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)
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
5
dollarsignNov 27, 2015
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************Great screenplay. Awkward, inconsistent cinematography.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
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
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
4
MarcK.Jan 7, 2008
I really wanted to like this one too. Started out OK, however, the last 30 minutes or so were ridiculous and over-the-top. I think P.T. Anderson is like Tarantino. P.T. makes the great "Boogie Nights", and while we all thought he was going I really wanted to like this one too. Started out OK, however, the last 30 minutes or so were ridiculous and over-the-top. I think P.T. Anderson is like Tarantino. P.T. makes the great "Boogie Nights", and while we all thought he was going to be a great director. I think we now realize it was just a fluke. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
jimi99Jan 4, 2008
In two words: Major Bore. If you want a film about evil abroad in the world, this film is laughably trivial compared to "No Country for Old Men," which is a masterpiece. The long takes fairly scream "epic importance!" and the central In two words: Major Bore. If you want a film about evil abroad in the world, this film is laughably trivial compared to "No Country for Old Men," which is a masterpiece. The long takes fairly scream "epic importance!" and the central conflict, between a fairly interesting ruthless oil wildcatter and a wimpy insincere evangelist, is simply not an enduring metaphor for America, the human soul, or an enjoyable time in the moviehouse. The Coen brothers are filmmakers; Paul Anderson is an auteur--in the worst sense of the word. 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
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
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
6
RussT.Mar 5, 2008
The film is inspired by Upton Sinclair
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PedroS.Apr 3, 2008
It
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
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
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
4
ChrisJan 21, 2008
This film has a lot going for; a high quality writer/director, a great cast, and an excellent score. Sadly, it does not amount to much. The movie moves slowly and is never very captivating. Day-Lewis gives a great performance at the This film has a lot going for; a high quality writer/director, a great cast, and an excellent score. Sadly, it does not amount to much. The movie moves slowly and is never very captivating. Day-Lewis gives a great performance at the beginning and end of the film, however, he loses focus during the middle. Paul Dano is fantastic should garner some Academy consideration. I wish this film had been more interesting, but it just a dull period piece. The film does have some interesting themes such as religion and greed, but leaves many questions unanswered. Sadly, this is a 2 hour 40 minute hike that leaves you unfulfilled. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
syzygyJan 5, 2008
This is a performance driven pseudo-epic. The plot takes some wild, feverish turns in adapting one of upton sinclair's more rich-baiting novels. there is little of the crusader spirit in the either work, certainly nothing of the good or This is a performance driven pseudo-epic. The plot takes some wild, feverish turns in adapting one of upton sinclair's more rich-baiting novels. there is little of the crusader spirit in the either work, certainly nothing of the good or relishes sinclair's primitive old world socialism and does his best with daniel day-lewis to scream that across the screen. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
adamwJan 7, 2008
A more appropriate title would be "There Won't be a Plot". It's long and boring and I still can't figure out why it's called what it is. Critics are often fooled by long movies with good acting, but in the end, it's A more appropriate title would be "There Won't be a Plot". It's long and boring and I still can't figure out why it's called what it is. Critics are often fooled by long movies with good acting, but in the end, it's just long, boring, and pointless. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
rammJan 12, 2008
They should have named this " There will be Asshole" Sure, I get the message. But what's with the music? It seems that they were trying to make the story something it was not with all the abstract horror strings. Every scene was built They should have named this " There will be Asshole" Sure, I get the message. But what's with the music? It seems that they were trying to make the story something it was not with all the abstract horror strings. Every scene was built up with this omenous music that never led to anything. It had you thinking that diaster was eminent yet nothing ever happened. What was the story on Eli and Paul? They never resolved that to any satisfaction. DD Lewis was brilliant. But was it neccesary to portray him as the world largest colnic apature? I don't get it. Great cinematography. Great acting. But where's the beef? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JoseRJan 13, 2008
This movie was slightly more than 2.5 hours long, but felt like a seven hour film. D.D. Lewis' performance is the only thing that kept me in my seat. Paul Dano's performance was also excellent. The movie dragged on for what seamedThis movie was slightly more than 2.5 hours long, but felt like a seven hour film. D.D. Lewis' performance is the only thing that kept me in my seat. Paul Dano's performance was also excellent. The movie dragged on for what seamed like days. I found myself looking at my watch wondering how long the movie had been playing and when, if ever, it would finally end. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful