Paramount Vantage | Release Date: December 26, 2007
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1338 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,048
Mixed:
120
Negative:
170
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
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
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
5
JoanC.Jan 22, 2008
3 out of 4 of us who saw the film were disappointed. The movie lacks character development, seems irrelevant, and I didn't really care about the characters, although DDL did a fabulous acting job.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
LindaL.Jan 28, 2008
Daniel Day-Lewis is mesmerizing in this movie -- although I got a jolt when it's revealed that his character hails from Wisconsin, since he sounds just like his character in "Gangs of New York." We haven't seen a story set in the Daniel Day-Lewis is mesmerizing in this movie -- although I got a jolt when it's revealed that his character hails from Wisconsin, since he sounds just like his character in "Gangs of New York." We haven't seen a story set in the oil boom for a long time, and this is a gritty, engrossing one with dark, complex characters. None of them very likable, which is a drawback for some of us. With so much calamity and grief, I missed having someone like Tommy Lee Jones (in "Old Men") as the anchor and "heart" of the story. And thought the score, with its plinky percussion and busy strings, was awful, actually a distraction. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SteveS.Oct 3, 2008
Calling this a good movie is an insult to good movies. I wanted to like it, and DD Lewis is always entertaining, but let's face it - the movie is ultimately a failure.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
OliverC.Jan 6, 2008
Great use of sound, good acting and directing bring to life an otherwise mundane plot that we've all seen a million times.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JamieH.Jan 7, 2008
Without Daniel-Day Lewis this movie would be pretty forgetable. One great acting performance can't catapult this movie to greatness surely. Plot, great story lines, dialogue is what makes for great cinema. There are some wonderful Without Daniel-Day Lewis this movie would be pretty forgetable. One great acting performance can't catapult this movie to greatness surely. Plot, great story lines, dialogue is what makes for great cinema. There are some wonderful scenes and acting but the movie is too slow and plodding. Was hoping for so much more. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BbFeb 12, 2008
Highly overrated. I liked-hated it. Saw the greatness but couldn't wait for it to end, and at 2 1/2 hours it could have easily been edited without any harm to the story. Over the top acting by Day-Lewis, but I hated him in "Gangs of NY" Highly overrated. I liked-hated it. Saw the greatness but couldn't wait for it to end, and at 2 1/2 hours it could have easily been edited without any harm to the story. Over the top acting by Day-Lewis, but I hated him in "Gangs of NY" too, and for the same reasons, and used to love him. It's no "Chinatown." Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RichR.Feb 9, 2008
Well, I haven't even seen it yet, but I know I made this comment on there when the movie came out, and that is: Daniel is totally channeling Jack Palance, so, until I actually see this, I have to say that is not too cool of a thing to Well, I haven't even seen it yet, but I know I made this comment on there when the movie came out, and that is: Daniel is totally channeling Jack Palance, so, until I actually see this, I have to say that is not too cool of a thing to do. If it is better than No Country For Old Men, I will be amazed; THAT is a great, almost perfect movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JimmusM.Mar 4, 2008
Dull, awful, pointless movie. Daniel Day-Lewis is very good at his part, as unlikeable as it was. The soundtrack is mostly jarring noise. I struggled to find one character I could identify with, or admire. Yeah, yeah, film "critics", I get Dull, awful, pointless movie. Daniel Day-Lewis is very good at his part, as unlikeable as it was. The soundtrack is mostly jarring noise. I struggled to find one character I could identify with, or admire. Yeah, yeah, film "critics", I get it - money is bad, religion is bad. Bad, like the taste this film left in my mouth after watching it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JeffLApr 19, 2008
