User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1191 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. MarkW
    Aug 12, 2008
    5
    I consider films to be an art form and not just mindless entertainment. Like most forms of art the satisfaction in born out of seeing/hearing something new and refreshing, something that challenges the way you think. However, originality doesn't guarantee a masterpiece. That's where "There Will Be Blood" fits in, original but far from the masterpiece that the film critics would I consider films to be an art form and not just mindless entertainment. Like most forms of art the satisfaction in born out of seeing/hearing something new and refreshing, something that challenges the way you think. However, originality doesn't guarantee a masterpiece. That's where "There Will Be Blood" fits in, original but far from the masterpiece that the film critics would have you believe. The score was hideous and totally out of place at times and the acting or perhaps the characters were totally overdone. I don't think the central story of greed was very convincing and rather looked more focused on a mans degrading sanity. To top it all off the ending was awfully contrived, it just didn't fit and was poorly done. Eli Sunday could have easily escape and that was painfully obvious. I get the sense that this is one of those cases where as soon as Hollywood produces a film that is brave the critics rave, but compare this film to some of the better lesser known independent films and it pales in comparison. You can intellectualise this film as much as you like but when it comes down to it simply it isn't that good. Expand
  2. Dec 22, 2012
    5
    I like to see movies artistically done, so this film didn't bother me exactly. It was just long, unfocused, and forgettable. The main character was not a real stretch in acting chops for Day-Lewis, and trivial parts were carried out for absurd lengths of time. Visually and in thematic details, it DID ring of some real truths and passions, which alone would make it standout against mostI like to see movies artistically done, so this film didn't bother me exactly. It was just long, unfocused, and forgettable. The main character was not a real stretch in acting chops for Day-Lewis, and trivial parts were carried out for absurd lengths of time. Visually and in thematic details, it DID ring of some real truths and passions, which alone would make it standout against most Hollywood fare, but unless you are dedicated to odd stuff, you will definitely find it a mediocre entertainment. Expand
  3. RN
    May 29, 2009
    5
    Just like every other Paul Thomas Anderson movie, this one would suck without such a big name as Daniel Day Lewis. His performance was phenomenal but lets face it, this was a movie about oil. What could be more boring than that? Maybe if they did a movie about rocks. Seriously, without the charisma of Daniel Day Lewis nobody would have ever herd of this movie and it's because of him Just like every other Paul Thomas Anderson movie, this one would suck without such a big name as Daniel Day Lewis. His performance was phenomenal but lets face it, this was a movie about oil. What could be more boring than that? Maybe if they did a movie about rocks. Seriously, without the charisma of Daniel Day Lewis nobody would have ever herd of this movie and it's because of him that this movie is getting such a high rating from me. If they would have put say, Nicholas Cage in this one instead this movie would tank and be a one. Expand
  4. DorothyV.
    May 5, 2008
    5
    While the acting is phenomenal, the story is incoherent and meaningless, meanspirited and cruel. There is nothing redeeming about this movie and in the end is not a great movie. It is unenduringly bleak and insofar as this is true is does not portray the real complexity of a character or an epoch.
  5. P.O.
    Mar 5, 2008
    5
    I am not sure about this one. I hardly ever disagree with Metacritic but this movie was pretty boring. I was just waiting for something to happen. I was impressed by the acting and the visuals were quite powerful. I thought it was a ok movie overall.
  6. LuisC.
    Apr 15, 2008
    5
    I don t give less than 5 because of some brilliant scenes and great acting in some parts. But 80% of the movie was boring...and in a movie of 2.5h its to much. I was expecting much more.
  7. JB
    May 27, 2008
    5
    Mediocre at best. Great camerawork and great atmosphere, but the plot drags on... and on.... and on... 2h38m could have easily been condensed in a 1h20m movie. The music is probably the worst I have ever heard. I don't remember ever being bothered by a musical score, but the screeching and scratching got old really fast and did not seem to have any relation to the movie. It sounded Mediocre at best. Great camerawork and great atmosphere, but the plot drags on... and on.... and on... 2h38m could have easily been condensed in a 1h20m movie. The music is probably the worst I have ever heard. I don't remember ever being bothered by a musical score, but the screeching and scratching got old really fast and did not seem to have any relation to the movie. It sounded like they ran out of money and decided to cut the music budget down to one guy with a violin and a microphone. Very forgettable movie.. Cannot believe it has a 92 score on metacritic. Expand
  8. JeremyP.
    May 30, 2008
    5
    The only reason it gets a five is because the actors performed well. Only problem was that the story itself leaves you wanting. It's not a good thing when you can tell the whole story when trying to just explain the plot. "Bad guy becomes oil man." That's basically the whole movie. Nothing more needs to be said. The only reason to watch it is just to find out what makes him a The only reason it gets a five is because the actors performed well. Only problem was that the story itself leaves you wanting. It's not a good thing when you can tell the whole story when trying to just explain the plot. "Bad guy becomes oil man." That's basically the whole movie. Nothing more needs to be said. The only reason to watch it is just to find out what makes him a bad guy. There's no redeeming qualities to any of the characters. In fact, it's simply an exercise in a cynical worldview, only looking at the worst in the oil industry and religion with no counterbalance. I think that's why Hollywood ate it up. Anything that focuses on the fringe aspects of "hocus pocus" religion or posits that big business is inherently greedy and rooted in evil intentions is immediately considered Oscar material it seems, and this has both! But, as I said before, the acting was the only redeeming quality and Daniel Day Lewis was definitely deserving of his best actor nod. But it's just a shame that his great performance was shackled by such a hopeless, aimless story. Let me put it another way, the only people praising this STORY are doing so because they feel it makes them smart. These are the same people that pay $15,000 for an impressionist painting by a 5 year old. Expand
  9. IverP.
    Feb 26, 2008
    4
    Great looking, but ultimately quite tedious and unbalanced.
  10. RaimondR.
    Feb 29, 2008
    4
    There Will Be Blood, a 2007 film directed, written, and produced by Paul Thomas Anderson (best known for his work directing and writing the Adam Sandler film Punch-Drunk Love), opened on December 26, 2007 to a limited release in New York and Los Angeles and then was later widely released on January 25, 2008. It follows the story of an
  11. RichardS.
    Apr 11, 2008
    4
    Well made movie about someone you don't like or care about. Too bad Day-Lewis can act in every way except to express pain. The editing was bad.
  12. CarlM.
    Apr 12, 2008
    5
    Dramatic but confusing.
  13. AndreN
    Apr 19, 2008
    5
    This is one of those movies that does everything right. The acting, the music, the cinematography are all brilliant but technical excellence alone does not necessarily make for a good movie. The other ingredient - enjoyability is sorely lacking from this movie. This has got nothing to do with the dark atmosphere created in the movie - as there are many dark, but also enjoyable movies. The This is one of those movies that does everything right. The acting, the music, the cinematography are all brilliant but technical excellence alone does not necessarily make for a good movie. The other ingredient - enjoyability is sorely lacking from this movie. This has got nothing to do with the dark atmosphere created in the movie - as there are many dark, but also enjoyable movies. The plot is simplistic, the dialogue is boring and there is minimal character development over the course of the storyline. Although Day-Lewis acting probably deserves the Oscar, this alone cannot save this one-dimensional movie. A big disappointment! Expand
  14. JonathanC.
    Feb 25, 2008
    5
    What do you say about a movie that has great acting, directing, cinematography, and a good subject, but you forget about it minutes later? Guess what...you say that it's not a great movie! Compare that to No Country for Old Men, that gives you the willies days later. I almost feel like people like this movie because not feeling anything is supposed to be "artsy". Please! Movies are What do you say about a movie that has great acting, directing, cinematography, and a good subject, but you forget about it minutes later? Guess what...you say that it's not a great movie! Compare that to No Country for Old Men, that gives you the willies days later. I almost feel like people like this movie because not feeling anything is supposed to be "artsy". Please! Movies are either pieces art or a good story...Great movies are both. This was only art. Expand
  15. JJ.
    Apr 11, 2008
    5
    Drastically overhyped and paced like the bastard step child of Solarace and English Patient on qualudes. The third act is a mess that will leave you with that sense of bewilderment. Clearly a movie that chose device over substance to evoke some hackneyed emotion. The score is one of many devices that I
  16. JA.
    Jun 14, 2008
    5
    This movie is a one trick pony that quickly tires midway through. I found myself looking at my watch more than the screen. The only thing thinner than the plot are the characters. What a disappointment.
  17. May 24, 2013
    5
    this movie is too awkward with an obnoxious writing i mean i know Daniel day-lewess made an awesome performance there is no Doubt about that but the writing keep you away from the story i mean why when his son became deaf he was happy ?
    why his son burned down the house ?
    why he killed his brother ? why he waited all these years until he told his son that he was adopted ? why in hell
    this movie is too awkward with an obnoxious writing i mean i know Daniel day-lewess made an awesome performance there is no Doubt about that but the writing keep you away from the story i mean why when his son became deaf he was happy ?
    why his son burned down the house ?
    why he killed his brother ?
    why he waited all these years until he told his son that he was adopted ?
    why in hell he killed the monk ?
    omg i felt stupid after watching this movie.
