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)
6
boguesswhatSep 18, 2016
There Will Be Blood is the slowest progressing film I've ever seen. It beholds some of the best vibrantly passionate acting in cinema, yet also few and far between in this 2 hour 38 minute film. Daniel Day-Lewis plays an AcademyThere Will Be Blood is the slowest progressing film I've ever seen. It beholds some of the best vibrantly passionate acting in cinema, yet also few and far between in this 2 hour 38 minute film. Daniel Day-Lewis plays an Academy award-winning, prosperous oilman raising a young boy he adopted as an infant. As Day-Lewis picks battles between a local priest seeking revenge through the works of the Holy Spirit, high-roller oil company executives in pursuit for more oil, and the struggles of raising a boy who biologically isn't his own, voids fill in between the lines (literally) either by long, useless pauses in dialogue, or unsettling orchestra cacophonies that don't fit the genre. Day-Lewis gets considerable help from supporting actor, Paul Dano, who plays the young pastor of small town, Little Boston, CA. Without the amazing performances of those alike randomly scattered throughout the film, There Will Be Blood would be a mere waste of time better spent learning how paint dries to a surface. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
dollarsignNov 27, 2015
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************Great screenplay. Awkward, inconsistent cinematography.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
SchizophreniacFeb 10, 2014
some scenes are boring. but I I need to talk about all of body, yes good film. Daniel Day Lewis carries this film on some scenes, but at the beginning of film you will see the perfect scenes.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
ExKingMay 24, 2013
this movie is too awkward with an obnoxious writing i mean i know Daniel day-lewess made an awesome performance there is no Doubt about that but the writing keep you away from the story i mean why when his son became deaf he was happy ?
why
this movie is too awkward with an obnoxious writing i mean i know Daniel day-lewess made an awesome performance there is no Doubt about that but the writing keep you away from the story i mean why when his son became deaf he was happy ?
why his son burned down the house ?
why he killed his brother ?
why he waited all these years until he told his son that he was adopted ?
why in hell he killed the monk ?
omg i felt stupid after watching this movie.
Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
4
Jimbo82Apr 1, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This films started off well, but once we've seen how Plainview (Day-Lewis) set up the business and his early difficulties in buying land to drill for oil that the film starts to take a nose dive. First of all, there is little to no character development we learn nothing about Plainview's work force, his son (who turns out not to be his son) is only developed very slightly towards the end. There are also a few things that don't make any sense i.e when Plainview abandons the boy on the train. He is returned back to Plainview later in the film, but where had he been? Where did they find him? How long had he been gone for? None of this is explained. I also felt the ending was over the top. I gave it 4 mainly because it started out well and Day-Lewis put in a good performance (not Oscar worthy though). I also thought the guy who played Eli put on a good performance too. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
5
lancekozDec 22, 2012
I like to see movies artistically done, so this film didn't bother me exactly. It was just long, unfocused, and forgettable. The main character was not a real stretch in acting chops for Day-Lewis, and trivial parts were carried out forI like to see movies artistically done, so this film didn't bother me exactly. It was just long, unfocused, and forgettable. The main character was not a real stretch in acting chops for Day-Lewis, and trivial parts were carried out for absurd lengths of time. Visually and in thematic details, it DID ring of some real truths and passions, which alone would make it standout against most Hollywood fare, but unless you are dedicated to odd stuff, you will definitely find it a mediocre entertainment. Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
4
DWDec 8, 2009
I loved this movie. I loved the photography. The character development. The realism. The premise. All for what? For nothing? Do not make a film if you do not know where the plot is going to go. The plot - goes nowhere. There will be blood? I loved this movie. I loved the photography. The character development. The realism. The premise. All for what? For nothing? Do not make a film if you do not know where the plot is going to go. The plot - goes nowhere. There will be blood? There won't be blood - at least no blood that has any meaning. If you expect to see a good man become evil you will not. If you expect to see an evil man be reformed you will not. If you expect to see an evil man get his comeuppance you will not. If you expect people to suffer terribly or prosper wonderfully, you will be mistaken in your estimation. You instead get: Daniel Day Lewis: a cranky, miserable miser... who is... a cranky miserable miser. The only person who really loses the plot in the film is the screenwriter. There is no plot. And this is why this is not a film, but a series of still of beautiful countryside. There is no plot. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
NathanK.Jul 30, 2009
Boring and contrived... one of the most horrid movies i've ever seen. the best part was the credits.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RNMay 29, 2009
Just like every other Paul Thomas Anderson movie, this one would suck without such a big name as Daniel Day Lewis. His performance was phenomenal but lets face it, this was a movie about oil. What could be more boring than that? Maybe if Just like every other Paul Thomas Anderson movie, this one would suck without such a big name as Daniel Day Lewis. His performance was phenomenal but lets face it, this was a movie about oil. What could be more boring than that? Maybe if they did a movie about rocks. Seriously, without the charisma of Daniel Day Lewis nobody would have ever herd of this movie and it's because of him that this movie is getting such a high rating from me. If they would have put say, Nicholas Cage in this one instead this movie would tank and be a one. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
6
FoogRMar 23, 2009
This movie had some outstanding moments and some very well designed dialogue. Unfortunately, the story and conclusion truly leave something to be desired, the main character, Danial Plainview, doesn't develop grow or shrink over the This movie had some outstanding moments and some very well designed dialogue. Unfortunately, the story and conclusion truly leave something to be desired, the main character, Danial Plainview, doesn't develop grow or shrink over the course of the movie, and doesn't change much at all; however, Daniel Day Lewis performs outstandingly, which may bother or confuse some because of the odd contrast. The score will annoy some, but it is actually a brilliant work with a Bela Barok style that will disturb and intrigue if studied. Overall, the movie was good quality, but the plot and characters were weak if not aggravating. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SteveS.Oct 3, 2008
Calling this a good movie is an insult to good movies. I wanted to like it, and DD Lewis is always entertaining, but let's face it - the movie is ultimately a failure.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MarkWAug 12, 2008
I consider films to be an art form and not just mindless entertainment. Like most forms of art the satisfaction in born out of seeing/hearing something new and refreshing, something that challenges the way you think. However, originality I consider films to be an art form and not just mindless entertainment. Like most forms of art the satisfaction in born out of seeing/hearing something new and refreshing, something that challenges the way you think. However, originality doesn't guarantee a masterpiece. That's where "There Will Be Blood" fits in, original but far from the masterpiece that the film critics would have you believe. The score was hideous and totally out of place at times and the acting or perhaps the characters were totally overdone. I don't think the central story of greed was very convincing and rather looked more focused on a mans degrading sanity. To top it all off the ending was awfully contrived, it just didn't fit and was poorly done. Eli Sunday could have easily escape and that was painfully obvious. I get the sense that this is one of those cases where as soon as Hollywood produces a film that is brave the critics rave, but compare this film to some of the better lesser known independent films and it pales in comparison. You can intellectualise this film as much as you like but when it comes down to it simply it isn't that good. Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful
6
SteveL.Jul 20, 2008
I was disappointed in this movie. It's theme was about a violent, mean, miserable, disturbed man. I saw no redeeming value in it. It was dark and depressing. Great acting. Crummy story line.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarkJun 18, 2008
Only thing good about it was the acting. It was boring. I was expecting some kind of twist at the end or for the movie to rap up with some kind of moral theme, but the movie was pointless.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JA.Jun 14, 2008
This movie is a one trick pony that quickly tires midway through. I found myself looking at my watch more than the screen. The only thing thinner than the plot are the characters. What a disappointment.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JeremyP.May 30, 2008
The only reason it gets a five is because the actors performed well. Only problem was that the story itself leaves you wanting. It's not a good thing when you can tell the whole story when trying to just explain the plot. "Bad guy The only reason it gets a five is because the actors performed well. Only problem was that the story itself leaves you wanting. It's not a good thing when you can tell the whole story when trying to just explain the plot. "Bad guy becomes oil man." That's basically the whole movie. Nothing more needs to be said. The only reason to watch it is just to find out what makes him a bad guy. There's no redeeming qualities to any of the characters. In fact, it's simply an exercise in a cynical worldview, only looking at the worst in the oil industry and religion with no counterbalance. I think that's why Hollywood ate it up. Anything that focuses on the fringe aspects of "hocus pocus" religion or posits that big business is inherently greedy and rooted in evil intentions is immediately considered Oscar material it seems, and this has both! But, as I said before, the acting was the only redeeming quality and Daniel Day Lewis was definitely deserving of his best actor nod. But it's just a shame that his great performance was shackled by such a hopeless, aimless story. Let me put it another way, the only people praising this STORY are doing so because they feel it makes them smart. These are the same people that pay $15,000 for an impressionist painting by a 5 year old. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JBMay 27, 2008
Mediocre at best. Great camerawork and great atmosphere, but the plot drags on... and on.... and on... 2h38m could have easily been condensed in a 1h20m movie. The music is probably the worst I have ever heard. I don't remember ever Mediocre at best. Great camerawork and great atmosphere, but the plot drags on... and on.... and on... 2h38m could have easily been condensed in a 1h20m movie. The music is probably the worst I have ever heard. I don't remember ever being bothered by a musical score, but the screeching and scratching got old really fast and did not seem to have any relation to the movie. It sounded like they ran out of money and decided to cut the music budget down to one guy with a violin and a microphone. Very forgettable movie.. Cannot believe it has a 92 score on metacritic. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
CaptainSpauldingMay 25, 2008
To paraphrase Phil Hartman as Frank Sinatra, "What is all this crap?!" If not for the excellent acting of Daniel Day-Lewis, this movie would be horrid. If not for Mr. Day-Lewis, I'd give his a negative number if possible. A horrid movie To paraphrase Phil Hartman as Frank Sinatra, "What is all this crap?!" If not for the excellent acting of Daniel Day-Lewis, this movie would be horrid. If not for Mr. Day-Lewis, I'd give his a negative number if possible. A horrid movie and 2 hours of your life that you'll never get back! Quick advice? RENT SOMETHING ELSE! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JackBMay 12, 2008
It was good for the most part but just dragged on, the story became uninteresting and just plain bad at the end. I think its yet another movie where the critics thought "wow if we see this as a 10/10 we might be considered as lovers of real It was good for the most part but just dragged on, the story became uninteresting and just plain bad at the end. I think its yet another movie where the critics thought "wow if we see this as a 10/10 we might be considered as lovers of real film" when really, it should all be down to how much you enjoy it as an individual. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DorothyV.May 5, 2008
While the acting is phenomenal, the story is incoherent and meaningless, meanspirited and cruel. There is nothing redeeming about this movie and in the end is not a great movie. It is unenduringly bleak and insofar as this is true is does While the acting is phenomenal, the story is incoherent and meaningless, meanspirited and cruel. There is nothing redeeming about this movie and in the end is not a great movie. It is unenduringly bleak and insofar as this is true is does not portray the real complexity of a character or an epoch. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
JimM.Apr 22, 2008
Didn't get it. Two hours I'll never get back.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JeffLApr 19, 2008
The opening was good and then it was down hill from there. I was having a hard time staying awake during this movie. Daniel Day-Lewis's character tended to jump around a lot leaving his character a little hollow and shallow. Nothing The opening was good and then it was down hill from there. I was having a hard time staying awake during this movie. Daniel Day-Lewis's character tended to jump around a lot leaving his character a little hollow and shallow. Nothing really happens in the middle of the movie. The preacher character is just weird and actually steals some of the craziness from Daniel Day-Lewis's character. I don't plan on watching this movie again. It is no where near Unforgiven or Crash's power. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AndreNApr 19, 2008
This is one of those movies that does everything right. The acting, the music, the cinematography are all brilliant but technical excellence alone does not necessarily make for a good movie. The other ingredient - enjoyability is sorely This is one of those movies that does everything right. The acting, the music, the cinematography are all brilliant but technical excellence alone does not necessarily make for a good movie. The other ingredient - enjoyability is sorely lacking from this movie. This has got nothing to do with the dark atmosphere created in the movie - as there are many dark, but also enjoyable movies. The plot is simplistic, the dialogue is boring and there is minimal character development over the course of the storyline. Although Day-Lewis acting probably deserves the Oscar, this alone cannot save this one-dimensional movie. A big disappointment! Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
LuisC.Apr 15, 2008
I don t give less than 5 because of some brilliant scenes and great acting in some parts. But 80% of the movie was boring...and in a movie of 2.5h its to much. I was expecting much more.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
CarlM.Apr 12, 2008
Dramatic but confusing.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JJ.Apr 11, 2008
Drastically overhyped and paced like the bastard step child of Solarace and English Patient on qualudes. The third act is a mess that will leave you with that sense of bewilderment. Clearly a movie that chose device over substance to evoke Drastically overhyped and paced like the bastard step child of Solarace and English Patient on qualudes. The third act is a mess that will leave you with that sense of bewilderment. Clearly a movie that chose device over substance to evoke some hackneyed emotion. The score is one of many devices that I Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
RichardS.Apr 11, 2008
Well made movie about someone you don't like or care about. Too bad Day-Lewis can act in every way except to express pain. The editing was bad.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
PedroS.Apr 3, 2008
It
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SeanF.Mar 16, 2008
Over the top acting kind of disguises the fact that plot is peppered with illogical scenes which make little sense. Like having one actor playing the two Henry brothers in same character. Left me wondering for the most part if the preacher Over the top acting kind of disguises the fact that plot is peppered with illogical scenes which make little sense. Like having one actor playing the two Henry brothers in same character. Left me wondering for the most part if the preacher was supposed to have two personalities. The ending was cliched ('luke I'm not your father') and complete with gratuitous violence which added nothing and detracting from the film itself. Sure the acting is good but that alone doesn't make a great film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
P.O.Mar 5, 2008
I am not sure about this one. I hardly ever disagree with Metacritic but this movie was pretty boring. I was just waiting for something to happen. I was impressed by the acting and the visuals were quite powerful. I thought it was a ok movie I am not sure about this one. I hardly ever disagree with Metacritic but this movie was pretty boring. I was just waiting for something to happen. I was impressed by the acting and the visuals were quite powerful. I thought it was a ok movie overall. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful