User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1164 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 29, 2011
    10
    Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Thomas Anderson have created one of the greatest movies of this time and perhaps of all time. There is so much ambition, brilliance, detail, and probably everything that you would put in a great movie. I don't think that anything, and anything could top this level of amazement for me. The film has put me through a cathartic and dogmatic experience by justDaniel Day-Lewis and Paul Thomas Anderson have created one of the greatest movies of this time and perhaps of all time. There is so much ambition, brilliance, detail, and probably everything that you would put in a great movie. I don't think that anything, and anything could top this level of amazement for me. The film has put me through a cathartic and dogmatic experience by just watching. Truly outstanding on every **** level. A masterpiece. Expand
  2. Apr 27, 2013
    10
    By far the best performance by Daniel Day Lewis to-date and Paul Thomas Anderson's best film by far. A film that works on every level; great acting, great storytelling, great cinematography, great score. A must see film for any aspiring film buffs and a essential watch for fans of great films.
  3. tinah.
    Jan 5, 2008
    2
    Totally unlikeable character, never learned anything . Very male film. I didn't like it
  4. JoyM.
    Feb 10, 2008
    0
    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.
  5. JamieL.
    Feb 8, 2008
    0
    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.
  6. JimmyS.
    Mar 5, 2008
    1
    besides some nice pictures, it was really really boring.
  7. WILLIAMGILLINGHAM
    Apr 14, 2008
    0
    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 MONEY WATCHING THIS MOVIE, THERE WILL BE BLOOD ONLY HAS ONLY ONE PLOT, STEAL YOUR MONEY AS A MOVIE PATRON
  8. AmberC.
    Apr 7, 2008
    2
    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 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
  9. Stephen
    Jan 1, 2008
    2
    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.
  10. schoonschoon
    Nov 25, 2008
    0
    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.
  11. AnnK
    Feb 1, 2008
    0
    The entire audience was left dissatisfied. This movie did not live up to the hype! DDL played a fascinating lunatic, but...... so what?
  12. BibliotechaSanchez
    Feb 15, 2008
    2
    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!
  13. WayneW.
    Feb 2, 2008
    2
    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--.
  14. KathleenK.
    Feb 24, 2008
    2
    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.
  15. Dan
    Feb 5, 2008
    1
    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, The only reason to give this movie a 1 is DDL. The movie is a pretentious, plodding, glacial study of good and evil...actually, of evil and evil. You are bludgeoned with blatant symbolism, annoyed with jarring music (I assume this was intentional?), bored with overly long sequences where nothing substantive happens - filmmaking 101 anybody? - and generally beaten down with the message, which as far as I can tell is: "Bad people are bad. So there." Wait for this one to come out on DVD -- oooh, an extended director's cut. Oh, goody -- and then convince your friend to rent it. Then stay home. Expand
  16. BillC.
    Feb 5, 2008
    1
    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 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
  17. JanG
    Mar 12, 2008
    0
    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 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
  18. JosephM.
    Mar 10, 2008
    1
    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!
  19. DD
    Apr 10, 2008
    0
    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!
  20. JohnL.
    Apr 20, 2008
    1
    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.
  21. JohnD.
    Apr 7, 2008
    2
    wow, this movie was so boring. great acting but this movie was painfully dull
  22. TedB.
    May 8, 2008
    0
    If the movie wasn't so tedious and long, I'd waste more time explaining why you should not avoid the hype.
  23. DanH.
    May 9, 2008
    1
    The most insanely boring and pointless movie i have ever seen in my life.
  24. EdM.
    Jun 13, 2008
    1
    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!
  25. TimR.
    Jun 1, 2008
    0
    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.
  26. RebeccaC.
    Jun 9, 2008
    2
    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!
  27. RexS.
    Jan 2, 2009
    1
    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 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
  28. DWilly
    Dec 30, 2007
    3
    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 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
  29. jessec
    Jan 2, 2008
    0
    I've never even heard of it...and inevitablely it cant be good.
  30. BenD
    Jan 28, 2008
    2
    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.
Metascore
92

Universal acclaim - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    100
    There Will Be Blood is ferocious, and it will be championed and attacked with an equal ferocity. When the dust settles, we may look back on it as some kind of obsessed classic.
  2. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    100
    There Will Be Blood is, in fact, not a historical saga; rather, it's an absurdist, blackly comic horror film with a very idiosyncratic satanic figure at its core.
  3. Reviewed by: John DeFore
    100
    Daniel Day-Lewis stuns in Paul Thomas Anderson's saga of a soul-dead oil man.