    Expand
  18. Apr 1, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This films started off well, but once we've seen how Plainview (Day-Lewis) set up the business and his early difficulties in buying land to drill for oil that the film starts to take a nose dive. First of all, there is little to no character development we learn nothing about Plainview's work force, his son (who turns out not to be his son) is only developed very slightly towards the end. There are also a few things that don't make any sense i.e when Plainview abandons the boy on the train. He is returned back to Plainview later in the film, but where had he been? Where did they find him? How long had he been gone for? None of this is explained. I also felt the ending was over the top. I gave it 4 mainly because it started out well and Day-Lewis put in a good performance (not Oscar worthy though). I also thought the guy who played Eli put on a good performance too. Expand
  19. Feb 10, 2014
    6
    some scenes are boring. but I I need to talk about all of body, yes good film. Daniel Day Lewis carries this film on some scenes, but at the beginning of film you will see the perfect scenes.
  20. MarcK.
    Jan 7, 2008
    4
    I really wanted to like this one too. Started out OK, however, the last 30 minutes or so were ridiculous and over-the-top. I think P.T. Anderson is like Tarantino. P.T. makes the great "Boogie Nights", and while we all thought he was going to be a great director. I think we now realize it was just a fluke.
  21. jimi99
    Jan 4, 2008
    4
    In two words: Major Bore. If you want a film about evil abroad in the world, this film is laughably trivial compared to "No Country for Old Men," which is a masterpiece. The long takes fairly scream "epic importance!" and the central conflict, between a fairly interesting ruthless oil wildcatter and a wimpy insincere evangelist, is simply not an enduring metaphor for America, the human In two words: Major Bore. If you want a film about evil abroad in the world, this film is laughably trivial compared to "No Country for Old Men," which is a masterpiece. The long takes fairly scream "epic importance!" and the central conflict, between a fairly interesting ruthless oil wildcatter and a wimpy insincere evangelist, is simply not an enduring metaphor for America, the human soul, or an enjoyable time in the moviehouse. The Coen brothers are filmmakers; Paul Anderson is an auteur--in the worst sense of the word. Expand
  22. AlanH.
    Feb 5, 2008
    4
    A cinematically well-crafted movie that pays no regards to character truth or consistency or humanity. It's plodding and pretentious. Ditto for DDL's performance.
  23. TC
    Feb 7, 2008
    6
    One of the greatest movies ever until the plot starts to unravel late in its second hour. From then on, it gets worse, culminating in the most over-written and over-acted scene imaginable. Also, remember that many of these critics (like David Denby) thought "Crash" was great too, so they are not always reliable.
  24. SeanF.
    Mar 16, 2008
    4
    Over the top acting kind of disguises the fact that plot is peppered with illogical scenes which make little sense. Like having one actor playing the two Henry brothers in same character. Left me wondering for the most part if the preacher was supposed to have two personalities. The ending was cliched ('luke I'm not your father') and complete with gratuitous violence which Over the top acting kind of disguises the fact that plot is peppered with illogical scenes which make little sense. Like having one actor playing the two Henry brothers in same character. Left me wondering for the most part if the preacher was supposed to have two personalities. The ending was cliched ('luke I'm not your father') and complete with gratuitous violence which added nothing and detracting from the film itself. Sure the acting is good but that alone doesn't make a great film. Expand
  25. RussT.
    Mar 5, 2008
    6
    The film is inspired by Upton Sinclair
  26. PedroS.
    Apr 3, 2008
    6
    It
  27. Mark
    Jun 18, 2008
    4
    Only thing good about it was the acting. It was boring. I was expecting some kind of twist at the end or for the movie to rap up with some kind of moral theme, but the movie was pointless.
  28. NathanK.
    Jul 30, 2009
    4
    Boring and contrived... one of the most horrid movies i've ever seen. the best part was the credits.
  29. Chris
    Jan 21, 2008
    4
    This film has a lot going for; a high quality writer/director, a great cast, and an excellent score. Sadly, it does not amount to much. The movie moves slowly and is never very captivating. Day-Lewis gives a great performance at the beginning and end of the film, however, he loses focus during the middle. Paul Dano is fantastic should garner some Academy consideration. I wish this film This film has a lot going for; a high quality writer/director, a great cast, and an excellent score. Sadly, it does not amount to much. The movie moves slowly and is never very captivating. Day-Lewis gives a great performance at the beginning and end of the film, however, he loses focus during the middle. Paul Dano is fantastic should garner some Academy consideration. I wish this film had been more interesting, but it just a dull period piece. The film does have some interesting themes such as religion and greed, but leaves many questions unanswered. Sadly, this is a 2 hour 40 minute hike that leaves you unfulfilled. Expand
  30. syzygy
    Jan 5, 2008
    6
    This is a performance driven pseudo-epic. The plot takes some wild, feverish turns in adapting one of upton sinclair's more rich-baiting novels. there is little of the crusader spirit in the either work, certainly nothing of the good or relishes sinclair's primitive old world socialism and does his best with daniel day-lewis to scream that across the screen.
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.