Paramount Vantage | Release Date: December 26, 2007
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1302 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,012
Mixed:
119
Negative:
171
WATCH NOW
Stream On
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 characteres (5000 max)
0
HasbroBJan 6, 2008
One of the worst movies I have ever seen. I went into it with low expectations and it still disappointed. This is not the next great American classic. It is an excuse for a movie with no distinguishable plot, no fascinating characters (no, One of the worst movies I have ever seen. I went into it with low expectations and it still disappointed. This is not the next great American classic. It is an excuse for a movie with no distinguishable plot, no fascinating characters (no, not even Daniel Plainview.), and most of all, no underlying meaning. Any hint of political or religious meaning is lost at the hands of Anderson. The movie meanders, meaningless characters are introduced and disappear, scenes feel out-of-place, and even the soundtrack by the great Jonny Greenwood feels too epic for the picture it is trying to support. I honestly do not see what the critics are seeing in this movie and cannot fathom anyone finding more from "There Will Be Blood" than a true classic like "No Country For Old Men". Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful
3
cindynnevinsApr 3, 2008
No hero in movie. It was boring, long. I found it to be tedious. Waiting for something to happen. The ending was terrible. I still am not sure of the consequences of what he did. Save your money. It was over rated
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
DaveS.Jan 24, 2008
Daniel Day-Lewis awesome as usual. Most annoying sound track I have ever heard. Scenes dragged out too long.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
2
tinah.Jan 5, 2008
Totally unlikeable character, never learned anything . Very male film. I didn't like it
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
stanleylJan 6, 2008
I found all critics to be over rate -the movie had poor dialogue -violent without cause- loud music a kid for a-preacher- cheap sets- one great actor with a poorly developed theme
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
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
1
JimmyS.Mar 5, 2008
besides some nice pictures, it was really really boring.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
DavidF.Mar 6, 2008
"There Could Have Been Worse" It could have been poorly shot. I don't care if it had a great film score, the volume of the music was really high. Does that make it better-- NO. If turning the voltage up to 11 in every facet of a movie "There Could Have Been Worse" It could have been poorly shot. I don't care if it had a great film score, the volume of the music was really high. Does that make it better-- NO. If turning the voltage up to 11 in every facet of a movie makes it great in your mind, then this is your film. The film score opens with a musical crescendo that shouldn't have been used because it was lifted hook line and sinker from Kubrick's 2001, and yet was intended to bring to mind a different emotion and theme. Pointless violence, characters who you don't believe in, a supposedly angry character who unburdens himself once to a virtual stranger claiming he hates everyone, and then shows unexpected sensitivity to his employees after a workplace death? Yah right! I'm a Yankee who knows nothing about the oil business, but I was scratching my head as to what kind of Rube Goldberg devices were running in the background most of the movie, so its not just the Texans who saw stupid lazy research. A supposedly greedy man who keeps a secret from his son for twenty years longer than the greed requires? Who are we kidding here? This movie is just Dumb with the volume cranked up so high you can't think straight! Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
0
WILLIAMGILLINGHAMApr 14, 2008
MOST WORTHLESS MOVIE I EVER WATCHED, NO PLOT , NO MORAL NO NOTHING I KEPT WATCHING THINKING IT WOULD BE CHANGNG , JUST WHEN YOU THINK THERES A PLOT IT JUST CONTINUES ON TO BEING MORE BORING THEN THE FIRST HOUR, WASTE OF TIME AND MONEYMOST WORTHLESS MOVIE I EVER WATCHED, NO PLOT , NO MORAL NO NOTHING I KEPT WATCHING THINKING IT WOULD BE CHANGNG , JUST WHEN YOU THINK THERES A PLOT IT JUST CONTINUES ON TO BEING MORE BORING THEN THE FIRST HOUR, WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY WATCHING THIS MOVIE, THERE WILL BE BLOOD ONLY HAS ONLY ONE PLOT, STEAL YOUR MONEY AS A MOVIE PATRON Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
AmberC.Apr 7, 2008
I had heard good things about this movie, and I had been so psyched to go and see it...which may be part of why it ended up being such a disappointment. The music in the opening scene put me on the edge of my seat, and I spent the rest of I had heard good things about this movie, and I had been so psyched to go and see it...which may be part of why it ended up being such a disappointment. The music in the opening scene put me on the edge of my seat, and I spent the rest of the movie holding my breath for a dramatic and shocking event that would never happen. The movie dragged on and on, and I couldn't shake off the feeling that nothing substantial or relevant was happening. At first I did think the conflict between Daniel and Eli held a lot of promise, and I guess I kind of expected the movie to focus on this tension and build it up a little more--but here again the movie fell short, and the ending death scene blended in with the rest of the movie about as well as oil blends with water. It felt awkward and out of place. To make things worse, in my eyes at least, there was never anything likeable about DDL's character. I saw him take the orphaned baby from the scene of the mining accident, and when the movie immediately flashes to 9 years later and Daniel happens to be accompanied by a boy who looks about 9 or 10 years old, I put two and two together and suspected it was the same kid. Some have suggested that the son was the only character that Daniel cared about at all, but I question whether he even cared about the boy. Daniel refers to his son as a "sweet face" that helps him get his way in business deals. Then, when someone asks Daniel where his wife is, he gives a shifty look and replies that she "died in childbirth", and presto! The charismatic businessman is transformed into a lying scumbag. I'm guessing that explains why I wasn't at all surprised when Daniel sat H.W. down at his desk years later and finally told him that (gasp!) he's not actually his father. I get the feeling that this was supposed to be a very dramatic, climactic scene, but it left me cold because I'd been practically waiting for it the entire movie. I think the movie was supposed to center around the "transformation" of DDL's character, but I didn't really see much of a transformation, except in the end when he suddenly becomes psychotic, or maybe just reveals that part of his personality. It's hard to tell, because Daniel is very unapproachable as a character; tough to understand or relate to at all, and even tougher to like. The acting itself was still decent, but the character development was iffy at best. All in all, not recommended. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
DougL.Feb 24, 2009
Just because a movie is "unlike any other" doesn't make it good. Is it too much to ask for a film to be inventive, thought-provoking, insightful, etc., while still entertaining its audience? I feel like I was being bludgeoned to death Just because a movie is "unlike any other" doesn't make it good. Is it too much to ask for a film to be inventive, thought-provoking, insightful, etc., while still entertaining its audience? I feel like I was being bludgeoned to death (or at least, to sleep) with the snail's pace of this film. To quote the late, great George Carlin, "It's like watching flies f***!!". I have yet to hear a convincing explanation from anyone as to why they liked this movie. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
2
MikeSJan 5, 2010
Started off boring and progressively got worse.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
1
philaJan 5, 2010
I'm a movie buff and soon to be director. this movie was worthless. paul thomas anderson somehow got into the legion of "can do no wrong" with critics and gets a pass on all his movies. ever see one of his interviews? he cant answerI'm a movie buff and soon to be director. this movie was worthless. paul thomas anderson somehow got into the legion of "can do no wrong" with critics and gets a pass on all his movies. ever see one of his interviews? he cant answer 'yes or no' questions. does he have a rich daddy in politics or news media or something that gets him a free pass? Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
2
StephenJan 1, 2008
Half-baked. I was fairly engrossed through the first 2/3 of the film, then I started to realize the entire film was heading nowhere and saying nothing. A string of disjointed episodes connecting several almost over-the-top scenes of Half-baked. I was fairly engrossed through the first 2/3 of the film, then I started to realize the entire film was heading nowhere and saying nothing. A string of disjointed episodes connecting several almost over-the-top scenes of DDR's mad rages without any real groundwork laid to explain or justify them. I have no idea what the critics who rated this so highly were thinking. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
KeithD.Jan 12, 2008
Long and Boring, 1 good actor, nothing more, I really didn't even think there was that much for DDL to do anything with. You just keep waiting and waiting for something to develop and nothing does.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
0
schoonschoonNov 25, 2008
Dull, confusing. I like intelligent/slow movies - Brokeback, Remains of the Day, Apocalypse Now etc, but this had nothing. Love Radiohead but the score was awful too, it seemed Greenwood thought "how irrelevant can I make the score". Hammy Dull, confusing. I like intelligent/slow movies - Brokeback, Remains of the Day, Apocalypse Now etc, but this had nothing. Love Radiohead but the score was awful too, it seemed Greenwood thought "how irrelevant can I make the score". Hammy acting. Magnolia was crap too. And the first PTA film. Loved Boogie Nights. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
MikeSurenessJan 14, 2008
Scene after scene of men walking. See that tree one hundred yards in the distance. You are going to watch the actors walk to it and back in real time. Never once during this movie did I ever wonder what was going to happen next or have aScene after scene of men walking. See that tree one hundred yards in the distance. You are going to watch the actors walk to it and back in real time. Never once during this movie did I ever wonder what was going to happen next or have a reason to care. Expand
3 of 4 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
3
jimhJan 7, 2008
pretty boring. dreadful overacting. totally overrated. if yu want real drama see the Rumanian film 4 months 3 weeks and 2 days. if you want a film that's travelled right up its own backside check this out though.
2 of 3 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. Collapse
2 of 2 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
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
3
BillL.Mar 11, 2008
Terrible musical score meant to impress detracts from story and performance of Daniel Day Lewis.Not as interesting as the critics think it is. Full of bombast not epic story.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
0
JanGMar 12, 2008
I agree with many others that this was one of the worst movies I have seen. If I had been alone I should have walked out in the first 10 minutes, or less. The noise was deafening and SO unsubtle; it seemed as if loud and frightening sounds I agree with many others that this was one of the worst movies I have seen. If I had been alone I should have walked out in the first 10 minutes, or less. The noise was deafening and SO unsubtle; it seemed as if loud and frightening sounds and music were needed to convince the audience that something was going on. If a movie relies upon this, then it shows me that they did not have full confidence in their production. If you like loud amplification, excellent scenery, blood, sweat, tears, child abuse, psychotic behaviour and enjoy looking at your watch every ten minutes to see whether the film might soon be ending, then go to see this movie and enjoy! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
JosephM.Mar 10, 2008
Possibly the worst movie I've seen in the last decade. The music was annoying. The characters were boring and one dimensional. If it wasn't up for best picture I would have walked out after 10 minutes. By the end, I was really Possibly the worst movie I've seen in the last decade. The music was annoying. The characters were boring and one dimensional. If it wasn't up for best picture I would have walked out after 10 minutes. By the end, I was really sorry I didn't. You can't wrap a 2 hour movie around the "I drink your milkshake" line! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
AdamAdamsMar 21, 2008
Can't understand the appeal of this movie at all. I would like to think that I know a good movie when I see one, which is why this movie creates a disturbing dilemma for myself. But, do normally love Daniel Day Lewis. Amazing that heCan't understand the appeal of this movie at all. I would like to think that I know a good movie when I see one, which is why this movie creates a disturbing dilemma for myself. But, do normally love Daniel Day Lewis. Amazing that he can win an Oscar for this craptastic movie. Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful
3
MattB.Apr 11, 2008
I watched this movie because it was highly acclaimed and one many awards. I was very disappointed. The character development was great, but the movie felt like 4 or 5 hours and moved very slowly. The music was awful, and, in times seemed I watched this movie because it was highly acclaimed and one many awards. I was very disappointed. The character development was great, but the movie felt like 4 or 5 hours and moved very slowly. The music was awful, and, in times seemed unnecessary. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
0
DDApr 10, 2008
This has to be one of the worst movies of 2007, along with No Country for Old Men. Plot, what plot? The movie was a waste of film. What was so great about it? It was another worthless film that movie "critics" love because it is pointless This has to be one of the worst movies of 2007, along with No Country for Old Men. Plot, what plot? The movie was a waste of film. What was so great about it? It was another worthless film that movie "critics" love because it is pointless and it gives them something to try to make sense of. If you want entertainment, go outside and watch the grass grow. You will have more fun! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
JohnL.Apr 20, 2008
This movie was so boring!!!!!! I like good acting as much as the next guy but at the very least I want to be entertained!!!! ddl was good in his role but it was just way too long and after a while you just don't care cause you just want This movie was so boring!!!!!! I like good acting as much as the next guy but at the very least I want to be entertained!!!! ddl was good in his role but it was just way too long and after a while you just don't care cause you just want to be put out of your misery. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
JohnD.Apr 7, 2008
wow, this movie was so boring. great acting but this movie was painfully dull
2 of 2 users found this helpful
3
ELMay 4, 2008
Slow and boring, wish I'd done my ironing instead. The film lacks any interesting story line and I found myself falling asleep more than once. I must admit however, that it was exciting in comparison to; Girl with a Pearl Earring and Slow and boring, wish I'd done my ironing instead. The film lacks any interesting story line and I found myself falling asleep more than once. I must admit however, that it was exciting in comparison to; Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation. Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful
3
JoeM.May 4, 2008
I have to agree with Barbara M's review of all sound and fury coupled with slow pacing and extended melodrama. I sometimes found myself sighing over my labor to make it through to the end of this plodding film. Not to take away from I have to agree with Barbara M's review of all sound and fury coupled with slow pacing and extended melodrama. I sometimes found myself sighing over my labor to make it through to the end of this plodding film. Not to take away from Daniel Day-Lewis' effort, because he rivets you with his always incredible screen presence, but otherwise I really couldn't wait for this movie to end. I'm glad I caught it on DVD rather than pay $9 to see it at the theater. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
0
TedB.May 8, 2008
If the movie wasn't so tedious and long, I'd waste more time explaining why you should not avoid the hype.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
DanH.May 9, 2008
The most insanely boring and pointless movie i have ever seen in my life.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
EdM.Jun 13, 2008
This P.O.S. sucks worst than gravity! Over done musical score, over the top and totally hammy acting, DDL during the church scene, please. No plot direction, weak storyline. This movie was just plain bad. What a waste of two and a half hours!
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
TimR.Jun 1, 2008
I cant believe i am in the minority when it comes to this movie! The worst movie i have seen in the last five years, hand down. I think people have confused total crap with art here. I have never seen a worse movie rated so high for I cant believe i am in the minority when it comes to this movie! The worst movie i have seen in the last five years, hand down. I think people have confused total crap with art here. I have never seen a worse movie rated so high for absolutely no reason. I could never be friends with anyone that thought this move was in the least bit entertaining. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
ErinB.Jun 4, 2008
I HATED this movie! Could we have a little more over the top acting Mr. Lewis?!
2 of 3 users found this helpful
2
RebeccaC.Jun 9, 2008
I tried to keep an open mind.... This movie could have been trimmed down to half it's length. So many bland scenes that left me confused. And the ending..... What??? Maybe I am the type that likes to watch movies that don't make me I tried to keep an open mind.... This movie could have been trimmed down to half it's length. So many bland scenes that left me confused. And the ending..... What??? Maybe I am the type that likes to watch movies that don't make me think. But hey, this is entertainment, not college! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
RexS.Jan 2, 2009
This is truely one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. I suffered through every minute expecting something, anything to happen and got nothing. It is predictable from beginning to end. I didn't appreciate the script, the This is truely one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. I suffered through every minute expecting something, anything to happen and got nothing. It is predictable from beginning to end. I didn't appreciate the script, the characters, their motives, the cinematography or anything. The film critics, who are so sophisticated may find something to actually appreciate about the film, but then they also find give numberous awards to all those stupid movies that nobody has ever heard of. I encourage everyone to not waste their time on this film. It was truely a let down!!!!!!!! Oh yea-the music suks too!!!! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
3
AlexROct 22, 2009
I started whittling in the middle of this film to stave off boredom. Yeah. It starts off well and lays a solid foundation for what could be a captivating plot. Then functionally nothing happens for like two whole hours. No discernible plot, I started whittling in the middle of this film to stave off boredom. Yeah. It starts off well and lays a solid foundation for what could be a captivating plot. Then functionally nothing happens for like two whole hours. No discernible plot, with only Day-Lewis' intense portrayal to carry the film. His performance is actually kind of squandered since they could have given him more interesting dialogue or action. But, no. Just two hours of nothing. Then the ending comes out of nowhere, spews one memorable catchphrase, and finishes on a completely ridiculous note. I understand that this is art, and the cinematography is nice, but why can't art be entertaining? Don't let this film trick you into thinking that it makes a profound statement about society or the human condition or whatever just because DDL plays a brooding, mean guy and it's really sparse and atmospheric. Without him, this movie has nothing and would easily be seen as such. There Will Be Blood is all set-up. All the pieces are in place for this to be a good film, they just forgot to write the plot. Expand
6 of 11 users found this helpful
0
BBMar 24, 2009
This is an awful movie. Just awful. Who do I see about getting the three hours back. I had to apologize to my DVR for wasting it's time. I like epic pictures. I like big vistas and stirring musical backgrounds but this isn't epic. This is an awful movie. Just awful. Who do I see about getting the three hours back. I had to apologize to my DVR for wasting it's time. I like epic pictures. I like big vistas and stirring musical backgrounds but this isn't epic. It is trying to be epic. It is trying to be to much. It fails. Based on the ratings I watched through to the end to see if it would come together in the end; it didn't. Did I say awful enough yet? Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
0
khcinOhioApr 3, 2009
This is a movie that doesn't know what it is doing. The main character is a "soul-dead," grasping, ruthless man. OK. We know that before the movie starts. After this nothing happens. This is a truly awful movie and an utter waste of the This is a movie that doesn't know what it is doing. The main character is a "soul-dead," grasping, ruthless man. OK. We know that before the movie starts. After this nothing happens. This is a truly awful movie and an utter waste of the leading actor's obvious talents. Why are the critics awed? Stay away! Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
2
KevinB.May 2, 2009
Glad I waited to see this on dvd. Even so, I was barely able to sit through it. I guess I kept hoping it would get better, considering the critics rave reviews. The characters seemed shallow , and the plot too. A sad story about a sorry sad Glad I waited to see this on dvd. Even so, I was barely able to sit through it. I guess I kept hoping it would get better, considering the critics rave reviews. The characters seemed shallow , and the plot too. A sad story about a sorry sad man. I did enjoy seeing the history of the early oil extraction techniques. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
DWillyDec 30, 2007
Film should be considered an art and undertaken with high aspiration, but this is like way too many art house type movies that average folk will go see because they are fantastically reviewed and then walk out of saying, and rightly so, that Film should be considered an art and undertaken with high aspiration, but this is like way too many art house type movies that average folk will go see because they are fantastically reviewed and then walk out of saying, and rightly so, that there is something very wrong with this industry. A pretentious film school exercise doth not a legitamit movie make. It might have been a character study... but no, it's not really; even though Daniel Day Lewis gives a bravura performance, he did this "king thug" guy in "Gangs Of New York" already and it's invulnerable and not by itself affecting. It might have been a clash of ideals story... no, it's not that either (the preacher character disappears for maybe an hour at one point). I guess with a lot of good cinematography on location mixing big theatrical performances with realist ones (using many non-actors), even without a story, film nuts will think its deep. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
LeonardP.Jan 11, 2008
This has to be the biggest joke critics have played on the film going public.it's like watching Bergman on Valium.SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Boreing. Paul Thomas Anderson is the most pretentious director working today.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
1
DeeS.Jan 12, 2008
I'm rating this babdly because I know bad votes get more attention...but I will admit that this is an incredible film. I was worried about Day-Lewis and his theatrical antics, but he showed remarkable restraint in his perfirmance, and I'm rating this babdly because I know bad votes get more attention...but I will admit that this is an incredible film. I was worried about Day-Lewis and his theatrical antics, but he showed remarkable restraint in his perfirmance, and was perfectly cast in the part. Anyone who doesn't rate this film highly is not terribly bright. I hate almost all of Hollywood's generic output, but this stands out without a doubt. And I will also add that I disliked Magnolia, and was hesitant about seeing this film. This film has a lot of ideas strewn throughout its shifting narrative, and what I particularly liked is how the film made BIG OIL a personal issue. Most documentaries that deal with oil (and there are so few of them) leave no room for personal politics; P.T. Anderson's film relies on a close study of how mankind's raping of the earth reveals troubles that evolve exponentially, culminating in our present state of affairs (the effects of which we are facing now more than ever). But placing the film less than 100 years in our not too distant past should be a wake-up call to anyone with even a semblance of a brain. In an artfully convincing way, this film is a desperate call to action. If people could only take their bicycles or public transportation to the screening. And that's the irony with modernity, isn't it? Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
DonnaS.Jan 19, 2008
Disappointed with the plot, but DDL was worth watching.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
0
jessecJan 2, 2008
I've never even heard of it...and inevitablely it cant be good.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
3
DaveBJan 26, 2008
Boring! Did anyone else not notice how DDL walked with a limp after a horrific accident, then had no limp for a time, then had the limp return?
2 of 3 users found this helpful
2
BenDJan 28, 2008
Honestly, Thirty Days of Night was better than this film. It was about half an hour too long, boring, pretentious, and like one poster said, halfway up it's own backside. Don't know what the critics were on when they saw this one. Honestly, Thirty Days of Night was better than this film. It was about half an hour too long, boring, pretentious, and like one poster said, halfway up it's own backside. Don't know what the critics were on when they saw this one. Spend your hard earned cash elsewhere. Expand
2 of 2 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
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
2
sinclaird.Jan 5, 2008
This was a terrible film = poor storytelling, slow, and pretentious. why did all these critics say it was so outstanding. We were passive. The director wanted the images to move, but he didn't find the key to make them work,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1
CarlosMar 11, 2008
Nice guy at the beginning turned twisted and alcoholic at the end not mention a criminal too .. done 100 plus times in different movies . Nothing has a common sense. However good topic is was done more realistic like say "a truth history".
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
FredK.Mar 1, 2008
Simply put, one of the top 5 worst movies I have ever seen. I kept looking at my watch to see when it would be over.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
PhilMar 1, 2008
Some theatrical merit, but to be honest, I couldn't even make it through the whole film. Nice perspectives on bleak American history though..
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
JamesB.Mar 13, 2008
Besides Daniel Day Lewis (who totally deserved his oscar) this is a boring, drawn out, mess of a film and completely unentertaining.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
GloriaW.Mar 28, 2008
Absolutely the most boring moving I have ever seen. Totally disappointed that I wasted my money to purchase a ticket to see such a crummy movie.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
SteveMar 30, 2008
can't think how this moves got so much praise. It has the world's worst music and Danny' boy's accent is even worser. A pitiful waste of film stock and my time and I like movies a lot. Makes Pirates of the Caribbean seemcan't think how this moves got so much praise. It has the world's worst music and Danny' boy's accent is even worser. A pitiful waste of film stock and my time and I like movies a lot. Makes Pirates of the Caribbean seem like Citizen Kane. Humans are crap is the message but I knew that already Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful
2
HarvBMar 6, 2008
This could have been a great movie! But how ironic that a movie about deafness, both literal and metaphoric was beaten into the ground by a pointless over blown music score. Has this director never thought about understatement or the notion This could have been a great movie! But how ironic that a movie about deafness, both literal and metaphoric was beaten into the ground by a pointless over blown music score. Has this director never thought about understatement or the notion that less in more. If you want to see a great movie go and see No Country for Old Men. The Coen brothers know what they are doing and their movie has no music track at all! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
JohnApr 12, 2008
Terrible plot and very slow movie.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
LoganW.Apr 14, 2008
Horrendous. The post-credits opening music reminded me of TV's Lost, except that Lost is enjoyable. It was all downhill from there. The (long, really long) story of a selfish man's complete moral collapse. Fine, except who could Horrendous. The post-credits opening music reminded me of TV's Lost, except that Lost is enjoyable. It was all downhill from there. The (long, really long) story of a selfish man's complete moral collapse. Fine, except who could care one whit about the character (or any of the others, for that matter)? The fact that this drivel was nominated for eight Academy Awards is a either testament to the exquisite sense of humor of the critics involved, or a testament to years of hard drug use among that same august group. A genuine waste of time. Don't bother. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
BarbaraM.Apr 26, 2008
Balderdash!! Slow, dull, melodramatic, poorly characterized. The story line was absurd and totally unbelievable. Daniel Day-Lewis was marvelous, but he could read the phone book and be enthralling. Worse than No Country for Old Men, and it Balderdash!! Slow, dull, melodramatic, poorly characterized. The story line was absurd and totally unbelievable. Daniel Day-Lewis was marvelous, but he could read the phone book and be enthralling. Worse than No Country for Old Men, and it gets my vote for most annoying soundtrack in history. Actually, the sound track was suitable for such a train wreck of a drama. All sound and fury signifying darn little. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
KashRAApr 3, 2008
The greatness of the cinematography of this film is only matched by the weakness of the plot line. The reviewer's accolades are just further evidence that Paul Thomas Anderson is always viewed as a film deity in spite of the The greatness of the cinematography of this film is only matched by the weakness of the plot line. The reviewer's accolades are just further evidence that Paul Thomas Anderson is always viewed as a film deity in spite of the overwhelming evidence that he is a mere mortal. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
ZattyMay 11, 2008
About an hour of plot in a 2 1/2 hour movie, without the soul or talent to earn its considerable length. In essence this is a long love letter to the absence of love, as Daniel Day-Lewis' expertly-wrought character writhes and destroys About an hour of plot in a 2 1/2 hour movie, without the soul or talent to earn its considerable length. In essence this is a long love letter to the absence of love, as Daniel Day-Lewis' expertly-wrought character writhes and destroys what he loves (even if he does most of the destroying off screen, saving his screentime for business). It doesn't do Upton Sinclair's Oil any justice, highjacking the socialist meaning for a message of heartlessness and hopelessness. Two and a half hours of Our Lies Vs. Their Lies, intentionally turning the camera away from anyone who might escape it. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
CliffM.May 31, 2008
Most boring movie I ever saw. I can't believe the critic's ratings on this.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
RobJul 11, 2008
This is one of the most pointless movies ever made. All you guys awarding 10/10 are deluded, or maybe it's just the old thing of you must never say that you don't understand for fear of looking stupid. They sure pulled the wool This is one of the most pointless movies ever made. All you guys awarding 10/10 are deluded, or maybe it's just the old thing of you must never say that you don't understand for fear of looking stupid. They sure pulled the wool over your eyes on this one. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
JoshuaB.Aug 25, 2008
I honestly believe this was one of the worst movies i have ever seen! Thought it was a joke when I saw it actually on the list.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
RS.Jan 2, 2009
From the very first minute, this film grabs you by the throat and makes you want to puke. It may be a bold and strange parable in the Huston and Welles traditions about what's right and wrong with America, but who wants to watch such a From the very first minute, this film grabs you by the throat and makes you want to puke. It may be a bold and strange parable in the Huston and Welles traditions about what's right and wrong with America, but who wants to watch such a boring movie that portrays exactly what everyone already knows! This film is a total waste of time. On a craft and technical level, the film is low quality. The camera moves are similar to what you would expect of your own vacation video shoots. There is nothing complex or impressive. The visuals are matched by Jonny Greenwood's musical score which sweeps, surges and sux just about as bad as the scenes. It matches the film's dull mood and meaningsless drama perfectly! Definately a must not see!!!!!!! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
3
RobertMAug 25, 2009
I'm still trying to figure out what was so great about this movie!! The first fifteen minutes were addicting since it had no words. I found that compelling, but the movie failed to make me care about an ambitious, cold hearted oil I'm still trying to figure out what was so great about this movie!! The first fifteen minutes were addicting since it had no words. I found that compelling, but the movie failed to make me care about an ambitious, cold hearted oil tycoon! I was upset that he didn't die or get killed! This was 3 hours of a snorefest! Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful
2
AudreyDec 27, 2007
Long and boring with no interesting turns to the story. Acting is fine but I really don't see what the big deal is. Did all these critics see it together? Was there something in the punch?
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
joek.Jan 13, 2008
The funniest thing about this film is its ability to inspire some of the most patheitc armchair critic user reviews ever written. These people are so desperate to prove how "above" they are of the common movie goer, they don't even The funniest thing about this film is its ability to inspire some of the most patheitc armchair critic user reviews ever written. These people are so desperate to prove how "above" they are of the common movie goer, they don't even realize how stupid they sound. Look at these gems: "It is more exciting for its very real clashing of strong characters set to an EQUALLY RELEVANT (!?) background." "Rarely does a movie so EXCEED THE CONVENTIONS (!?) of todays film making as this one does." "Immediately after seeing it I was amazed. Not only was it by far the best movie of the year. But it might be one of the best movies I have ever seen." (ever heard of a comma?) "but the writing too really is something". Was ready to love this film, but watching this movie was like being a proctologist for two hours- go see it if you like staring at a$$h()les. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
2
TerryAndrewsJan 26, 2008
Grandiose, pretentious, irritating, and repetitive, this may be the most grossly overrated movie of the year. Day-Lewis is mannered and showy, and comes across as a caricature of virtuoso acting rather than as a believable human being. TheGrandiose, pretentious, irritating, and repetitive, this may be the most grossly overrated movie of the year. Day-Lewis is mannered and showy, and comes across as a caricature of virtuoso acting rather than as a believable human being. The music is intrusive, jarring, and distracting, and most of the characters are cardboard background figures. To see how truly derivative and shallow Anderson's "masterpiece" is, have another look at "Citizen Kane." Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful
3
MchelleJan 28, 2008
This movie does not reflect the critics comments. It's 2.5 hours of Daniel Day-Lewis reprising his role in "The Gangs of New York". His acting seems affected and the plot goes no where. Waste of an evening. Avoid this film.
2 of 2 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
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
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
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
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
0
RonC.Apr 15, 2008
I am a 67 year old man. I have seen a lot of movies .This is simply the worst movie that I have had the misfortune to see.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
0
SammyP.May 25, 2008
The man was horrible and what a waste of time watching this stinker!
1 of 1 users found this helpful