The opening was good and then it was down hill from there. I was having a hard time staying awake during this movie. Daniel Day-Lewis's character tended to jump around a lot leaving his character a little hollow and shallow. Nothing The opening was good and then it was down hill from there. I was having a hard time staying awake during this movie. Daniel Day-Lewis's character tended to jump around a lot leaving his character a little hollow and shallow. Nothing really happens in the middle of the movie. The preacher character is just weird and actually steals some of the craziness from Daniel Day-Lewis's character. I don't plan on watching this movie again. It is no where near Unforgiven or Crash's power. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JimM.Apr 22, 2008
Didn't get it. Two hours I'll never get back.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
CaptainSpauldingMay 25, 2008
To paraphrase Phil Hartman as Frank Sinatra, "What is all this crap?!" If not for the excellent acting of Daniel Day-Lewis, this movie would be horrid. If not for Mr. Day-Lewis, I'd give his a negative number if possible. A horrid movie To paraphrase Phil Hartman as Frank Sinatra, "What is all this crap?!" If not for the excellent acting of Daniel Day-Lewis, this movie would be horrid. If not for Mr. Day-Lewis, I'd give his a negative number if possible. A horrid movie and 2 hours of your life that you'll never get back! Quick advice? RENT SOMETHING ELSE! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
SteveL.Jul 20, 2008
I was disappointed in this movie. It's theme was about a violent, mean, miserable, disturbed man. I saw no redeeming value in it. It was dark and depressing. Great acting. Crummy story line.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
FoogRMar 23, 2009
This movie had some outstanding moments and some very well designed dialogue. Unfortunately, the story and conclusion truly leave something to be desired, the main character, Danial Plainview, doesn't develop grow or shrink over the This movie had some outstanding moments and some very well designed dialogue. Unfortunately, the story and conclusion truly leave something to be desired, the main character, Danial Plainview, doesn't develop grow or shrink over the course of the movie, and doesn't change much at all; however, Daniel Day Lewis performs outstandingly, which may bother or confuse some because of the odd contrast. The score will annoy some, but it is actually a brilliant work with a Bela Barok style that will disturb and intrigue if studied. Overall, the movie was good quality, but the plot and characters were weak if not aggravating. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JoshG.Dec 25, 2007
I've been a P.T. Anderson fan for a long time. I put up with his "how-do-I-end-this-tale" shenanigans 'cuz he's a fine craftsman and wonderfully observational when it comes to character. "There Will Be Blood" (much like I've been a P.T. Anderson fan for a long time. I put up with his "how-do-I-end-this-tale" shenanigans 'cuz he's a fine craftsman and wonderfully observational when it comes to character. "There Will Be Blood" (much like "Magnolia") suffers from the former, and benefits from the latter. Unfortunately the character is not likable, and since there is essentially no ending, the whole trip feels pointless. The ONE thing this movie has going for it is Daniel Day-Lewis. He is nothing short of phenomenal. That said, this film is in no way worthy of the mutterings that have been floating out of cinematic circles comparing it to "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather." If this isn't the hype machine at work, I don't know what is. NO ONE is going to go see this movie. It's overly long, visually uninspiring, and ultimately incomplete. I couldn't help thinking that Mr. Anderson was giving us a glimpse into his own persona in the character of Daniel Plainview. No one chooses the hand their dealt, but some folks make the best of it. And some of those folks rise to the top. And some of THOSE folks become so self-centered and infatuated that they completely lose sight of the world around them. Those types of people tend to alienate even their closest allies and never hesitate to destroy their adversaries -- all in an effort to create something so entirely self indulgent, it becomes laughable. "Their Will Be Blood" is not unwatchable. Day-Lewis' performance alone is worth the price of admission, and I'd have gladly sat through two more hours of this miserable tale just to see him chew up the scenery. But a great performance does not a great film make. And in this case, it doesn't even make for a very GOOD film. This is auteuristic masturbation almost on par with Vinent Gallo's "Brown Bunny." The once sensational Anderson has clearly become his Daniel Plainview. I suppose in that regard the film and it's place in the director's life is somewhat "Citizen Kane"-ish, but unlike the Wells-ian tour de force, "Their Will Be Blood" isn't breaking any new ground stylistically, visually or otherwise. It's too bad too, 'cuz I had really high hopes. Take Daniel Day-Lewis out of the mix and this is a 1 or 2 star review at best. Day-Lewis will likely win the Oscar, but P.T. Anderson's "genius" had absolutely nothing to do with it. If the Academy includes the writer/director in their little awards dance, I'll simply have to... Boo. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
GlenC.Dec 26, 2007
The first commentator, Josh G., is right. This emperor has no clothes. For all of its restless and oftentimes inventive camera work, There Will Be Blood is a peculiarly sterile and shallow meditation on the inevitable "war" between The first commentator, Josh G., is right. This emperor has no clothes. For all of its restless and oftentimes inventive camera work, There Will Be Blood is a peculiarly sterile and shallow meditation on the inevitable "war" between Capitalism and Fundamentalism. From its literally driven-deaf by greed innocent (H.W.) to its hypocritical and vain false prophet, the characters are little more than mouthpieces for Anderson's hollow posturing. It's all too easy to mark the parallels between the Plainviews and an equally notorious, powerful, contemporary American oil family, and I'm certain this makes at least half the reason for the film's puzzling and rapturous critical reception. But the truth is, Anderson's done much better work than this and, at least for this commentator, he takes a giant step backwards into the pedestrian mainstream. With self-conscious echoing of every major cinematic milestone from Sunrise to Sunset Boulevard, There Will Be Blood struck me not so much as a ground-breaking exercise as a pastiche tribute to American film. Daniel Day Lewis is fine, sure. But it's a performance so mannered and so calculated as to suffocate every ounce of evil spontaneity in the character. Those who don't see the film's final scene coming haven't been looking for it very hard. Paul Dano's been underappreciated here. His is the difficult role and frankly, he pulls it off with more surprises and more delicacy than Day Lewis does. One truly inspired scene: Day Lewis disowning his son, late in the film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PeterDec 27, 2007
A self indulgent colaboration between a fine actor and and a director who obviously cannot write an engaging plot. Try to think away the suberb performance of Day Lewis and ther's no there there. The story is pedestrian and clliched - A self indulgent colaboration between a fine actor and and a director who obviously cannot write an engaging plot. Try to think away the suberb performance of Day Lewis and ther's no there there. The story is pedestrian and clliched - see Treasure of Sierra Madre or Citizen Kane. Both of the latter films had editors who knew when a scene is over long and sometimes duplicative of earlier scenes.And then there's that jarring, inappropriate score - where did that come from? Finally, can Hollywood construct a story line which doesn't always show the venality of all entrepreneurs and businesspeople and the stupidity of religion and its believers. Also, there's the film critics, next time I go to the movies I'll drink beforehand whatever they were drinking when they reviewed this one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DavidM.Dec 27, 2007
Thanks for that spolier Glen C. Really appreciated that. Moron. I did not see the film, so i gave it a 6 -- middle of the road. You're not the first person to speak of TWBB's flaws... but, you are the first person to speak about Thanks for that spolier Glen C. Really appreciated that. Moron. I did not see the film, so i gave it a 6 -- middle of the road. You're not the first person to speak of TWBB's flaws... but, you are the first person to speak about Day-Lewis' performance in a bad way. Therefore, you're probably just some faus-pretentious film student or something, wanting to go against the grain -- try putting all the film theory to use... however misguided it may be. Thanks for the spoiler GLEN! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JimboDec 29, 2007
I wouldn't go so far as to say "There Will Be Blood" isn't worth seeing, but I don't think it lives up to the hype bestowed on it by so many critics. The film is essentially two and a half hours of "one-man-show"-type I wouldn't go so far as to say "There Will Be Blood" isn't worth seeing, but I don't think it lives up to the hype bestowed on it by so many critics. The film is essentially two and a half hours of "one-man-show"-type setpieces (the one man is Daniel Day-Lewis; there are other actors in the movie, but they're not really developed except to act as foils) about the rise and fall of an amoral early-1900s oil-man. Day-Lewis is a solid actor and does his best to make each vignette interesting, but this story arc has been filmed many times before, from "The Power and The Glory" through "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather," and "There Will be Blood" brings nothing new to the formula--to me, every scene in this movie felt familiar and completely predictable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RadCompanyJan 13, 2008
Another reviewer below wrote, "Anyone who doesn't rate this film highly is not terribly bright." Most people that believe There Will Be Blood is a good film are doing so to state their "Hollywood Vs. Art" status. Trust me, I don't Another reviewer below wrote, "Anyone who doesn't rate this film highly is not terribly bright." Most people that believe There Will Be Blood is a good film are doing so to state their "Hollywood Vs. Art" status. Trust me, I don't "not get it". I get it, but it's just one big empty gesture after another, just like the ubiquitous "How many in your family?" question the characters in the movie pose before every scene. The opening music is a nod to "2001" that tries to set a tone that something mysterious is happening, but there is nothing deep here, just a cliche morality with no likable characters to identify with. Haven't felt this empty after leaving the theatre in a while. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
stevegJan 18, 2008
It's wasn't that bad a movie but it sure wasn't a 92. D.D.L. did a great acting job but the circumstance just wasn't interesting. A "maverick", "independent" oil mans rise to wealth, yay. I started to dislike the mainIt's wasn't that bad a movie but it sure wasn't a 92. D.D.L. did a great acting job but the circumstance just wasn't interesting. A "maverick", "independent" oil mans rise to wealth, yay. I started to dislike the main character once I figured out that there were no revelations or shifts in personality forthcoming and it made it even harder to watch. I had high hopes based on the ratings critics have given it and was very disappointed. The best part of the movie? "I'm done now." Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JohnGJan 19, 2008
Oh boy. My expectations were so high for this. I was extremely disappointed. The film was long, unfocused and relied to much on DDL vs, an actual story. The director relied way too much on DDL to save a film that by the end of the film it Oh boy. My expectations were so high for this. I was extremely disappointed. The film was long, unfocused and relied to much on DDL vs, an actual story. The director relied way too much on DDL to save a film that by the end of the film it was like he was parodying his own performance. Also, his cadence was similar to Hug Weaving in The Matrix to such an extent that it was distracting. The actor who played Eli was not very good. I thought the score was awesome and the cinematography was brilliant. I almost feel like the critics were afraid to give this a bad review. I also thought the same about Diving Bell and Butterfly -- reviewers were so impressed by prinicpals that all flaws were overlooked. Anyone who compares this to the Godfather is silly and emotional. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
D.Jan 21, 2008
Great acting by DDL, but the story is boring. No arc, no lesson that hasn't already been told before and too long. From the very beginning you know where this is going. It's like watching the Patriots football season. PTA is really Great acting by DDL, but the story is boring. No arc, no lesson that hasn't already been told before and too long. From the very beginning you know where this is going. It's like watching the Patriots football season. PTA is really overrated. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JasonJ.Feb 19, 2008
This movie could have been a 9 if it knew where to stop. The last 30 minutes (the fight on the two lane bowling alley) was something that should have been put only as an xtra on a DVD. It deserved to be a "deleted scene." The rest of the This movie could have been a 9 if it knew where to stop. The last 30 minutes (the fight on the two lane bowling alley) was something that should have been put only as an xtra on a DVD. It deserved to be a "deleted scene." The rest of the movie was quite good. The oil industry during that part of American history was interesting. No Country for Old Men, as a movie, made the same mistake. Great premise, great execution, and then a superfluous ending that makes you feel like you are wasting your time. It's like they are putting the DVD extras in with the feature presentations now. Do the studios pay more for a longer movie? Something isn't right. They are butchering the possible masterpieces of the late 00s. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful