Paramount Vantage | Release Date: December 26, 2007
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1329 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,038
Mixed:
120
Negative:
171
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
RonA.Feb 24, 2008
There will be hype. The most interesting part of this movie involves Plainview's having to be "born again": he's forced, by financial motives, to say he's abandoned his son, and comes to realize, against his will, that he has. There will be hype. The most interesting part of this movie involves Plainview's having to be "born again": he's forced, by financial motives, to say he's abandoned his son, and comes to realize, against his will, that he has. But little else remains, aside from the glorious cinematography. One simply doesn't care about Plainview, since he's merely a caricature, overdrawn by both the script and Daniel Day-Lewis. There's just no story here that can live up to the money and talent expended on it. The deafness of HW is merely an occasion for cruelty, and the violent end of the movie clarifies nothing. One only wonders why Eli Sunday hasn't aged a day. The great Ciaran Hinds is barely used. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JackBMay 12, 2008
It was good for the most part but just dragged on, the story became uninteresting and just plain bad at the end. I think its yet another movie where the critics thought "wow if we see this as a 10/10 we might be considered as lovers of real It was good for the most part but just dragged on, the story became uninteresting and just plain bad at the end. I think its yet another movie where the critics thought "wow if we see this as a 10/10 we might be considered as lovers of real film" when really, it should all be down to how much you enjoy it as an individual. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DWDec 8, 2009
I loved this movie. I loved the photography. The character development. The realism. The premise. All for what? For nothing? Do not make a film if you do not know where the plot is going to go. The plot - goes nowhere. There will be blood? I loved this movie. I loved the photography. The character development. The realism. The premise. All for what? For nothing? Do not make a film if you do not know where the plot is going to go. The plot - goes nowhere. There will be blood? There won't be blood - at least no blood that has any meaning. If you expect to see a good man become evil you will not. If you expect to see an evil man be reformed you will not. If you expect to see an evil man get his comeuppance you will not. If you expect people to suffer terribly or prosper wonderfully, you will be mistaken in your estimation. You instead get: Daniel Day Lewis: a cranky, miserable miser... who is... a cranky miserable miser. The only person who really loses the plot in the film is the screenwriter. There is no plot. And this is why this is not a film, but a series of still of beautiful countryside. There is no plot. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
[Anonymous]Dec 23, 2007
Is there some kind of mass hallucination going on with these critics? This film is not good. The story is told excruciatingly slowly, and D Day Lewis basically reprises his Bill the Butcher role, but gives him the voice of John Huston. The Is there some kind of mass hallucination going on with these critics? This film is not good. The story is told excruciatingly slowly, and D Day Lewis basically reprises his Bill the Butcher role, but gives him the voice of John Huston. The guy playing the religious zealot is in WAY over his head, he's required to age 30 years yet in the last scene he still has adolescent acne and his voice squeaks as though his testacles are just dropping! All this nonsense about it being a big statement about religion vs money is trying to paste meaning onto a film that was lazily written. Unfortunately, Day Lewis is starting to have shark eyes which look dead and malevolent all the time, generating not much sympathy or interest within this viewer. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SashaS.Dec 28, 2007
Good and worthy attempt but sorry, no cigar. People are constantly comparing to other, better works while missing the basic fact that if it were THAT great it wouldn't need to be compared to other, better works. Shakespeare? Please.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SteveC.Dec 29, 2007
Great acting undermined by overblown and ultimately embarassing plot. Anothe would be epic with nothing to say and 2.5 hours to not say it in. Lewis' incredible performance is sadly wasted.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
mathewB.Dec 29, 2007
Great cinematography, good editing, and a fantastic score cannot make-up for the fact the the films observations are superficial at best. Day-Lewis' preformance is over-the-top and not particularly convincing. More characture than Great cinematography, good editing, and a fantastic score cannot make-up for the fact the the films observations are superficial at best. Day-Lewis' preformance is over-the-top and not particularly convincing. More characture than character, he's supposed to be from Wisconsin... with that accent... not on your life. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DWillyDec 31, 2007
dThis might have been a character study... but no, it's not really, there's no revelation of character (he has no sex drive? he's pissed at the preacher as a rival for power or is it a God thing?); Daniel Day Lewis does give adThis might have been a character study... but no, it's not really, there's no revelation of character (he has no sex drive? he's pissed at the preacher as a rival for power or is it a God thing?); Daniel Day Lewis does give a bravura performance (doing the same character he did in "Gangs Of New York") but it's invulnerable and not by itself affecting; this could have been a story about the clash of ideals, or no ideals or... no, it's not that either (the preacher character disappears for maybe an hour at one point). There's a lot of lot of good cinematography and atmospherics on location along with the style of mixing big theatrical performances with realist ones (using many non-actors), but NO STORY. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
dollarsignNov 27, 2015
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************Great screenplay. Awkward, inconsistent cinematography.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
boguesswhatSep 18, 2016
There Will Be Blood is the slowest progressing film I've ever seen. It beholds some of the best vibrantly passionate acting in cinema, yet also few and far between in this 2 hour 38 minute film. Daniel Day-Lewis plays an AcademyThere Will Be Blood is the slowest progressing film I've ever seen. It beholds some of the best vibrantly passionate acting in cinema, yet also few and far between in this 2 hour 38 minute film. Daniel Day-Lewis plays an Academy award-winning, prosperous oilman raising a young boy he adopted as an infant. As Day-Lewis picks battles between a local priest seeking revenge through the works of the Holy Spirit, high-roller oil company executives in pursuit for more oil, and the struggles of raising a boy who biologically isn't his own, voids fill in between the lines (literally) either by long, useless pauses in dialogue, or unsettling orchestra cacophonies that don't fit the genre. Day-Lewis gets considerable help from supporting actor, Paul Dano, who plays the young pastor of small town, Little Boston, CA. Without the amazing performances of those alike randomly scattered throughout the film, There Will Be Blood would be a mere waste of time better spent learning how paint dries to a surface. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews