspiring for me. Since the close of the century saw the passing away of the true Masters and Founders of Cinema I wasn’t sure there were any film artists who could continue the experimentation and the visions of clarity like Kubrick, Fellini and Welles. With the release of Anderson’s past two films, There Will Be Blood and Punch~Drunk Love, I am more confident that WE ALL can continue to push the art, the medium of Cinema forward into new territory. All it takes is the knowledge of what has come before and the courage to push forward. Another great vision of cinema that I have come to love at the same time is that of the other Anderson…Wes Anderson. These filmmakers are two great examples of synthesizing what you have loved and learned from the past and taking it to your own unique creation.

I love to follow any man’s personal story into corruption. After all, life is about making choices and film gives us a way to see the consequences. There Will Be Blood is a perfect example of this. See it if you’re into realism… the long takes are to die for. The music can get a little minimal at times but it turns for the best. (Especially during the ending credits) And of course, you’ll be talking about Daniel’s performance for awhile.

This was last year’s best picture, hands down. And this is easily Anderson’s most mature and accomplished film. The intensity of the final scene alone is worth watching this from the beginning. Daniel Day Lewis is brilliant and proves once again why he is one of the greatest actors around. Strikingly different from the rest of his work but it still fits in somehow. Deserved every award it got and the ones it didn’t.

Adapted from “Oil!” by Upton Sinclair, this epic story about greed, family, and business set during the end of the 19th century follows oil entrepreneur Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis in an Oscar-winning performance) throughout his life.
The story starts in 1898 with Daniel discovering a well in a remote region that could be harvested for oil. He soon assembles a team and drills his first oil after the death of one of his fellow men who happened to be a child. Daniel raises the bastard son as his own and names him H.W. and putting him as his business partner in his newly developed oil drilling business. The film picks up when a man named Eli Sunday visits Daniel and tells him of his hometown rich in oil. When Daniel arrives at this site he buys all of the land and the results are quite astonishing as the movie has endless twists and turns until the final frame.
There Will Be Blood is a complete masterpiece and easily the best picture of 2007 despite the fact that the Best Picture Oscar went to the Coen Bothers’ also masterfully made film, No Country For Old Men. The one thing that makes this movie simply glow is Daniel Day-Lewis’ absolutely mesmerizing performance. I mean, this performance is a contender for the best performance of the decade and one that will be looked at for ages and ages to come. Imagine Daniel Day-Lewis’ amazing performance in Scorsese’s Gangs of New York, only Daniel Day-Lewis is in every scene. This is director Paul Thomas Anderson’s masterpiece and should not be missed. I myself have seen it three times already. There Will be Blood is bound to be one of the top movies of this decade, go see it now!

This is an amazing movie! Paul Thomas Anderson will later be looked on as one of the greatest directors of all time, and this film will be considered one of the all-time classics. Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano are unbelievably good in their roles. The ending is one of the few that leaves me speechless and with chills going recklessly down my spine. If you have not seen this movie, you will definitely not want to miss it.

There Will Be Blood is a staggering work of genius. Paul Thomas Anderson has, if he hadn’t already, cemented himself as the director of the present and future. While his previous work compared to the great Robert Altman, this entry is by all accounts his Kubrick picture. At every turn I could think of nothing else but comparisons to Stanley Kubrick’s body of work. The cold, detached artistry of it, the gorgeous visuals bolstered by powerhouse performances, and the patience with which to allow a story of this kind to ferment and show itself, are all characteristics fusing them. Here comes the shocker, though—and it is not more of a shock to anyone but myself—I think it is his worst film as far as my emotive connection to it. Now, I’ll add that even his worst is better than 99% of the films made in a year, but a disappointment is still just that. What really pains me, however, is the fact that it is an almost flawless piece of art. At every moment I can only think of perfection, yet a void to why it is so. It is an issue of brilliant parts whose sum just doesn’t add up. If nothing else, this film may make me change the way I look at cinema. There has been no other film that effected me as much as this, no other that will stick with me longer after my viewing; it should earn movie of the year for just that alone. Hitting on so many levels it unfortunately leaves me in confusion at the end. Much like Kubrick’s “masterpiece” Barry Lyndon—for which I thought of more than once sitting there today—this is a piece of work that will be studied and dissected and copied for years to come. Technically perfect, it has everything it needs except my adoration. Leaving me cold, I just can’t wrap my head around it.

Here is where I wake up and see how personally films can touch a person. There Will Be Blood can and will earn awards and it will deserve every single one of them. I would even venture to say it would have my vote in every category as well…all except Best Picture. If it wins, will it have earned it? My answer is a resounding yes; I just couldn’t be able to bring myself to say it. Anderson has my undivided appreciation for what he has done. Visually stunning, I cannot think of one bad moment. Even with the audience I saw it with laughing at inappropriate moments (I understand those instances had comedic elements and that a character in them saw this levity themselves, however, they should not have elicited laughter) there were no faults. Being able to touch people in that way, making them so uneasy and uncomfortable that it is necessary to release the built up tension with a laugh only strengthens the argument of its greatness. It actually makes me angry that I can’t just say screw it, I loved it, best film I’ve ever seen.

At its core, this is a tale of one man’s complete and utter descent into hell. What once was a man of integrity and hard work becomes one filled with greed and hubris, flying too high and unable to feel the slow burn of his wings. Daniel Day-Lewis is allowed every reprieve thrown his way. The ability he has to embody so completely every character he portrays is astounding. Taking four years off between films is not only acceptable, it is necessary in order for the audience to recover from his brilliance, let alone his own needs to gain back the energy and life left on the celluloid. The devil is most definitely inside of Daniel Planview; unable to trust or love those closest to him, he sees the loneliness and solitude awaiting. Beginning on his own in 1898—falling down a well and breaking his leg without help around for miles—he will eventually find that same detachment in 1927, although he is surrounded by wealth and creatures on the payroll. A family business for sure, it just takes a little while to notice that his family consists of only one member.

The supporting roles are all superbly fleshed out too. From Ciarán Hinds seeing what was happening in the desert wasteland, to Kevin J. O’Connor as his unknown brother, to Dillon Freasier as his son and partner H.W., each plays his piece of the puzzle, helping build to the inevitable conclusion, bringing to mind another Kubrick classic The Shining. One person truly succeeds at attempting to match Day-Lewis’s dedication to the work, though, and he is Paul Dano. Actually cast during production, after the letting go of the actor who had already begun filming as Eli Sunday, Dano is scary as the prophet for the Church of the Third Revelation. His sermons are difficult to watch and powerful beyond belief. When he and Day-Lewis share the screen, you can’t even imagine what might happen next. The spite and hatred brewing beneath both exteriors is palpable, ready to spill over at any moment. Words cannot describe the effectiveness of their relationship, both very much similar in opposite ways, tasting evil and relishing its desserts.

At almost three hours in length, I couldn’t believe it when it had ended; the pace is break-neck. Even more remarkable is the fact that much of the film is told in silence, save for Jonny Greenwood’s haunting and disjointed score, (reminiscent to an episode of “Lost”), with just actions and scenery to progress the plot. With the first twenty or so minutes to be completely wordless and still create a complete background for the Plainview role, I can’t comprehend the genius that is PT Anderson. Sure he owes plenty to the masters that came before him, but one can’t doubt his skill and artistry here. He has my full respect and I will be seeing this film again, most likely multiple times, in the future because there is perfection at work. I give him full benefit of the doubt; it is me who is broken. Nothing this glorious can be any less than the best and if I can’t see it now, it is I who needs to be shown where I have gone wrong.

This film excites me for many reasons, but the biggest reason is that P.T. Anderson has finally “grown up” with this film. It strikes me that with There Will Be Blood, Anderson has finally shed any of the autobiography of his previous work. He has instead, chosen to make a statement about the high cost of greed in the both world of business and the world of religion. I believe that this concept means a great deal to Anderson personally. Hence the potency of the filmmaking. The clarity of the filmmaking. The brilliance, ah the brilliance.

I struggle to find anything “masterful” about this film. If you can name me a single thing that this movie expresses about America or capitalism that hasn’t been said before, or hasn’t been said better, I’d be astonished. I’ll take the movies he was trying to emulate here, Days Of Heaven, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Barry Lyndon or Citizen Kane over this one, and to me just about any one of those movies makes this one irrelevant. Even Lewis’ performance is just a cropped version of his character from Gangs of New York. Anderson doesn’t have an original bone in his body, I’m sorry.