Paramount Vantage | Release Date: December 26, 2007
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1328 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,037
Mixed:
120
Negative:
171
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
JoeBFeb 27, 2008
Wow. This movie was amazing. At first, I wasn't sure how I'd feel about it, but after seeing it, I was talking with the person I went with--asking what he thought of this and that and what this meant to him and did he notice x, y, Wow. This movie was amazing. At first, I wasn't sure how I'd feel about it, but after seeing it, I was talking with the person I went with--asking what he thought of this and that and what this meant to him and did he notice x, y, or z--it's been a long time since I've left a movie with that kind of feeling, and it's been following me around all night. Definitely the indicator of a fantastic flick. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
davidstevensFeb 27, 2008
A magisterial work. Fulfilling the promise PT Anderson showed with the likes of Magnolia, the film is both an overwheling experience and a provocative comment on American capitalism, religion and the darkness of the human soul. ComaprisonsA magisterial work. Fulfilling the promise PT Anderson showed with the likes of Magnolia, the film is both an overwheling experience and a provocative comment on American capitalism, religion and the darkness of the human soul. Comaprisons wth Citizen Kane are misleading. In fact, one of Anderson's great achievements is not following the familiar tragic trajectory of that film and serving up something altogether more disturbing. A true original. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
PraC.Feb 27, 2008
Paul Thomas Anderson is the best director we have, and Daniel Day Lewis may well prove to be the best actor of all time. This film is a harrowing, illuminating journey that paints a bleaker, more honest picture of the human condition than Paul Thomas Anderson is the best director we have, and Daniel Day Lewis may well prove to be the best actor of all time. This film is a harrowing, illuminating journey that paints a bleaker, more honest picture of the human condition than any film I have ever seen. Johnny Greenwood's score cannot be ignored either; it was a perfect match for a near-perfect film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DaveW.Feb 26, 2008
This movie reminded me so much of Stanley Kubrick - especially the opening and closing scenes - except that it may be better than anything Kubrick ever did (which is saying a hell of a lot). The humanity in this movie is definitely there - This movie reminded me so much of Stanley Kubrick - especially the opening and closing scenes - except that it may be better than anything Kubrick ever did (which is saying a hell of a lot). The humanity in this movie is definitely there - it just doesn't ram it down your throat like 99% of movies - which makes it all the more affecting in the long run. A movie like this only comes around once every few years. It is extraordinary in so many ways. Watch it several times and it will reveal itself as such. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
IverP.Feb 26, 2008
Great looking, but ultimately quite tedious and unbalanced.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JonathanC.Feb 25, 2008
What do you say about a movie that has great acting, directing, cinematography, and a good subject, but you forget about it minutes later? Guess what...you say that it's not a great movie! Compare that to No Country for Old Men, that What do you say about a movie that has great acting, directing, cinematography, and a good subject, but you forget about it minutes later? Guess what...you say that it's not a great movie! Compare that to No Country for Old Men, that gives you the willies days later. I almost feel like people like this movie because not feeling anything is supposed to be "artsy". Please! Movies are either pieces art or a good story...Great movies are both. This was only art. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
Marc.D.Feb 25, 2008
The performance by Day Lewis is enough to secure this film 8 points. The final one is for the pure artistry and deft directing applied to this pulse pounding film. It captivates in a way which few films in the history of cinema have. Brilliance.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ChrisBFeb 25, 2008
there are some mildly compelling portions of this movie. That's the only thing positive that i can say. This movie is so overrated it hurts. It was boring beyond belief. there isn't a story. The characters are annoying and not that there are some mildly compelling portions of this movie. That's the only thing positive that i can say. This movie is so overrated it hurts. It was boring beyond belief. there isn't a story. The characters are annoying and not that interesting. The acting have been blown way out of proportion. It isn't that great. I hate this movie and I could not be happier that it didn't win the Oscar for Best Picture. This movie is not good. Don't spend your time watching it. It will be forgotten in 5 years. This is a prime example of the overly inflated Hollywood hype machine causing people to show interest in a movie for some reason not based on merit. Watch something else. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
5
RonA.Feb 24, 2008
There will be hype. The most interesting part of this movie involves Plainview's having to be "born again": he's forced, by financial motives, to say he's abandoned his son, and comes to realize, against his will, that he has. There will be hype. The most interesting part of this movie involves Plainview's having to be "born again": he's forced, by financial motives, to say he's abandoned his son, and comes to realize, against his will, that he has. But little else remains, aside from the glorious cinematography. One simply doesn't care about Plainview, since he's merely a caricature, overdrawn by both the script and Daniel Day-Lewis. There's just no story here that can live up to the money and talent expended on it. The deafness of HW is merely an occasion for cruelty, and the violent end of the movie clarifies nothing. One only wonders why Eli Sunday hasn't aged a day. The great Ciaran Hinds is barely used. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
TheoSFeb 24, 2008
Male movie. Hard, boring, easy message served in 3 Hours. Would have made a good short-movie. 30 minutes max. Aggressive music, anoying at best. (And i am actually musician (classic) but that combination did not worked out for me.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
6
MarjorieW.Feb 24, 2008
My teeth are still clenched 12 hours after seeing this movie. Great acting, but ugly story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
KathleenK.Feb 24, 2008
Another Daniel Day-Lewis vanity piece. Yes he's amazing. But when the curtain comes down -- who cares? What reason is there to care about his character or any of the others? Very little character development, he starts out a shithead Another Daniel Day-Lewis vanity piece. Yes he's amazing. But when the curtain comes down -- who cares? What reason is there to care about his character or any of the others? Very little character development, he starts out a shithead and ends up a shithead. Positives: cinematography, highly effective use of sound and music. Just plain shoddy: Paul and his twin brother. Right. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
7
Martak.Feb 24, 2008
While DD Lewis' acting was, of course, great and I enjoyed the cinematography, the film missed several opportunites for insightful character development and story context. OK I get the greed and the need for revenge but please give more While DD Lewis' acting was, of course, great and I enjoyed the cinematography, the film missed several opportunites for insightful character development and story context. OK I get the greed and the need for revenge but please give more insight to help me make sense of the horrific ending. The film took place during a historically fascinating time with ramifications still felt today. Don't hint at it, take us there. Just a bit more effort to replace the sometimes tedious and non-sensical sections with insight would have made this film great. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WuM.Feb 23, 2008
It's a masterwork. Mixed up 'Wall Street', 'Elmer Granty', 'East of Eden', 'Giant', 'The Ballad of Cable Hogue', 'The Aviator'. Amazing acting, photography and music. A film It's a masterwork. Mixed up 'Wall Street', 'Elmer Granty', 'East of Eden', 'Giant', 'The Ballad of Cable Hogue', 'The Aviator'. Amazing acting, photography and music. A film that floods every boundary, colossal, open. P.T. Anderson is revealed as great Kubrick alumn. A total masterpiece. Run to the theater nearest to your home or you'll regret. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
KRFeb 22, 2008
A near masterpiece. Daniel Day Lewis's performance is riveting and unnerving and disturbing to watch - but well worth watching!
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
SamN.Feb 22, 2008
Wayne W., you mean you spoke to 6 people and they hated it? Well, that must mean that the vast majority didn't really 'love' it! I guess the acting wasn't really brilliant! I guess the music wasn't really perfect! I Wayne W., you mean you spoke to 6 people and they hated it? Well, that must mean that the vast majority didn't really 'love' it! I guess the acting wasn't really brilliant! I guess the music wasn't really perfect! I guess the direction wasn't really astounding! See how it works, you stupid fuck? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LuluS.Feb 22, 2008
I have heard a lot of people cite the acting in this movie as a reason for a hands-down 10. I, however, look at a film as a whole. I judge art according to its contribution to society as a whole... Art, after all, is derived from life and I have heard a lot of people cite the acting in this movie as a reason for a hands-down 10. I, however, look at a film as a whole. I judge art according to its contribution to society as a whole... Art, after all, is derived from life and not the other way around; I don't see a chicken-or-the-egg conundrum. So I can't accept a film that seems like cinematic and theatrical masturbation. Yes, the actors in it did excellent jobs. Yes, the elements of cinematography, lighting, and music were original and innovative. But did it affect me? Did it even affect anyone in the entire theatre? The work *as a whole* was ineffectual, anticlimactic, uncompelling, and unrelatable. I'm not even interested in the characterization of Daniel Plainview. The glimpses of the shards of his humanity were too few and too distant for me to care about him; and a person that monstrous provokes me only to marvel briefly and incomprehendingly at his monstrosity. I want to be as far away from Daniel as possible, and I want to forget the movie. I'm not against "weird" movies or movies that require a long attention span, but I perceived a vagueness in the characters and story that seems to come from a lack of specificity in purpose... and if there was a specific subtext in the minds of the actors and and a specific intent in the mind of the director--sorry, it was not conveyed. This objectivity wouldn't be so bad except that at times the movie leads the viewer to believe they should be understanding some kind of message. There Will Be Blood: you fail at communicating. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
9
DanSFeb 21, 2008
Jesus not every movie has to have a message. I just saw this is an interesting character study from start to finish. If you spent 2 and a half hours in the theatre trying to find a message in this movie you would think it's a slow, Jesus not every movie has to have a message. I just saw this is an interesting character study from start to finish. If you spent 2 and a half hours in the theatre trying to find a message in this movie you would think it's a slow, tedious and pretentious film. This film is about people losing perspective. It's not about America, or the study of evil, because no one in this film is deliberately evil. They do what they think is best, either for their church or their business. But I agree with one review I read saying that this film is just too strange to be enjoyed by everyone. Thats not to say 'smart' people enjoyed it, i think it's just a difference in what people expect out of a movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MistyD.Feb 21, 2008
The fact that this movie is getting so much Oscar hype and critical acclaim completely bewilders me. The film is so littered with tremendous gaffes in plot development that it becomes a melodramatic train to nowhere. Sure the acting is The fact that this movie is getting so much Oscar hype and critical acclaim completely bewilders me. The film is so littered with tremendous gaffes in plot development that it becomes a melodramatic train to nowhere. Sure the acting is intense, but rings completely false, as characters do complete about faces from scene to scene. Yes, it is a "pretty" film and educational about the early days of the oil business in the U.S., but outside of that worthless. I would have rather watched a documentary on PBS. Ultimately, I didn't care about the fate of any of the characters by the movies' end. A true sign that the film was a colossal failure. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
10
NicholsV.Feb 20, 2008
like, people giving zeros -- or twos, threes -- should, before pointing out problems with the 'plot' or whatever, think of something called 'study of character' -- of which the film is all about. and a film, a 'study like, people giving zeros -- or twos, threes -- should, before pointing out problems with the 'plot' or whatever, think of something called 'study of character' -- of which the film is all about. and a film, a 'study of character' as it seems, may be boring and yet be great -- just as someone may say that Proust's work is a great humansocial account and yet somewhat tiresome*.** *yes, a point that would take at least a two-page essay. **like, have you all seen tarkovsky's work? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
TJN.Feb 20, 2008
Daniel-Day Lewis's performance makes it impossible to score lower, which I would [6? 7?]. Story arc uneven, motivations difficult to perceive, and photography seemed too dark. [Was it just the print that I saw?] I did not find Daniel-Day Lewis's performance makes it impossible to score lower, which I would [6? 7?]. Story arc uneven, motivations difficult to perceive, and photography seemed too dark. [Was it just the print that I saw?] I did not find Lewis's "hammy", as some critics have; thought it was a controlled performance. His performance should not be missed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
TomB.Feb 20, 2008
Not as good as I expected, but still a very fine movie. DDLewis's performance is stunning, even if it's over the top in a few places, but I blame that on the director not the actor. This is a visual masterwork but the script/story Not as good as I expected, but still a very fine movie. DDLewis's performance is stunning, even if it's over the top in a few places, but I blame that on the director not the actor. This is a visual masterwork but the script/story was not as fulfilling. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
EliS.Feb 20, 2008
This should definitely win Best Picture. Daniel Day Lewis has the performance of the year, and the underrated supporting work by Paul Dano as an evangelical preacher was snubbed for Best Supporting Actor. The haunting theme still resonates, This should definitely win Best Picture. Daniel Day Lewis has the performance of the year, and the underrated supporting work by Paul Dano as an evangelical preacher was snubbed for Best Supporting Actor. The haunting theme still resonates, the score is fantastic, it never gets boring and it's as deliciously, scarily dark as Plainview's oil wells. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JasonJ.Feb 19, 2008
This movie could have been a 9 if it knew where to stop. The last 30 minutes (the fight on the two lane bowling alley) was something that should have been put only as an xtra on a DVD. It deserved to be a "deleted scene." The rest of the This movie could have been a 9 if it knew where to stop. The last 30 minutes (the fight on the two lane bowling alley) was something that should have been put only as an xtra on a DVD. It deserved to be a "deleted scene." The rest of the movie was quite good. The oil industry during that part of American history was interesting. No Country for Old Men, as a movie, made the same mistake. Great premise, great execution, and then a superfluous ending that makes you feel like you are wasting your time. It's like they are putting the DVD extras in with the feature presentations now. Do the studios pay more for a longer movie? Something isn't right. They are butchering the possible masterpieces of the late 00s. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
LuisG.Feb 18, 2008
heres a film that take you on a ride with minimal information and stunning characterization by ...lewis and a score that just keep pushing you perfecting Andersons craft and narrating a course that unlike many films seem to be out of this world ..
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
CameronC.Feb 18, 2008
I just don't understand how anyone could enjoy this movie. Sure, the acting was top quality, but there is only so much a talented actor can bring when the plot is bad. In fact, the plot isn't bad, it is simply non-existent. The I just don't understand how anyone could enjoy this movie. Sure, the acting was top quality, but there is only so much a talented actor can bring when the plot is bad. In fact, the plot isn't bad, it is simply non-existent. The fact that great actors are forced to act out this long, boring mindless drivel is an incredible shame. For this reason, I consider this one of the worst movies I have seen since The Thin Red Line (another critically acclaimed pile of rubbish). Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
8
GrantTFeb 17, 2008
What surprised me above all else is that anyone likes this difficult cerebral film at all. The two lead characters are so bad, nay evil, and the critique of America (and thus western civilization) so vicious and unremitting that it is hard What surprised me above all else is that anyone likes this difficult cerebral film at all. The two lead characters are so bad, nay evil, and the critique of America (and thus western civilization) so vicious and unremitting that it is hard to find much to like. A cathartic confronting experience. Thank God Hollywood can still find a place for directors like Anderson. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
CliffBFeb 17, 2008
Just my two cents. Great film. If your attention span has been shortened by our world of instant gratification, don't go see it, but it gripped my attention from beginning to end. If you are one of the hollywood sheeple, you will simply Just my two cents. Great film. If your attention span has been shortened by our world of instant gratification, don't go see it, but it gripped my attention from beginning to end. If you are one of the hollywood sheeple, you will simply expect to have everything laid out for you to follow so that you won't have to use that space between your ears. I know it is hard you big babies, but c'mon. As for overacting ..... have you ever seen an episode of "Cops?" People can act pretty crazy, and I thought DDL did a great job of portraying a guy who spends most of his life repressing his emotions only to suddenly let them burst forth from time to time. The music .... hello it is supposed to be creepy. As for the supposed indictment of capitalism, oil, the gilded age, etc, I just didn't really see it that way. That was just the setting, and though it was a great one, the story that was being told could have taken place elsewhere and in another time. Go see it and form your own opinion, but see it again after you have some different life experience, and see if you don't get something else out of it. I usually say to each their own, but if you can't dig past the surface of this film, well yes indeed, you are pretty stupid. And deep inside, I think you know it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JMFeb 17, 2008
The main problem with the film is it opens a thousand doors for a profound statement about ambition and power and then totally misses each and every one of these opportunities. I already sensed P.T. Anderson's hackneyed and puerile The main problem with the film is it opens a thousand doors for a profound statement about ambition and power and then totally misses each and every one of these opportunities. I already sensed P.T. Anderson's hackneyed and puerile affectations in Magnolia, and even hints of it in the otherwise compelling Boogie Nights, but this film makes it painfully obvious that Anderson totally misses the potential depth of his own film (!) and instead leans on camp or soap opera pathos. For this film - it's all about the camp, which in a wierd way kinda makes, it cool (I gave it a 7 for glorious camp). Especially the gothic type film title before the final credits - what was he thinking? total camp! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MikeL.Feb 17, 2008
The fastest 2:38 movie you'll ever watch. Keeps you waiting for what could possibly come next and the ending will get you. Best most intense movie in a long time and DDL does it again! What a master!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
EdC.Feb 17, 2008
how can 'b shanchez' say that he didnt like the film that much because daniel day lewis attacks christians!! it was in his character! what a totally ubsurd thing to say! 'if the movie hadnt showed blasphemy'...(it also how can 'b shanchez' say that he didnt like the film that much because daniel day lewis attacks christians!! it was in his character! what a totally ubsurd thing to say! 'if the movie hadnt showed blasphemy'...(it also showed murder and alcholholism by the way....) idiot. anyway.... the film wasnt really what i expected, although not in a bad way, and Day lewis is exceptional. the film has a slow and brooding intensity and good performances from the support cast. for a film to last as long as it did and be based almost solely on psychological degeneration they must have done something right Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
BarryS.Feb 16, 2008
The most over-hyped movie perhaps ever- for those of you artsie freaks who think- 'well you just dont get it" - oh i get it all right- i understand DD Lewis is a brilliant actor and that the film is beautifully shot- but thats as far as The most over-hyped movie perhaps ever- for those of you artsie freaks who think- 'well you just dont get it" - oh i get it all right- i understand DD Lewis is a brilliant actor and that the film is beautifully shot- but thats as far as anyone could go with this film- Paul Thomas Anderson needs to stay behind the camera- period. His screenplays are tired and not clever- no happy ending here and either hopefully for PTA career. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
10
KentE.Feb 16, 2008
Great movie. This is the best film I have seen this year. It is good in a creepy way. I heard an older lady behind me at the theatre say that this movie is the most depressing movie she has ever seen, but she loved it. This movie will make Great movie. This is the best film I have seen this year. It is good in a creepy way. I heard an older lady behind me at the theatre say that this movie is the most depressing movie she has ever seen, but she loved it. This movie will make you lose faith in the human race. Greed and money you would hope wouldn't drive people to do these things. But it does. Daniel Day Lewis is amazing, showing why he is one of the best actors in the business. What shouldn't be lost is Paul Dano's performance as Eli Sunday the crazy preacher who wants to use Daniel to make money for his church. The movies creepy music fits the story well. The movie is long, so if you cant sit through long movies then don't see this. But even though it is long it is done so well it doesn't seem like it is that long of a movie. At the end of the movie I wanted it to keep going I was so enthralled. Definitely a don't miss. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JoeyHFeb 15, 2008
It just wasn't that good. I have a lot of respect for PT Anderson, Paul Dano, and Daniel-Day Lewis. Especially Daniel. Unfortunately, great acting doesn't make a movie great. Kind of like how having Lebron doesn't make the It just wasn't that good. I have a lot of respect for PT Anderson, Paul Dano, and Daniel-Day Lewis. Especially Daniel. Unfortunately, great acting doesn't make a movie great. Kind of like how having Lebron doesn't make the Cavs great. I guess rating art is kind of pointless, but I really wouldn't tell anyone to go see this. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
0
shFeb 15, 2008
THIS MOVIE FUCKING SUCKED! I SAT THERE FOR 2.5 HOURS AND FUCKING TRIED TO KILL MYSELF. IT WAS SO FUCKING POINTLESS AND IF I HAD A GUN I WOULD HAVE KILLED MYSELF, BECAUSE THE MOVIE SUCKED SO FUCKING MUCH. JUST WATCHING IT MADE ME WANT TO GOTHIS MOVIE FUCKING SUCKED! I SAT THERE FOR 2.5 HOURS AND FUCKING TRIED TO KILL MYSELF. IT WAS SO FUCKING POINTLESS AND IF I HAD A GUN I WOULD HAVE KILLED MYSELF, BECAUSE THE MOVIE SUCKED SO FUCKING MUCH. JUST WATCHING IT MADE ME WANT TO GO FIND THE ACTORS AND DIRECTORS AND FUCKING KILL THEM. WTF! IM SO FUCKING PISSED OFF AFTER WATCHING THAT MOVIE!!!!!! Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
1
YevgeniS.Feb 15, 2008
Rarely can I see a film with such incredibly good performances yet hate the result. It tales 10 full minutes of tedium to get a single line of dialogue and that seemed to be the fastest pace the film could attain. Dull. Dreadfully dull. I Rarely can I see a film with such incredibly good performances yet hate the result. It tales 10 full minutes of tedium to get a single line of dialogue and that seemed to be the fastest pace the film could attain. Dull. Dreadfully dull. I thought it would NEVER end. I contemplated walking out, but felt it would HAVE to get better with all the great reviews. It doesn't. It begins bad, moves slowly and has no discernible plot other than "greed corrupts." If you need to spend time in a theatre to see this, you are in need of medication for insomnia. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
1
MikeM.Feb 15, 2008
Daniel Day was a phenomenal actor, and there was an interesting sound track.... but that was it. The movie drags on and is horribly pointless. Avoid it unless you style yourself a movie connoisseur.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
2
BibliotechaSanchezFeb 15, 2008
Shit movie, only because it bashes Christians, of which Daniel Day Lewis isn't. I'm not saying that the Church portrayed in this movie was a legit church, not my church. Daniel Day Lewis was basically Mocking Christians in general Shit movie, only because it bashes Christians, of which Daniel Day Lewis isn't. I'm not saying that the Church portrayed in this movie was a legit church, not my church. Daniel Day Lewis was basically Mocking Christians in general in this movie. If the movie hadn't shown blatant blasphemy, then I would have given it 9 stars. As it is though, There Will Be Blood gets a big fat 2! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
10
MarkCW.C.Feb 15, 2008
I find it interesting how many people loathe this movie, however I am not against it. While it is one of the more overt and slow paced movies of out times, it is one of the most subtle and interrogative. I do have some problems with its I find it interesting how many people loathe this movie, however I am not against it. While it is one of the more overt and slow paced movies of out times, it is one of the most subtle and interrogative. I do have some problems with its length(I think PT could have filled some areas with something of interest) and I do not have yet any conviction on its ending I admire it for the degrees it reaches. The allegory is so self referential and all encompassing and yet it achieves nothing but poignancy. PT is a subtle master of building the drama-he is very patient and very crafty and I often think he intends to test his audience (Magnolia with the frogs-why? I hated that decision at first and as time went on I began to admire it for his brazen decision, which has no parallel in cinema) I was underwhelmed when I first left the movie and as the days went on it propagated throughout my bones and I felt like I had to see it again, and did, and while it might not be my favorite movie, I have never been so thankful for a piece of art. PT and DDl seem to have invented emotions, however, the do not. They uncover things that I don not believe anyone has ever expressed at least not with a comparable eloquence. DDL's performance is BIG, and thats why I think some people think it is over the top. His presence is big when he doesn't bat an eye. The most memorable part of the movie is his stare right before he threatens to slice the mans throat. The whole production is big and subtle-typically an either or concept, however not here. Its is the execution of an exquisite and surreal histrionics that is needed to enrapture a part in our history that reveals a timelessness in our soul with an acuity and honesty that I is without analogy, save the allusions in found in music. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JosefVFeb 14, 2008
Salon.com and Sanfran gave this movie bad reviews. What a surprise, two film critics giving this powerful film bad reviews and Baltimore suns opinion is as good as a ski shop in California. honestly if this movie doesn't make your top Salon.com and Sanfran gave this movie bad reviews. What a surprise, two film critics giving this powerful film bad reviews and Baltimore suns opinion is as good as a ski shop in California. honestly if this movie doesn't make your top 10, please don't comment because obviously your an idiot. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
GrantWFeb 14, 2008
This movie was a waste of my life. Yes it's intended message of Greed and money twisting everyone is a good one, but that point has been made many a time. We don't need another two and a half hour movie where the weak dialoges play This movie was a waste of my life. Yes it's intended message of Greed and money twisting everyone is a good one, but that point has been made many a time. We don't need another two and a half hour movie where the weak dialoges play second fiddle to the soundtrack to beat that dead horse. "I'm finished" Roll Credits. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
JohnRFeb 14, 2008
If you think this acting performance is great performance, go to a theater and watch students work. Than you know how overacting will look like, and you will find interesting parallels to what will get here an Oscar. Besides this i If you think this acting performance is great performance, go to a theater and watch students work. Than you know how overacting will look like, and you will find interesting parallels to what will get here an Oscar. Besides this i understood the message and emotions the music wants to create, but its still uncomfortable too loud and annoying. Story make sense only 2/3 of the movie. At the end i guess the writers went on striking. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
JimIFeb 14, 2008
This movie moved slower than my grandma Helen, and she's been dead for 10 years! Not to take away from Daniel's performance or the guy who played the preacher, but come on, the first 15 minutes of the film I thought we reverted This movie moved slower than my grandma Helen, and she's been dead for 10 years! Not to take away from Daniel's performance or the guy who played the preacher, but come on, the first 15 minutes of the film I thought we reverted back to silent films. I get the point the movie was making, but cut maybe an hour off this movie and it would have been MUCH better. I was so bored with Daniels character mid way through the movie, and the sound track was grating on my nerves so badly, I had to walk out. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
HollyR.Feb 13, 2008
A very long movie with an odd-interesting use of music, but a storyline that just didn't make sense in the end. Not worth the 3 hours, trust me. Unless you are in love with Daniel Day Lewis who is a great actor in every movie he does, A very long movie with an odd-interesting use of music, but a storyline that just didn't make sense in the end. Not worth the 3 hours, trust me. Unless you are in love with Daniel Day Lewis who is a great actor in every movie he does, spend your 3 hours on a nap instead. As other reviewers have said, "No Country for Old Men" is a far far superior movie worthy of the critic's reviews. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MichaelEFeb 12, 2008
Not greater than the sum of its parts, but some of those parts are amazing. It's best to think of it as a black comedy that gets out of hand.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JoshS.Feb 12, 2008
Horrible. Watching this film was a waste of time. None of the characters are likable, the music was terrible, and some lines were repeated over and over and over and over again until you become sick to death of them. Why that was put in the Horrible. Watching this film was a waste of time. None of the characters are likable, the music was terrible, and some lines were repeated over and over and over and over again until you become sick to death of them. Why that was put in the script, I will never understand. There really isn't a lot going on here, just people having unengaging conversations. There are also some LAME attempts at comic relief. I will never see another movie with Daniel-Day Lewis again! If you want to see a movie that's actually good, see "No Country For Old Men". Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
BobbyEFeb 12, 2008
I'm not going to waste my time in explaining how well this movie was done because it was perfect in every way. People who gave this movie a 0 obviously don't have the brain capacity to absorb such a powerful movie about life. Im I'm not going to waste my time in explaining how well this movie was done because it was perfect in every way. People who gave this movie a 0 obviously don't have the brain capacity to absorb such a powerful movie about life. Im sure those people most likely gave biodome a 10. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BbFeb 12, 2008
Highly overrated. I liked-hated it. Saw the greatness but couldn't wait for it to end, and at 2 1/2 hours it could have easily been edited without any harm to the story. Over the top acting by Day-Lewis, but I hated him in "Gangs of NY" Highly overrated. I liked-hated it. Saw the greatness but couldn't wait for it to end, and at 2 1/2 hours it could have easily been edited without any harm to the story. Over the top acting by Day-Lewis, but I hated him in "Gangs of NY" too, and for the same reasons, and used to love him. It's no "Chinatown." Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MaxH.Feb 11, 2008
I can't express my relief that a film as stark and uncompromising as There WIll Be Blood has received so many academy accolades this season; Hollywood tends to favor movies that include elements of romance and redemption, qualities I can't express my relief that a film as stark and uncompromising as There WIll Be Blood has received so many academy accolades this season; Hollywood tends to favor movies that include elements of romance and redemption, qualities Anderson quite deliberately eschews in his fifth feature. John S. epitomizes how misguided some people's opinions are regarding this film. Plainview (not Plainfield, btw) DOESN'T show compassion at the outset; this is the story of one of the great salesmen in cinema history. He sees only betrayal in human relationships and treats others as a mere means to an end. The penultimate scene where his son, now a young man finally confronts him doesn't reveal any sort of "transformation" in Plainview but rather clarifies his earlier actions. I also don't understand the continued use of "boring" to describe this film; are audiences so accustomed to The Fast and the Furious and the Saw franchises that they can't shift down to a film that actually studies human beings? And YES, Michael Sragow, "any hint of romance, nobility, or fun" would soften the film! Anderson shows us a man who understands absolutely nothing of those qualities. Astoundingly good. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TrevorS.Feb 11, 2008
Some of the reviews missed the point of the movie completely. Pretty much it is a story of greed and what people do under the influence of money. Nobody is a good person who has it. Is this concept so hard to understand? It was a beautiful, Some of the reviews missed the point of the movie completely. Pretty much it is a story of greed and what people do under the influence of money. Nobody is a good person who has it. Is this concept so hard to understand? It was a beautiful, powerful movie with great performances and direction all around. The music is different and adds a layer of insanity to every scene. No body is a good guy and that can let the people who like bullshit movies down. But this is a study of a man who loses sight of everything-it's just a shame that people can't understand it. What else needs to be addressed? It's not a story of oil, it's the story of the man behind the oil and the madness he has. Everyone has some kind madness and that was what I got from the movie. One thing is true I guess, you either love it or hate it but how the hell can anyone hate such a powerful movie?! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WilliamCFeb 11, 2008
Absolutely awesome in every way. There was nothing i would change about this movie. The forced Baptism scene was one of the greatest moments of cinema in the past century.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
FredM.Feb 11, 2008
A brilliant minimalist yet epic portrait of the oil industry's birth in the American West at the turn of the 20th century. Daniel Day-Lewis' unforgettable, riveting performance as an obsessed, greedy, cunning, cruel misanthrope A brilliant minimalist yet epic portrait of the oil industry's birth in the American West at the turn of the 20th century. Daniel Day-Lewis' unforgettable, riveting performance as an obsessed, greedy, cunning, cruel misanthrope reveals the darkest aspects of capitalism. Paul Dano also gives an excellent performance as the hypocritical and deluded preacher who stands in the way of the oilman. Sweeping vistas, slow tempos, intimate and intense moments give a timeless feel to this American masterpiece. A classic for the ages. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
FredGFeb 10, 2008
Highly overrated in my opinion. A tale of greed. I wish I hadn't seen it, because it wasn't that entertaining. The story also wasn't crisp. There was a good movie in there somewhere.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
0
JoyM.Feb 10, 2008
What a waste of 3 hours of my time. Acting was all over-the-top, but that seemed what was called for. Movie was pointless and disgusting. Didn't like PTA's other movies and don't like this one. Don't believe the critics. What a waste of 3 hours of my time. Acting was all over-the-top, but that seemed what was called for. Movie was pointless and disgusting. Didn't like PTA's other movies and don't like this one. Don't believe the critics. I don't get it. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
9
RB.Feb 10, 2008
No sugar coating here. Simply a dark movie with a hell of a story. If you see movies on a regular basis, you have to see this one-even if you know you won't like it. The performance of Daniel Day-Lewis is one for the ages. Just as you No sugar coating here. Simply a dark movie with a hell of a story. If you see movies on a regular basis, you have to see this one-even if you know you won't like it. The performance of Daniel Day-Lewis is one for the ages. Just as you think of George C. Scott when you think of WWll and General Patton, you will thing of Day-Lewis everytime you fill up your gas tank. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DaleMFeb 10, 2008
Good character study and nice historical touches, but it lacks an engaging storyline and comes off as rather tedious and boring. There are basically no women in the film which may point to a rather interesting sub-text about repressed Good character study and nice historical touches, but it lacks an engaging storyline and comes off as rather tedious and boring. There are basically no women in the film which may point to a rather interesting sub-text about repressed homosexuality. This sub-text, though hinted at by numerous men being maimed or killed by blunt objects and by two men having a baby, is never very much developed in an overt manner. The only sub-text the film overtly develops very much is about ambition. There is nothing wrong with this. What's wrong is that the ambition theme is not developed very creatively (as in Citizen Kane, for example). Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
LeslieW.Feb 10, 2008
The best film I've seen in years! The score was wonderfully juxtaposed against the story. Day-Lewis performance was the best of his career, wicked and frightening, passionately paranoid, completely, madly driven! Paul Dano is The best film I've seen in years! The score was wonderfully juxtaposed against the story. Day-Lewis performance was the best of his career, wicked and frightening, passionately paranoid, completely, madly driven! Paul Dano is incredible. I can't wait to see it again. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JeffN.Feb 10, 2008
This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. I can see why some people wouldn't like it, but I was riveted the entire time thanks to Day-Lewis. I won't go so far as to say it was the greatest performance by a lead This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. I can see why some people wouldn't like it, but I was riveted the entire time thanks to Day-Lewis. I won't go so far as to say it was the greatest performance by a lead actor that I've ever seen, but I can't think of one that I can definitively say was better. I thought everything about it was perfect, and I found myself smiling more and more as Plainview become more paranoid and disillusioned. This is a movie that 20, 30 years from now people will look back on and say, "One for the ages." Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
TerryR.Feb 10, 2008
Don't worry, Jamie L., the video game will come out soon and you'll get to blow things up and buy a lot of "bling" with the oil money: your wasted three hours will all be worth it then! Seriously, though, "boring"?! Did you Don't worry, Jamie L., the video game will come out soon and you'll get to blow things up and buy a lot of "bling" with the oil money: your wasted three hours will all be worth it then! Seriously, though, "boring"?! Did you actually watch the movie? Did you watch D.D.L.'s decent into paranoid madness? This movie is definitely one of the years best (2007), if not one of the decades, and D.D.L., again, gives a masterful spin on a man trying to make people love and respect him while simultaneously pushing everyone away. Two scenes alone make this movie amazing - the scene where he runs with H.W. in his arms and when his "son" returns from "school" and they're in the restaurant together. Both show the conflict of emotions in D.D.L.'s character and are mesmerizing to watch. The score was perfect to reflect what was going on underneath Daniel Plainview's (PlainVIEW, John S.) steely exterior and to give the dry, arid landscape a sort of creepy quality, and the supporting cast was perfect (can you "overact" if your character is an evangelist?). Thank you, Paul Thomas Anderson for not filling in all the blanks. What is the motivation behind the Plainview character? What's the significance of family when commerce gets in the way? At what point does your environment take over in determining the type of person you are? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RichR.Feb 9, 2008
Well, I haven't even seen it yet, but I know I made this comment on there when the movie came out, and that is: Daniel is totally channeling Jack Palance, so, until I actually see this, I have to say that is not too cool of a thing to Well, I haven't even seen it yet, but I know I made this comment on there when the movie came out, and that is: Daniel is totally channeling Jack Palance, so, until I actually see this, I have to say that is not too cool of a thing to do. If it is better than No Country For Old Men, I will be amazed; THAT is a great, almost perfect movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JohnS.Feb 8, 2008
Great period settings and geographical scenes and clothing. Horrible story line with unredeeming qualities! Magnificent performance by Daniel Day Lewis. This started out great and then left me in a pool of black oil. Why would such a great Great period settings and geographical scenes and clothing. Horrible story line with unredeeming qualities! Magnificent performance by Daniel Day Lewis. This started out great and then left me in a pool of black oil. Why would such a great actor let this happen? Was a short cut taken and the substance left on the cutting room floor? Daniel Plainfield the character shows compassion and love in the beginning then sours into a pool of drunken insanity. Very long and boring, Daniel Day Lewis is great but the writer must of killed himself half way through! Or went on strike? Did this movie get made on the cutting room floor? Daniel Day Lewis needs to pick better movies to be in. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
0
AmandaL.Feb 8, 2008
Boring! music hurt my ears and did not fit the movie. Terrible storyline.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
JamieL.Feb 8, 2008
BORING,BORING BORING!!! the story could have been told in 5 minutes instead of 3 hours. people were walking out when we went and I really wish I had.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
6
TCFeb 7, 2008
One of the greatest movies ever until the plot starts to unravel late in its second hour. From then on, it gets worse, culminating in the most over-written and over-acted scene imaginable. Also, remember that many of these critics (like One of the greatest movies ever until the plot starts to unravel late in its second hour. From then on, it gets worse, culminating in the most over-written and over-acted scene imaginable. Also, remember that many of these critics (like David Denby) thought "Crash" was great too, so they are not always reliable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
EwanR.Feb 7, 2008
Daniel Day Lewis is godly in this tour de force.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
NickFeb 6, 2008
A movie all about drilling for oil in the early nineteenth century...and not about drilling for oil at all. Daniel Day-Lewis gives a intriguing performance as Daniel Plainview, constantly allowing the viewer to be torn between excitement for A movie all about drilling for oil in the early nineteenth century...and not about drilling for oil at all. Daniel Day-Lewis gives a intriguing performance as Daniel Plainview, constantly allowing the viewer to be torn between excitement for his success and business flair, and sickness at his greed and cold-heartedness. The movie tackles many social values as it winds its course through history, including religion, prophecy (or the lack thereof), and trust. At almost three hours long, the movie begins at some points to border on excess, yet each time pulls the viewer back through the use of gritty action, tense dialogue, and an excellent soundtrack. It may leave readers of Upton Sinclair's "Oil!" slightly confused, but does capture points from the book most relevant (and understandable) in today's world. The final three minutes of the movie leave audiences scratching their heads if they are interpreting much of the movie correctly, but this is a small price to pay for an excellent showcase of the American experience. It will most likely not win best picture, due largely to its massive scope and strongly suggestive subject matter, but Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano both deserve Oscars for their performances. This movie shines as not just a movie experience, but as an achievement in cinematography as well. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
FrankL.Feb 6, 2008
I expected much from this movie, especially after reading through critics and user-ratings in here and at other sites. To make it short i was mainly heavily disappointed on following points: 1) Music There are movies without music. There are I expected much from this movie, especially after reading through critics and user-ratings in here and at other sites. To make it short i was mainly heavily disappointed on following points: 1) Music There are movies without music. There are movies with music, where the music can transport emotions or atmosphere and suspension. But there are also cases where the film music is so elaborated, so off limits that it simply puts itself way too much in the foreground. 2) i did not read the book, but only after reading to some user comments i understood that major parts of the underlying story were not told. It created on me the impression that i was just looking on some crazy, selfish ppl doing crazy and selfish things. No real message or system critic was really formulated. Frank@germany. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
10
HalWFeb 5, 2008
My living hell would be to spend time with all the vapid douchebags who gave this movie low scores here. You didn't get the movie -- fine. But clearly, you have missed something big here. So keep your inane pronouncements about the My living hell would be to spend time with all the vapid douchebags who gave this movie low scores here. You didn't get the movie -- fine. But clearly, you have missed something big here. So keep your inane pronouncements about the plot, acting and soundtrack to yourselves, and go away and watch your re-runs of Friends. And remember to crank up the Nickelback. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ScottM.Feb 5, 2008
I have to disagree with Mike N. I believe this movie deserves comparison with "Citizen Kane", though i believe this film is far more poetic and powerful than "..Kane". I see how some are disappointed, it truly is a one-of-a-kind film, albeit I have to disagree with Mike N. I believe this movie deserves comparison with "Citizen Kane", though i believe this film is far more poetic and powerful than "..Kane". I see how some are disappointed, it truly is a one-of-a-kind film, albeit for better or worse. I personally believe for the better. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AlanH.Feb 5, 2008
A cinematically well-crafted movie that pays no regards to character truth or consistency or humanity. It's plodding and pretentious. Ditto for DDL's performance.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
BillC.Feb 5, 2008
This film was too long and the soundtrack was god-awful.The constant pounding in the soundtrack and the annoying music only subtracted from the viewing experience. They could just as well cut out the first 30 minutes and the story, what This film was too long and the soundtrack was god-awful.The constant pounding in the soundtrack and the annoying music only subtracted from the viewing experience. They could just as well cut out the first 30 minutes and the story, what little there was, would not have been hurt. This story could have been told in 30 minutes, and with no sound track at all.Problem is , that won't make it a movie will it? Those who fawn over this film sure are forgiving of it's many faults. Bill C. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
DanFeb 5, 2008
The only reason to give this movie a 1 is DDL. The movie is a pretentious, plodding, glacial study of good and evil...actually, of evil and evil. You are bludgeoned with blatant symbolism, annoyed with jarring music (I assume this was The only reason to give this movie a 1 is DDL. The movie is a pretentious, plodding, glacial study of good and evil...actually, of evil and evil. You are bludgeoned with blatant symbolism, annoyed with jarring music (I assume this was intentional?), bored with overly long sequences where nothing substantive happens - filmmaking 101 anybody? - and generally beaten down with the message, which as far as I can tell is: "Bad people are bad. So there." Wait for this one to come out on DVD -- oooh, an extended director's cut. Oh, goody -- and then convince your friend to rent it. Then stay home. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
9
ChipG.Feb 5, 2008
Great acting by Daniel Day Lewis, beautiful cinematography, fascination editing, mesmerizing soundtrack, solid writing, original directing style all combine to make this a great movie. I must disagree with the criticism that there is not Great acting by Daniel Day Lewis, beautiful cinematography, fascination editing, mesmerizing soundtrack, solid writing, original directing style all combine to make this a great movie. I must disagree with the criticism that there is not sufficient character development. Dramatic movies are interesting only if it is not a foregone conclusion that the characters will conquer there demons in the end; otherwise one is confined to the sub-genre of the story of the epic hero. I will admit feeling some sympathy for the main character, Daniel Plainview (though not of course condoning his violence). In the beginning you see that he is a solitary prospector; a path often pursued by those who know that the baseness of the human condition overly inflames their passions. I hold back on a rating of 10, because I thought the conclusion between Daniel and his son H.W. was somewhat rushed, compared to the pacing of the rest of the movie. If Anderson felt (or was told) the movie was too long, then tough choices should have been made to cut or shorten other scenes to give that relationship the denouement it deserved. This is a DVD I will purchase for my personal collection. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ShaneM.Feb 4, 2008
This is a masterpiece of artistic and cinematic excellence. By combining realism and cinematic grandiose, P.T. Anderson has created a modern day epic that transcends time. Day-Lewis solidifies his acting supremacy in a role that is both This is a masterpiece of artistic and cinematic excellence. By combining realism and cinematic grandiose, P.T. Anderson has created a modern day epic that transcends time. Day-Lewis solidifies his acting supremacy in a role that is both satanic and also all to familiar. Forget these raters who consider the film pretentious. How can a film be pretentious if it accomplishes what it sets out to do. There Will Be Blood is a provocative, visceral cinematic experience well worth the two and a half hour running time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ChadFeb 4, 2008
Long, slow, boring, and often uneventful, but overall Daniel day lewis manages to create a memorable and believable character opposite an interesting preacher played by Paul Dano which collide together in a very unexpected and, in my Long, slow, boring, and often uneventful, but overall Daniel day lewis manages to create a memorable and believable character opposite an interesting preacher played by Paul Dano which collide together in a very unexpected and, in my opinion, good ending. I've definitely seen better, and the critics have praised this a good bit too much, but i still liked there will be blood and it was without a doubt much better than no country and atonement. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
IanS-HFeb 3, 2008
I honestly can't remember the last time I've been so giddy and satisfied after seeing a movie. Music/Cinematography/Acting... all stunning. Stop reading review and go see it. It's pretty obvious by this point (A metacritic I honestly can't remember the last time I've been so giddy and satisfied after seeing a movie. Music/Cinematography/Acting... all stunning. Stop reading review and go see it. It's pretty obvious by this point (A metacritic 92!!) that it's worth seeing. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
KimFeb 3, 2008
This was the most boring movie I have ever seen. Three hours of hell. Would have rather watched paint dry.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
4
MichaelLFeb 3, 2008
My God, the Emperor has no clothes! What a reductionist, overwrought, overPRAISED and overLONG melodrama. All this to basically say greed is bad, whether it be embodied by capitalism or religion? Are we supposed to take away from this film My God, the Emperor has no clothes! What a reductionist, overwrought, overPRAISED and overLONG melodrama. All this to basically say greed is bad, whether it be embodied by capitalism or religion? Are we supposed to take away from this film the jarring and totally unoriginal message that the sociopaths among us may be the purest by virtue of their unshakable, unstoppable integrity? Whatever! Daniel Day Lewis, doing his best John Huston imitation, has a field day blathering away with an indistinguishable accent (from WHERE is supposed hail? No one in Wisconsin speaks with that hybrid of Queens English and Long Island Lockjaw...) until he descends into Jack Torrence madness, complete with a final line comparable to "Here's Johnny!" And Paul Dano... he evolves (or devolves) from spooky preacher to screaming ninny, and never ages a day, despite the elapse of 30 years. And THIS is the film with buckets of awards? Not nearly as interesting as "Magnolia" nor as brilliant as "Boogie Nights", if you must see this film, tank up on plenty of coffee beforehand... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
PaulA.Feb 2, 2008
Best film I have seen in years. Daniel Day Lewis has performed the best acting job since David Thewlis in Naked 1993. Its a performance that happens but once a decade. The film itself conjures Kubrick at his best, pure intense genius.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BiilyMFeb 2, 2008
An unparalleled examination of one man's conflict with his soul: on the one hand Daniel Plainview is a staunch capitalist-man made, profoundly ambitious and unemotional in business; on the other a self-stated aspiring "family man" An unparalleled examination of one man's conflict with his soul: on the one hand Daniel Plainview is a staunch capitalist-man made, profoundly ambitious and unemotional in business; on the other a self-stated aspiring "family man" desperate for authentic contact with trustworthy individuals. The conflict that arises, coupled with an eerily affecting Paul Dano as a staunch opportunist veiled by his holy mania, is classic fodder for epic film-making, and PTA-as usual-succeeds in grand fashion. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
8
DanB.Feb 2, 2008
Citizen Kane w/out the Rosebud moment? Anyway, it's very good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
WayneW.Feb 2, 2008
Guess what "Professional Critics"...open your eyes..the emperor has no clothes. I spoke with 6 other people after the movie and all agreed the movie sucked..too long..one dimensional..absurd storyline...with a pathetically uncreative ending. Guess what "Professional Critics"...open your eyes..the emperor has no clothes. I spoke with 6 other people after the movie and all agreed the movie sucked..too long..one dimensional..absurd storyline...with a pathetically uncreative ending. There Will Be Bullsh--. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
10
DavidS.Feb 2, 2008
one of the few films where i did not feel a minute was self-indulgent
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
BetsyMFeb 2, 2008
This is one where I just don't get the great reviews, hard as I try. The movie was long and boring and had no real redeeming social qualities. I was hoping that the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis was as great as everyone says, but it This is one where I just don't get the great reviews, hard as I try. The movie was long and boring and had no real redeeming social qualities. I was hoping that the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis was as great as everyone says, but it wasn't. He just limped around and brooded. Very disappointed. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
10
MichaelR.Feb 2, 2008
There were so many aspects of that movie that scared the s**t out of me. It had the most realistic and wrathful acting that would rock many film watchers to their core. It was a fantastic movie, that I'm going wait to see again.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
ChaseW.Feb 2, 2008
I have to completely agree with Matty J. on this one. This movie earns a six rating virtually on the sole acting performance of Daniel Day-Lewis. Despite some overacting in the latter parts of the movie, he carries this movie through its I have to completely agree with Matty J. on this one. This movie earns a six rating virtually on the sole acting performance of Daniel Day-Lewis. Despite some overacting in the latter parts of the movie, he carries this movie through its majority. Paul Dano has some brilliant scenes as well, but when PTA doesn't direct him in key scenes where he's allowed to go way over the top ending any suspension of disbelief. Quite simply this movie bored me. The only reason I didn't fall asleep was because the music was so jarring. Not in recent memory have I seen a movie that had music that so made me want to run out of the theater. It was like some failed attempt to appear classical or majestic but instead it was just obnoxious and as with much of this movie way over the top. The plot had little coherence and plodded along. To the point of Matty it also failed to convey the complexity of Sinclair's book. There was very little inspiration for the character's apparent drive to insanity or even the animosity that appears almost out of nowhere toward various characters. While I appreciate that Sinclair's book is long and you want to skim through some of its detail, that detail is what gives you a truer appreciation for the various characters motives. This was seriously lacking in the movie. If you're making a choice right now, defintely, definitely go see No Country for Old Man which clearly outpaces this movie for Best Picture of the year. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AnnKFeb 1, 2008
The entire audience was left dissatisfied. This movie did not live up to the hype! DDL played a fascinating lunatic, but...... so what?
2 of 2 users found this helpful
8
LarryHFeb 1, 2008
Great gritty movie about greed and self-righteousness. Anderson, Lewis and the film are all worthy of the Oscar. As with all of Anderson's movies, this is definitely not a film for everyone.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MikeN.Feb 1, 2008
PTA has made a "Citizen Kane" with the same ego but half the talent. (And DDL is brilliant,but overacted in the 1927 sequences).
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
AriK.Jan 31, 2008
Powerful and meaningful, this is a film that can be discussed for hours. The levels of malice, egoism, paranoia, and greed are brought to such high levels, that it is easy to think of this as an absurdest tale - but in fact when viewed in Powerful and meaningful, this is a film that can be discussed for hours. The levels of malice, egoism, paranoia, and greed are brought to such high levels, that it is easy to think of this as an absurdest tale - but in fact when viewed in light of actual events taking place all around us, it suddenly seems more like a stark reminder of the fact that we're not too far past this vision of a wild west dominated by paranoid, selfish oilmen and pious clergymen. The first thing I noticed watching this film was the score. Without it, the film is nowhere near as disturbing as it might otherwise be (except of course for the end). In fact, I found the music so disturbing, that I almost had an anxiety attack in the theater. That is, however, par for the course when engaging a PT Anderson flick. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MattyJJan 31, 2008
Haven't looked forward to a movie so much in years. Very disappointed...I thought Anderson was going to add more life to a great but painfully long story by Upton Sinclair. Instead the director takes only the first few chapters into Haven't looked forward to a movie so much in years. Very disappointed...I thought Anderson was going to add more life to a great but painfully long story by Upton Sinclair. Instead the director takes only the first few chapters into account and somehow manages to make isaid story even longer by eliminating the socially important aspects of OIL!. Gone is the relevant stuff--Sinclair's complex look at a moral businessman's son deeply troubled by his relationship with both labor and a corrupt industry, instead turning it into a simple story of a crazy man getting crazier. DDL was perfect and is probably the only reason folks dig this the way they do. Paul Dano was amazing in Little Miss Sunshine, but that was because he didn't speak in it...in this movie he becomes a shrieking, Peter Brady squealing banshee who's representation of the parallels of revival culture in the early 20th century to that of industry is put too much on the backburner when it could've been Anderson's contribution to a storyline understated by Sinclair. And why did Anderson make Eli and Paul twins? It leaves anyone who hasn't read the book wondering if they're the same guy until the end, for no real reason. It is painfully boring for those who like movies to take them places...even harder on those who like to think about the movies they see (yay No Country!!!) And anyone who is revved up about it must just like eccentric characters who don't change (which is understandable, but useless in the grand scheme of things). I would say if you're thinking about seeing it you should YouTube Howard Dean's historic on-camera breakdown and then imagine watching that for three hours an how painful that would be..then go see diving bell and the butterfly or no country for old men...or follow the advice of the guy who put 30 Days of Night above this. Vampire flicks rule!!! Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
10
StevenMJan 30, 2008
A masterpiece, but a sure-fire audience splitter similar to the (near equally) "No Country for Old Men." On one side you have people who love to go to the cinema and be challenged, surprised, perplexed, even dare say, confused. We want to A masterpiece, but a sure-fire audience splitter similar to the (near equally) "No Country for Old Men." On one side you have people who love to go to the cinema and be challenged, surprised, perplexed, even dare say, confused. We want to debate the film, what it means, what motivated the characters. To, you know, think. We are the people voting 9 and 10 here. The other side are folks who want to go to the movies. To be spoon fed sugary treats, patted on the head, given a good night kiss and sent off to bed without a thought ringing in their heads. These are the folks slamming this film, and who probably just loved "National Treasure 2" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks". It's not wrong. Some people spend their hard earned cash on something and want exactly what they want -- to be entertained but without the hassles. Seriously, does anyone who's seen "National Treasure 2" remember if the next week, the next day, the next ... hour. No. "There Will be Blood" settles inside you like oil, and I know I'll be wrestling with it for weeks and months to come, until I see it again. You've read the plot posts already, Daniel Day-Lewis -- never more brilliant -- is an oil tycoon with oil for blood. He loves nothing but his ambition. He is the corruption of capitalism, which was meant to help all people but has been hijacked by the greed of a few. Paul Dano, who by God looks exactly like my brother who's now in Iraq, represents the corruption of America's other greatest gift, religion. He is an evangelist for himself, not God above. Both men destroy and push away every thing close to themselves until they have nothing but each other -- then they start tearing down again. One stands at the end, or rather slumps. This is a brilliant, methodical film that is as one poster here said, a brilliant disaster film. The disaster of the soul. Again like in "No Country," there is an innocent -- the adopted son of Daniel Planview (the Day-Lewis character). In a brilliant twist, the boy has his ear drums blown out by an oil rig accident and he goes deaf. It's heart-breaking to think a son will never hear his father say, "I love you." The irony is that Planview, when he tells his son exactly that, doesn't mean it. Alas, it's not worth hearing. Yes, it's long, yes, it's challenging, and hard to get a grip of, yes, there's deep, deep thought in every scene. Cinema, lovers: enjoy. All others, do pass. One final note: The score, by Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead, is the best this decade. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BlakeJJan 30, 2008
The new American epic. Daniel Plainview will resonate forever as a man trying to accomplish the American Dream. Day-Lewis' performance is mesmerizing. In every frame he IS Plainview. From the first scene you know you're dealing The new American epic. Daniel Plainview will resonate forever as a man trying to accomplish the American Dream. Day-Lewis' performance is mesmerizing. In every frame he IS Plainview. From the first scene you know you're dealing with a Goliath. Paul Dano will surely move from this movie and become one of the next big stars, I predict an Oscar in his future. Paul Thomas Anderson crafts the perfect story...everything circling his main character...The whole time I was trying to figure out who the antagonist was...but then I realized Plainview is his own protagonist and antagonist...he is ultimately the one at fault for his downfall, a downfall not dissimilar to that of Scarface. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
OshiA.Jan 30, 2008
May be slightly better than No Country for Old Men, but only due to its relevance in current culture.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AnonymousMCJan 30, 2008
There Will Be Blood is easily the greatest disaster film ever made. Plainview is less a man than he is a volcano, that we watch percolate for nearly 2.5 hours before it explodes in the appropriate climax the film had been working towards theThere Will Be Blood is easily the greatest disaster film ever made. Plainview is less a man than he is a volcano, that we watch percolate for nearly 2.5 hours before it explodes in the appropriate climax the film had been working towards the entire time. Unlike, your typical piece of crap disaster film there is no Brosnan running around to save the women and children...the disaster wins! Plainview destroys all in his path, sucking them dry of their humanity (both lit and figuratively) as he did the earth of its oil. No one is spared Plainview's wrath that was brought to life be an excellent performance from Daniel Day Lewis.
The film's score is one of the best in recent memory as it manages to be both Kubrickian and Hitchockian. The landscaping shots and set-pieces like the oil well catching fire, were simply perfect. Perhaps people just "want to be different" or do not like Kubrick either, but There Will Be Blood is not only the best film of 2007, but also the best of the decade thus far.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AlexGJan 29, 2008
Fantastic movie. One person mentioned no sense of humor was present in this film. I honestly thought this movie was hilarious at moments... The overall drama masked everything else. I believe Daniel Day Lewis deserves an Oscar for this Fantastic movie. One person mentioned no sense of humor was present in this film. I honestly thought this movie was hilarious at moments... The overall drama masked everything else. I believe Daniel Day Lewis deserves an Oscar for this one... Amazing performance. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DNJan 29, 2008
Awesome!!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DanGJan 29, 2008
Unappealing and long. "Pixote" meets "Citizen Kane". Great performance by Day-Lewis, but on what dispiriting material!
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
mmiddleJan 29, 2008
What Michelle said. The photography is gorgeous, the actor playing the son is fine, but the storytelling is flat and careless, and Day-Lewis just extends his silly performance in "Gangs."
2 of 3 users found this helpful
10
SteveFJan 29, 2008
One of the most brilliant screen performances that I have ever seen! Daniel Day and Paul Thomas have together made the ultimate masterpiece!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful