User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1166 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. MichaelL
    Feb 3, 2008
    4
    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? 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
  2. SteveS.
    Oct 3, 2008
    4
    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.
  3. IverP.
    Feb 26, 2008
    4
    Great looking, but ultimately quite tedious and unbalanced.
  4. 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
  5. JimmusM.
    Mar 4, 2008
    4
    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.
  6. 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.
  7. JimM.
    Apr 22, 2008
    4
    Didn't get it. Two hours I'll never get back.
  8. CaptainSpaulding
    May 25, 2008
    4
    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!
  9. Peter
    Dec 27, 2007
    4
    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 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
  10. RadCompany
    Jan 13, 2008
    4
    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 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
  11. DW
    Dec 8, 2009
    4
    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 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
  12. [Anonymous]
    Dec 23, 2007
    4
    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 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
  13. 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
  14. cindynnevins
    Apr 3, 2008
    3
    No hero in movie. It was boring, long. I found it to be tedious. Waiting for something to happen. The ending was terrible. I still am not sure of the consequences of what he did. Save your money. It was over rated
  15. DaveS.
    Jan 24, 2008
    3
    Daniel Day-Lewis awesome as usual. Most annoying sound track I have ever heard. Scenes dragged out too long.
  16. 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."
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. EL
    May 4, 2008
    3
    Slow and boring, wish I'd done my ironing instead. The film lacks any interesting story line and I found myself falling asleep more than once. I must admit however, that it was exciting in comparison to; Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation.
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. DonnaS.
    Jan 19, 2008
    3
    Disappointed with the plot, but DDL was worth watching.
  28. 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?
  29. DanG
    Jan 29, 2008
    3
    Unappealing and long. "Pixote" meets "Citizen Kane". Great performance by Day-Lewis, but on what dispiriting material!
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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!
  34. Mchelle
    Jan 28, 2008
    3
    This movie does not reflect the critics comments. It's 2.5 hours of Daniel Day-Lewis reprising his role in "The Gangs of New York". His acting seems affected and the plot goes no where. Waste of an evening. Avoid this film.
  35. JoeyH
    Feb 15, 2008
    3
    It just wasn't that good. I have a lot of respect for PT Anderson, Paul Dano, and Daniel-Day Lewis. Especially Daniel. Unfortunately, great acting doesn't make a movie great. Kind of like how having Lebron doesn't make the Cavs great. I guess rating art is kind of pointless, but I really wouldn't tell anyone to go see this.
  36. TheoS
    Feb 24, 2008
    3
    Male movie. Hard, boring, easy message served in 3 Hours. Would have made a good short-movie. 30 minutes max. Aggressive music, anoying at best. (And i am actually musician (classic) but that combination did not worked out for me.
  37. CuthrinK.
    Aug 29, 2009
    3
    Quite overrated but the looks of it. Excellent acting by most of the actors, but the story is like an acid-time-travel trip to the olden times.
  38. EricS.
    Dec 29, 2007
    3
    Way too long - a good 1930s director would have done a better, stronger job with the story in 90 minutes, or less. The music was awful - intrusive and used far too much. At times it was almost laughable. Daniel Day Lewis was good, sort of, but frankly, a nasty drunk isn't all that tough a role. There was far too much reliance on tight closeups of people's faces to try and wring Way too long - a good 1930s director would have done a better, stronger job with the story in 90 minutes, or less. The music was awful - intrusive and used far too much. At times it was almost laughable. Daniel Day Lewis was good, sort of, but frankly, a nasty drunk isn't all that tough a role. There was far too much reliance on tight closeups of people's faces to try and wring emotion out of the audience - a cheap trick that was overused to the point of not working. Boring! Expand
  39. Mar 31, 2012
    3
    No matter how superb that acting was and the overall quality of the film.....it is wayyyyyyyyyy too long and pointless. It was the farthest thing from a gripping movie. There were some very good scenes and music, but come on....so boring.
  40. Nov 11, 2012
    3
    The acting is superb and Daniel-Day Lewis is captivating as always. But I had to drag myself through this one. It has it's moments, but overall There Will Be Blood is a like a never ending desert highway riddled with pot holes and tumbleweeds. Long winded, dry and not an inkling of refuge in sight. If only they would have whittled it down to a neat and simple package, this could have beenThe acting is superb and Daniel-Day Lewis is captivating as always. But I had to drag myself through this one. It has it's moments, but overall There Will Be Blood is a like a never ending desert highway riddled with pot holes and tumbleweeds. Long winded, dry and not an inkling of refuge in sight. If only they would have whittled it down to a neat and simple package, this could have been great. But as it stands, snooze fest. Expand
  41. tinah.
    Jan 5, 2008
    2
    Totally unlikeable character, never learned anything . Very male film. I didn't like it
  42. 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
  43. MikeS
    Jan 5, 2010
    2
    Started off boring and progressively got worse.
  44. 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.
  45. KeithD.
    Jan 12, 2008
    2
    Long and Boring, 1 good actor, nothing more, I really didn't even think there was that much for DDL to do anything with. You just keep waiting and waiting for something to develop and nothing does.
  46. JimI
    Feb 14, 2008
    2
    This movie moved slower than my grandma Helen, and she's been dead for 10 years! Not to take away from Daniel's performance or the guy who played the preacher, but come on, the first 15 minutes of the film I thought we reverted back to silent films. I get the point the movie was making, but cut maybe an hour off this movie and it would have been MUCH better. I was so bored with This movie moved slower than my grandma Helen, and she's been dead for 10 years! Not to take away from Daniel's performance or the guy who played the preacher, but come on, the first 15 minutes of the film I thought we reverted back to silent films. I get the point the movie was making, but cut maybe an hour off this movie and it would have been MUCH better. I was so bored with Daniels character mid way through the movie, and the sound track was grating on my nerves so badly, I had to walk out. Expand
  47. 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!
  48. 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--.
  49. 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.
  50. JohnD.
    Apr 7, 2008
    2
    wow, this movie was so boring. great acting but this movie was painfully dull
  51. 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!
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. sinclaird.
    Jan 5, 2008
    2
    This was a terrible film = poor storytelling, slow, and pretentious. why did all these critics say it was so outstanding. We were passive. The director wanted the images to move, but he didn't find the key to make them work,
  55. GrantW
    Feb 14, 2008
    2
    This movie was a waste of my life. Yes it's intended message of Greed and money twisting everyone is a good one, but that point has been made many a time. We don't need another two and a half hour movie where the weak dialoges play second fiddle to the soundtrack to beat that dead horse. "I'm finished" Roll Credits.
  56. MistyD.
    Feb 21, 2008
    2
    The fact that this movie is getting so much Oscar hype and critical acclaim completely bewilders me. The film is so littered with tremendous gaffes in plot development that it becomes a melodramatic train to nowhere. Sure the acting is intense, but rings completely false, as characters do complete about faces from scene to scene. Yes, it is a "pretty" film and educational about the early The fact that this movie is getting so much Oscar hype and critical acclaim completely bewilders me. The film is so littered with tremendous gaffes in plot development that it becomes a melodramatic train to nowhere. Sure the acting is intense, but rings completely false, as characters do complete about faces from scene to scene. Yes, it is a "pretty" film and educational about the early days of the oil business in the U.S., but outside of that worthless. I would have rather watched a documentary on PBS. Ultimately, I didn't care about the fate of any of the characters by the movies' end. A true sign that the film was a colossal failure. Expand
  57. LuluS.
    Feb 22, 2008
    2
    I have heard a lot of people cite the acting in this movie as a reason for a hands-down 10. I, however, look at a film as a whole. I judge art according to its contribution to society as a whole... Art, after all, is derived from life and not the other way around; I don't see a chicken-or-the-egg conundrum. So I can't accept a film that seems like cinematic and theatrical I have heard a lot of people cite the acting in this movie as a reason for a hands-down 10. I, however, look at a film as a whole. I judge art according to its contribution to society as a whole... Art, after all, is derived from life and not the other way around; I don't see a chicken-or-the-egg conundrum. So I can't accept a film that seems like cinematic and theatrical masturbation. Yes, the actors in it did excellent jobs. Yes, the elements of cinematography, lighting, and music were original and innovative. But did it affect me? Did it even affect anyone in the entire theatre? The work *as a whole* was ineffectual, anticlimactic, uncompelling, and unrelatable. I'm not even interested in the characterization of Daniel Plainview. The glimpses of the shards of his humanity were too few and too distant for me to care about him; and a person that monstrous provokes me only to marvel briefly and incomprehendingly at his monstrosity. I want to be as far away from Daniel as possible, and I want to forget the movie. I'm not against "weird" movies or movies that require a long attention span, but I perceived a vagueness in the characters and story that seems to come from a lack of specificity in purpose... and if there was a specific subtext in the minds of the actors and and a specific intent in the mind of the director--sorry, it was not conveyed. This objectivity wouldn't be so bad except that at times the movie leads the viewer to believe they should be understanding some kind of message. There Will Be Blood: you fail at communicating. Expand
  58. Phil
    Mar 1, 2008
    2
    Some theatrical merit, but to be honest, I couldn't even make it through the whole film. Nice perspectives on bleak American history though..
  59. JamesB.
    Mar 13, 2008
    2
    Besides Daniel Day Lewis (who totally deserved his oscar) this is a boring, drawn out, mess of a film and completely unentertaining.
  60. 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
  61. HarvB
    Mar 6, 2008
    2
    This could have been a great movie! But how ironic that a movie about deafness, both literal and metaphoric was beaten into the ground by a pointless over blown music score. Has this director never thought about understatement or the notion that less in more. If you want to see a great movie go and see No Country for Old Men. The Coen brothers know what they are doing and their movie has This could have been a great movie! But how ironic that a movie about deafness, both literal and metaphoric was beaten into the ground by a pointless over blown music score. Has this director never thought about understatement or the notion that less in more. If you want to see a great movie go and see No Country for Old Men. The Coen brothers know what they are doing and their movie has no music track at all! Expand
  62. John
    Apr 12, 2008
    2
    Terrible plot and very slow movie.
  63. KashRA
    Apr 3, 2008
    2
    The greatness of the cinematography of this film is only matched by the weakness of the plot line. The reviewer's accolades are just further evidence that Paul Thomas Anderson is always viewed as a film deity in spite of the overwhelming evidence that he is a mere mortal.
  64. Audrey
    Dec 27, 2007
    2
    Long and boring with no interesting turns to the story. Acting is fine but I really don't see what the big deal is. Did all these critics see it together? Was there something in the punch?
  65. 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
  66. TerryAndrews
    Jan 26, 2008
    2
    Grandiose, pretentious, irritating, and repetitive, this may be the most grossly overrated movie of the year. Day-Lewis is mannered and showy, and comes across as a caricature of virtuoso acting rather than as a believable human being. The music is intrusive, jarring, and distracting, and most of the characters are cardboard background figures. To see how truly derivative and shallowGrandiose, pretentious, irritating, and repetitive, this may be the most grossly overrated movie of the year. Day-Lewis is mannered and showy, and comes across as a caricature of virtuoso acting rather than as a believable human being. The music is intrusive, jarring, and distracting, and most of the characters are cardboard background figures. To see how truly derivative and shallow Anderson's "masterpiece" is, have another look at "Citizen Kane." Expand
  67. Rich
    Jul 17, 2008
    2
    No am0ount of stellar acting can hide from the audience that this movie, indeed, has no point. Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely perfect for this role, if only he had some meaningful dialog. This movie reminded me very much of 2001: A Space Odyssey in that it is very long, has some good music, and is boring to the point of nausea.
  68. Jan 9, 2011
    2
    This is literally a terrible film. I love Daniel Day Lewis but NOT in this film, there is just nothing going on with the acting. A big yawn fest. A couple of good one liners so the script isn't awful but there is just not anything interesting about this film.
  69. Mar 31, 2012
    2
    The only reason this movie gets a 2 is because of its acting other than that zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I almost cried because i was so bored. I rather watch grass grow in my backyard. What a disgrace this movie is and it doesn't deserve to be up for best picture.
  70. stanleyl
    Jan 6, 2008
    1
    I found all critics to be over rate -the movie had poor dialogue -violent without cause- loud music a kid for a-preacher- cheap sets- one great actor with a poorly developed theme
  71. JimmyS.
    Mar 5, 2008
    1
    besides some nice pictures, it was really really boring.
  72. DavidF.
    Mar 6, 2008
    1
    "There Could Have Been Worse" It could have been poorly shot. I don't care if it had a great film score, the volume of the music was really high. Does that make it better-- NO. If turning the voltage up to 11 in every facet of a movie makes it great in your mind, then this is your film. The film score opens with a musical crescendo that shouldn't have been used because it was "There Could Have Been Worse" It could have been poorly shot. I don't care if it had a great film score, the volume of the music was really high. Does that make it better-- NO. If turning the voltage up to 11 in every facet of a movie makes it great in your mind, then this is your film. The film score opens with a musical crescendo that shouldn't have been used because it was lifted hook line and sinker from Kubrick's 2001, and yet was intended to bring to mind a different emotion and theme. Pointless violence, characters who you don't believe in, a supposedly angry character who unburdens himself once to a virtual stranger claiming he hates everyone, and then shows unexpected sensitivity to his employees after a workplace death? Yah right! I'm a Yankee who knows nothing about the oil business, but I was scratching my head as to what kind of Rube Goldberg devices were running in the background most of the movie, so its not just the Texans who saw stupid lazy research. A supposedly greedy man who keeps a secret from his son for twenty years longer than the greed requires? Who are we kidding here? This movie is just Dumb with the volume cranked up so high you can't think straight! Expand
  73. DougL.
    Feb 24, 2009
    1
    Just because a movie is "unlike any other" doesn't make it good. Is it too much to ask for a film to be inventive, thought-provoking, insightful, etc., while still entertaining its audience? I feel like I was being bludgeoned to death (or at least, to sleep) with the snail's pace of this film. To quote the late, great George Carlin, "It's like watching flies f***!!". I have Just because a movie is "unlike any other" doesn't make it good. Is it too much to ask for a film to be inventive, thought-provoking, insightful, etc., while still entertaining its audience? I feel like I was being bludgeoned to death (or at least, to sleep) with the snail's pace of this film. To quote the late, great George Carlin, "It's like watching flies f***!!". I have yet to hear a convincing explanation from anyone as to why they liked this movie. Expand
  74. phila
    Jan 5, 2010
    1
    I'm a movie buff and soon to be director. this movie was worthless. paul thomas anderson somehow got into the legion of "can do no wrong" with critics and gets a pass on all his movies. ever see one of his interviews? he cant answer 'yes or no' questions. does he have a rich daddy in politics or news media or something that gets him a free pass?
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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!
  78. 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.
  79. DanH.
    May 9, 2008
    1
    The most insanely boring and pointless movie i have ever seen in my life.
  80. 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!
  81. ErinB.
    Jun 4, 2008
    1
    I HATED this movie! Could we have a little more over the top acting Mr. Lewis?!
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. JohnR
    Feb 14, 2008
    1
    If you think this acting performance is great performance, go to a theater and watch students work. Than you know how overacting will look like, and you will find interesting parallels to what will get here an Oscar. Besides this i understood the message and emotions the music wants to create, but its still uncomfortable too loud and annoying. Story make sense only 2/3 of the movie. At If you think this acting performance is great performance, go to a theater and watch students work. Than you know how overacting will look like, and you will find interesting parallels to what will get here an Oscar. Besides this i understood the message and emotions the music wants to create, but its still uncomfortable too loud and annoying. Story make sense only 2/3 of the movie. At the end i guess the writers went on striking. Expand
  85. ChrisB
    Feb 25, 2008
    1
    there are some mildly compelling portions of this movie. That's the only thing positive that i can say. This movie is so overrated it hurts. It was boring beyond belief. there isn't a story. The characters are annoying and not that interesting. The acting have been blown way out of proportion. It isn't that great. I hate this movie and I could not be happier that it there are some mildly compelling portions of this movie. That's the only thing positive that i can say. This movie is so overrated it hurts. It was boring beyond belief. there isn't a story. The characters are annoying and not that interesting. The acting have been blown way out of proportion. It isn't that great. I hate this movie and I could not be happier that it didn't win the Oscar for Best Picture. This movie is not good. Don't spend your time watching it. It will be forgotten in 5 years. This is a prime example of the overly inflated Hollywood hype machine causing people to show interest in a movie for some reason not based on merit. Watch something else. Expand
  86. Carlos
    Mar 11, 2008
    1
    Nice guy at the beginning turned twisted and alcoholic at the end not mention a criminal too .. done 100 plus times in different movies . Nothing has a common sense. However good topic is was done more realistic like say "a truth history".
  87. BarbaraM.
    Apr 26, 2008
    1
    Balderdash!! Slow, dull, melodramatic, poorly characterized. The story line was absurd and totally unbelievable. Daniel Day-Lewis was marvelous, but he could read the phone book and be enthralling. Worse than No Country for Old Men, and it gets my vote for most annoying soundtrack in history. Actually, the sound track was suitable for such a train wreck of a drama. All sound and fury Balderdash!! Slow, dull, melodramatic, poorly characterized. The story line was absurd and totally unbelievable. Daniel Day-Lewis was marvelous, but he could read the phone book and be enthralling. Worse than No Country for Old Men, and it gets my vote for most annoying soundtrack in history. Actually, the sound track was suitable for such a train wreck of a drama. All sound and fury signifying darn little. Expand
  88. MikeM.
    Feb 15, 2008
    1
    Daniel Day was a phenomenal actor, and there was an interesting sound track.... but that was it. The movie drags on and is horribly pointless. Avoid it unless you style yourself a movie connoisseur.
  89. YevgeniS.
    Feb 15, 2008
    1
    Rarely can I see a film with such incredibly good performances yet hate the result. It tales 10 full minutes of tedium to get a single line of dialogue and that seemed to be the fastest pace the film could attain. Dull. Dreadfully dull. I thought it would NEVER end. I contemplated walking out, but felt it would HAVE to get better with all the great reviews. It doesn't. It begins bad, Rarely can I see a film with such incredibly good performances yet hate the result. It tales 10 full minutes of tedium to get a single line of dialogue and that seemed to be the fastest pace the film could attain. Dull. Dreadfully dull. I thought it would NEVER end. I contemplated walking out, but felt it would HAVE to get better with all the great reviews. It doesn't. It begins bad, moves slowly and has no discernible plot other than "greed corrupts." If you need to spend time in a theatre to see this, you are in need of medication for insomnia. Expand
  90. Mar 13, 2012
    1
    I still am baffled at how anyone thinks this is a good movie. I have watched it twice now and both times I was so bored and confused as to what the meaning of this turd was, I had to fight to stay awake. I get the plot, but the whole moral dilemma thing just escapes me. I mean, in real life who the hell acts like these people do? The only positive things I got from this movie were theI still am baffled at how anyone thinks this is a good movie. I have watched it twice now and both times I was so bored and confused as to what the meaning of this turd was, I had to fight to stay awake. I get the plot, but the whole moral dilemma thing just escapes me. I mean, in real life who the hell acts like these people do? The only positive things I got from this movie were the visuals and the acting of Daniel Day-Lewis. Other than that, avoid this movie unless you want to be bored to tears and pissed off at the ending. Expand
  91. 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
  92. 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.
  93. 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.
  94. 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
  95. 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.
  96. MikeSureness
    Jan 14, 2008
    0
    Scene after scene of men walking. See that tree one hundred yards in the distance. You are going to watch the actors walk to it and back in real time. Never once during this movie did I ever wonder what was going to happen next or have a reason to care.
  97. 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?
  98. 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
  99. 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.
  100. 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!
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.