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. mmiddle
    Jan 29, 2008
    3
    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. jimh
    Jan 7, 2008
    3
    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.
  3. FredG
    Feb 10, 2008
    3
    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.
  4. BetsyM
    Feb 2, 2008
    3
    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.
  5. FrankL.
    Feb 6, 2008
    3
    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 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
  6. BillL.
    Mar 11, 2008
    3
    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.
  7. MattB.
    Apr 11, 2008
    3
    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.
  8. JoeM.
    May 4, 2008
    3
    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 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
  9. ErinB.
    Jun 4, 2008
    1
    I HATED this movie! Could we have a little more over the top acting Mr. Lewis?!
  10. BB
    Mar 24, 2009
    0
    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 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
  11. khcinOhio
    Apr 3, 2009
    0
    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!
  12. KevinB.
    May 2, 2009
    2
    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.
  13. LeonardP.
    Jan 11, 2008
    0
    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.
  14. DeeS.
    Jan 12, 2008
    1
    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 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
  15. DonnaS.
    Jan 19, 2008
    3
    Disappointed with the plot, but DDL was worth watching.
  16. DaveB
    Jan 26, 2008
    3
    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?
  17. DanG
    Jan 29, 2008
    3
    Unappealing and long. "Pixote" meets "Citizen Kane". Great performance by Day-Lewis, but on what dispiriting material!
  18. MattyJ
    Jan 31, 2008
    3
    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 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
  19. sh
    Feb 15, 2008
    0
    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 GO FIND THE ACTORS AND DIRECTORS AND FUCKING KILL THEM. WTF! IM SO FUCKING PISSED OFF AFTER WATCHING THAT MOVIE!!!!!!
  20. BarryS.
    Feb 16, 2008
    3
    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 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
  21. JohnS.
    Feb 8, 2008
    3
    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 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
  22. joek.
    Jan 13, 2008
    2
    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 (!?) 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
  23. Dec 16, 2010
    10
    Great movie... original feel to movie in general and for certain in DDL's performance. Loved it and refreshing compared to the majority of movies made these days.

    Best of all time... no ... but only 1-2 movies a year are made that are worth watching..... I'm so glad they are... I'm running out of old classics to watch lol.
  24. AdamAdams
    Mar 21, 2008
    0
    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 he can win an Oscar for this craptastic movie.
  25. Steve
    Mar 30, 2008
    2
    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 seem like Citizen Kane. Humans are crap is the message but I knew that already
  26. RobertM
    Aug 25, 2009
    3
    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!
  27. AlexR
    Oct 22, 2009
    3
    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 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
  28. Sep 18, 2011
    8
    The movie may be slow and tedious, but that is why "There will be Blood" enlightens and amazes the audience.
  29. HasbroB
    Jan 6, 2008
    0
    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 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
  30. MikeLee
    Apr 5, 2008
    10
    One of my favorite movies of all time. I am not sure why people absolutely NEED to like the main character in a movie. Day-Lewis' performance exceeds any performance by Brando, Hanks, Deniro, Pacino, Penn, etc... The raw emotion you get from Day-Lewis is enough to make shivers to run up your spine. I can watch this movie multiple times but the evil that resonated throughout makesOne of my favorite movies of all time. I am not sure why people absolutely NEED to like the main character in a movie. Day-Lewis' performance exceeds any performance by Brando, Hanks, Deniro, Pacino, Penn, etc... The raw emotion you get from Day-Lewis is enough to make shivers to run up your spine. I can watch this movie multiple times but the evil that resonated throughout makes it only watchable twice a year at most. There are many quality parts of this movie plot-wise. It is all done magically without many words. The anticipation of what might happen next makes the movie fly by quickly. Expand
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.