User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1188 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. 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.
  2. RussT.
    Mar 5, 2008
    6
    The film is inspired by Upton Sinclair
  3. PedroS.
    Apr 3, 2008
    6
    It
  4. 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.
  5. MarjorieW.
    Feb 24, 2008
    6
    My teeth are still clenched 12 hours after seeing this movie. Great acting, but ugly story.
  6. ChaseW.
    Feb 2, 2008
    6
    I have to completely agree with Matty J. on this one. This movie earns a six rating virtually on the sole acting performance of Daniel Day-Lewis. Despite some overacting in the latter parts of the movie, he carries this movie through its majority. Paul Dano has some brilliant scenes as well, but when PTA doesn't direct him in key scenes where he's allowed to go way over the top I have to completely agree with Matty J. on this one. This movie earns a six rating virtually on the sole acting performance of Daniel Day-Lewis. Despite some overacting in the latter parts of the movie, he carries this movie through its majority. Paul Dano has some brilliant scenes as well, but when PTA doesn't direct him in key scenes where he's allowed to go way over the top ending any suspension of disbelief. Quite simply this movie bored me. The only reason I didn't fall asleep was because the music was so jarring. Not in recent memory have I seen a movie that had music that so made me want to run out of the theater. It was like some failed attempt to appear classical or majestic but instead it was just obnoxious and as with much of this movie way over the top. The plot had little coherence and plodded along. To the point of Matty it also failed to convey the complexity of Sinclair's book. There was very little inspiration for the character's apparent drive to insanity or even the animosity that appears almost out of nowhere toward various characters. While I appreciate that Sinclair's book is long and you want to skim through some of its detail, that detail is what gives you a truer appreciation for the various characters motives. This was seriously lacking in the movie. If you're making a choice right now, defintely, definitely go see No Country for Old Man which clearly outpaces this movie for Best Picture of the year. Expand
  7. ramm
    Jan 12, 2008
    6
    They should have named this " There will be Asshole" Sure, I get the message. But what's with the music? It seems that they were trying to make the story something it was not with all the abstract horror strings. Every scene was built up with this omenous music that never led to anything. It had you thinking that diaster was eminent yet nothing ever happened. What was the story on They should have named this " There will be Asshole" Sure, I get the message. But what's with the music? It seems that they were trying to make the story something it was not with all the abstract horror strings. Every scene was built up with this omenous music that never led to anything. It had you thinking that diaster was eminent yet nothing ever happened. What was the story on Eli and Paul? They never resolved that to any satisfaction. DD Lewis was brilliant. But was it neccesary to portray him as the world largest colnic apature? I don't get it. Great cinematography. Great acting. But where's the beef? Expand
  8. LindaL.
    Jan 28, 2008
    6
    Daniel Day-Lewis is mesmerizing in this movie -- although I got a jolt when it's revealed that his character hails from Wisconsin, since he sounds just like his character in "Gangs of New York." We haven't seen a story set in the oil boom for a long time, and this is a gritty, engrossing one with dark, complex characters. None of them very likable, which is a drawback for some Daniel Day-Lewis is mesmerizing in this movie -- although I got a jolt when it's revealed that his character hails from Wisconsin, since he sounds just like his character in "Gangs of New York." We haven't seen a story set in the oil boom for a long time, and this is a gritty, engrossing one with dark, complex characters. None of them very likable, which is a drawback for some of us. With so much calamity and grief, I missed having someone like Tommy Lee Jones (in "Old Men") as the anchor and "heart" of the story. And thought the score, with its plinky percussion and busy strings, was awful, actually a distraction. Expand
  9. OliverC.
    Jan 6, 2008
    6
    Great use of sound, good acting and directing bring to life an otherwise mundane plot that we've all seen a million times.
  10. JamieH.
    Jan 7, 2008
    6
    Without Daniel-Day Lewis this movie would be pretty forgetable. One great acting performance can't catapult this movie to greatness surely. Plot, great story lines, dialogue is what makes for great cinema. There are some wonderful scenes and acting but the movie is too slow and plodding. Was hoping for so much more.
  11. JeffL
    Apr 19, 2008
    6
    The opening was good and then it was down hill from there. I was having a hard time staying awake during this movie. Daniel Day-Lewis's character tended to jump around a lot leaving his character a little hollow and shallow. Nothing really happens in the middle of the movie. The preacher character is just weird and actually steals some of the craziness from Daniel Day-Lewis's The opening was good and then it was down hill from there. I was having a hard time staying awake during this movie. Daniel Day-Lewis's character tended to jump around a lot leaving his character a little hollow and shallow. Nothing really happens in the middle of the movie. The preacher character is just weird and actually steals some of the craziness from Daniel Day-Lewis's character. I don't plan on watching this movie again. It is no where near Unforgiven or Crash's power. Expand
  12. SteveL.
    Jul 20, 2008
    6
    I was disappointed in this movie. It's theme was about a violent, mean, miserable, disturbed man. I saw no redeeming value in it. It was dark and depressing. Great acting. Crummy story line.
  13. FoogR
    Mar 23, 2009
    6
    This movie had some outstanding moments and some very well designed dialogue. Unfortunately, the story and conclusion truly leave something to be desired, the main character, Danial Plainview, doesn't develop grow or shrink over the course of the movie, and doesn't change much at all; however, Daniel Day Lewis performs outstandingly, which may bother or confuse some because of This movie had some outstanding moments and some very well designed dialogue. Unfortunately, the story and conclusion truly leave something to be desired, the main character, Danial Plainview, doesn't develop grow or shrink over the course of the movie, and doesn't change much at all; however, Daniel Day Lewis performs outstandingly, which may bother or confuse some because of the odd contrast. The score will annoy some, but it is actually a brilliant work with a Bela Barok style that will disturb and intrigue if studied. Overall, the movie was good quality, but the plot and characters were weak if not aggravating. Expand
  14. JoshG.
    Dec 25, 2007
    6
    I've been a P.T. Anderson fan for a long time. I put up with his "how-do-I-end-this-tale" shenanigans 'cuz he's a fine craftsman and wonderfully observational when it comes to character. "There Will Be Blood" (much like "Magnolia") suffers from the former, and benefits from the latter. Unfortunately the character is not likable, and since there is essentially no ending, the I've been a P.T. Anderson fan for a long time. I put up with his "how-do-I-end-this-tale" shenanigans 'cuz he's a fine craftsman and wonderfully observational when it comes to character. "There Will Be Blood" (much like "Magnolia") suffers from the former, and benefits from the latter. Unfortunately the character is not likable, and since there is essentially no ending, the whole trip feels pointless. The ONE thing this movie has going for it is Daniel Day-Lewis. He is nothing short of phenomenal. That said, this film is in no way worthy of the mutterings that have been floating out of cinematic circles comparing it to "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather." If this isn't the hype machine at work, I don't know what is. NO ONE is going to go see this movie. It's overly long, visually uninspiring, and ultimately incomplete. I couldn't help thinking that Mr. Anderson was giving us a glimpse into his own persona in the character of Daniel Plainview. No one chooses the hand their dealt, but some folks make the best of it. And some of those folks rise to the top. And some of THOSE folks become so self-centered and infatuated that they completely lose sight of the world around them. Those types of people tend to alienate even their closest allies and never hesitate to destroy their adversaries -- all in an effort to create something so entirely self indulgent, it becomes laughable. "Their Will Be Blood" is not unwatchable. Day-Lewis' performance alone is worth the price of admission, and I'd have gladly sat through two more hours of this miserable tale just to see him chew up the scenery. But a great performance does not a great film make. And in this case, it doesn't even make for a very GOOD film. This is auteuristic masturbation almost on par with Vinent Gallo's "Brown Bunny." The once sensational Anderson has clearly become his Daniel Plainview. I suppose in that regard the film and it's place in the director's life is somewhat "Citizen Kane"-ish, but unlike the Wells-ian tour de force, "Their Will Be Blood" isn't breaking any new ground stylistically, visually or otherwise. It's too bad too, 'cuz I had really high hopes. Take Daniel Day-Lewis out of the mix and this is a 1 or 2 star review at best. Day-Lewis will likely win the Oscar, but P.T. Anderson's "genius" had absolutely nothing to do with it. If the Academy includes the writer/director in their little awards dance, I'll simply have to... Boo. Expand
  15. GlenC.
    Dec 26, 2007
    6
    The first commentator, Josh G., is right. This emperor has no clothes. For all of its restless and oftentimes inventive camera work, There Will Be Blood is a peculiarly sterile and shallow meditation on the inevitable "war" between Capitalism and Fundamentalism. From its literally driven-deaf by greed innocent (H.W.) to its hypocritical and vain false prophet, the characters are little The first commentator, Josh G., is right. This emperor has no clothes. For all of its restless and oftentimes inventive camera work, There Will Be Blood is a peculiarly sterile and shallow meditation on the inevitable "war" between Capitalism and Fundamentalism. From its literally driven-deaf by greed innocent (H.W.) to its hypocritical and vain false prophet, the characters are little more than mouthpieces for Anderson's hollow posturing. It's all too easy to mark the parallels between the Plainviews and an equally notorious, powerful, contemporary American oil family, and I'm certain this makes at least half the reason for the film's puzzling and rapturous critical reception. But the truth is, Anderson's done much better work than this and, at least for this commentator, he takes a giant step backwards into the pedestrian mainstream. With self-conscious echoing of every major cinematic milestone from Sunrise to Sunset Boulevard, There Will Be Blood struck me not so much as a ground-breaking exercise as a pastiche tribute to American film. Daniel Day Lewis is fine, sure. But it's a performance so mannered and so calculated as to suffocate every ounce of evil spontaneity in the character. Those who don't see the film's final scene coming haven't been looking for it very hard. Paul Dano's been underappreciated here. His is the difficult role and frankly, he pulls it off with more surprises and more delicacy than Day Lewis does. One truly inspired scene: Day Lewis disowning his son, late in the film. Expand
  16. DavidM.
    Dec 27, 2007
    6
    Thanks for that spolier Glen C. Really appreciated that. Moron. I did not see the film, so i gave it a 6 -- middle of the road. You're not the first person to speak of TWBB's flaws... but, you are the first person to speak about Day-Lewis' performance in a bad way. Therefore, you're probably just some faus-pretentious film student or something, wanting to go against Thanks for that spolier Glen C. Really appreciated that. Moron. I did not see the film, so i gave it a 6 -- middle of the road. You're not the first person to speak of TWBB's flaws... but, you are the first person to speak about Day-Lewis' performance in a bad way. Therefore, you're probably just some faus-pretentious film student or something, wanting to go against the grain -- try putting all the film theory to use... however misguided it may be. Thanks for the spoiler GLEN! Expand
  17. Jimbo
    Dec 29, 2007
    6
    I wouldn't go so far as to say "There Will Be Blood" isn't worth seeing, but I don't think it lives up to the hype bestowed on it by so many critics. The film is essentially two and a half hours of "one-man-show"-type setpieces (the one man is Daniel Day-Lewis; there are other actors in the movie, but they're not really developed except to act as foils) about the rise I wouldn't go so far as to say "There Will Be Blood" isn't worth seeing, but I don't think it lives up to the hype bestowed on it by so many critics. The film is essentially two and a half hours of "one-man-show"-type setpieces (the one man is Daniel Day-Lewis; there are other actors in the movie, but they're not really developed except to act as foils) about the rise and fall of an amoral early-1900s oil-man. Day-Lewis is a solid actor and does his best to make each vignette interesting, but this story arc has been filmed many times before, from "The Power and The Glory" through "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather," and "There Will be Blood" brings nothing new to the formula--to me, every scene in this movie felt familiar and completely predictable. Expand
  18. steveg
    Jan 18, 2008
    6
    It's wasn't that bad a movie but it sure wasn't a 92. D.D.L. did a great acting job but the circumstance just wasn't interesting. A "maverick", "independent" oil mans rise to wealth, yay. I started to dislike the main character once I figured out that there were no revelations or shifts in personality forthcoming and it made it even harder to watch. I had highIt's wasn't that bad a movie but it sure wasn't a 92. D.D.L. did a great acting job but the circumstance just wasn't interesting. A "maverick", "independent" oil mans rise to wealth, yay. I started to dislike the main character once I figured out that there were no revelations or shifts in personality forthcoming and it made it even harder to watch. I had high hopes based on the ratings critics have given it and was very disappointed. The best part of the movie? "I'm done now." Expand
  19. JohnG
    Jan 19, 2008
    6
    Oh boy. My expectations were so high for this. I was extremely disappointed. The film was long, unfocused and relied to much on DDL vs, an actual story. The director relied way too much on DDL to save a film that by the end of the film it was like he was parodying his own performance. Also, his cadence was similar to Hug Weaving in The Matrix to such an extent that it was distracting. The Oh boy. My expectations were so high for this. I was extremely disappointed. The film was long, unfocused and relied to much on DDL vs, an actual story. The director relied way too much on DDL to save a film that by the end of the film it was like he was parodying his own performance. Also, his cadence was similar to Hug Weaving in The Matrix to such an extent that it was distracting. The actor who played Eli was not very good. I thought the score was awesome and the cinematography was brilliant. I almost feel like the critics were afraid to give this a bad review. I also thought the same about Diving Bell and Butterfly -- reviewers were so impressed by prinicpals that all flaws were overlooked. Anyone who compares this to the Godfather is silly and emotional. Expand
  20. JasonJ.
    Feb 19, 2008
    6
    This movie could have been a 9 if it knew where to stop. The last 30 minutes (the fight on the two lane bowling alley) was something that should have been put only as an xtra on a DVD. It deserved to be a "deleted scene." The rest of the movie was quite good. The oil industry during that part of American history was interesting. No Country for Old Men, as a movie, made the same mistake. This movie could have been a 9 if it knew where to stop. The last 30 minutes (the fight on the two lane bowling alley) was something that should have been put only as an xtra on a DVD. It deserved to be a "deleted scene." The rest of the movie was quite good. The oil industry during that part of American history was interesting. No Country for Old Men, as a movie, made the same mistake. Great premise, great execution, and then a superfluous ending that makes you feel like you are wasting your time. It's like they are putting the DVD extras in with the feature presentations now. Do the studios pay more for a longer movie? Something isn't right. They are butchering the possible masterpieces of the late 00s. Expand
  21. JackB
    May 12, 2008
    6
    It was good for the most part but just dragged on, the story became uninteresting and just plain bad at the end. I think its yet another movie where the critics thought "wow if we see this as a 10/10 we might be considered as lovers of real film" when really, it should all be down to how much you enjoy it as an individual.
  22. mathewB.
    Dec 29, 2007
    6
    Great cinematography, good editing, and a fantastic score cannot make-up for the fact the the films observations are superficial at best. Day-Lewis' preformance is over-the-top and not particularly convincing. More characture than character, he's supposed to be from Wisconsin... with that accent... not on your life.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. adamw
    Jan 7, 2008
    5
    A more appropriate title would be "There Won't be a Plot". It's long and boring and I still can't figure out why it's called what it is. Critics are often fooled by long movies with good acting, but in the end, it's just long, boring, and pointless.
  26. HollyR.
    Feb 13, 2008
    5
    A very long movie with an odd-interesting use of music, but a storyline that just didn't make sense in the end. Not worth the 3 hours, trust me. Unless you are in love with Daniel Day Lewis who is a great actor in every movie he does, spend your 3 hours on a nap instead. As other reviewers have said, "No Country for Old Men" is a far far superior movie worthy of the critic's reviews.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. JoseR
    Jan 13, 2008
    5
    This movie was slightly more than 2.5 hours long, but felt like a seven hour film. D.D. Lewis' performance is the only thing that kept me in my seat. Paul Dano's performance was also excellent. The movie dragged on for what seamed like days. I found myself looking at my watch wondering how long the movie had been playing and when, if ever, it would finally end.
  33. JoanC.
    Jan 22, 2008
    5
    3 out of 4 of us who saw the film were disappointed. The movie lacks character development, seems irrelevant, and I didn't really care about the characters, although DDL did a fabulous acting job.
  34. Bb
    Feb 12, 2008
    5
    Highly overrated. I liked-hated it. Saw the greatness but couldn't wait for it to end, and at 2 1/2 hours it could have easily been edited without any harm to the story. Over the top acting by Day-Lewis, but I hated him in "Gangs of NY" too, and for the same reasons, and used to love him. It's no "Chinatown."
  35. RichR.
    Feb 9, 2008
    5
    Well, I haven't even seen it yet, but I know I made this comment on there when the movie came out, and that is: Daniel is totally channeling Jack Palance, so, until I actually see this, I have to say that is not too cool of a thing to do. If it is better than No Country For Old Men, I will be amazed; THAT is a great, almost perfect movie.
  36. CarlM.
    Apr 12, 2008
    5
    Dramatic but confusing.
  37. 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
  38. D.
    Jan 21, 2008
    5
    Great acting by DDL, but the story is boring. No arc, no lesson that hasn't already been told before and too long. From the very beginning you know where this is going. It's like watching the Patriots football season. PTA is really overrated.
  39. RonA.
    Feb 24, 2008
    5
    There will be hype. The most interesting part of this movie involves Plainview's having to be "born again": he's forced, by financial motives, to say he's abandoned his son, and comes to realize, against his will, that he has. But little else remains, aside from the glorious cinematography. One simply doesn't care about Plainview, since he's merely a caricature, There will be hype. The most interesting part of this movie involves Plainview's having to be "born again": he's forced, by financial motives, to say he's abandoned his son, and comes to realize, against his will, that he has. But little else remains, aside from the glorious cinematography. One simply doesn't care about Plainview, since he's merely a caricature, overdrawn by both the script and Daniel Day-Lewis. There's just no story here that can live up to the money and talent expended on it. The deafness of HW is merely an occasion for cruelty, and the violent end of the movie clarifies nothing. One only wonders why Eli Sunday hasn't aged a day. The great Ciaran Hinds is barely used. Expand
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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.
  43. 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
  44. SashaS.
    Dec 28, 2007
    5
    Good and worthy attempt but sorry, no cigar. People are constantly comparing to other, better works while missing the basic fact that if it were THAT great it wouldn't need to be compared to other, better works. Shakespeare? Please.
  45. SteveC.
    Dec 29, 2007
    5
    Great acting undermined by overblown and ultimately embarassing plot. Anothe would be epic with nothing to say and 2.5 hours to not say it in. Lewis' incredible performance is sadly wasted.
  46. DWilly
    Dec 31, 2007
    5
    dThis might have been a character study... but no, it's not really, there's no revelation of character (he has no sex drive? he's pissed at the preacher as a rival for power or is it a God thing?); Daniel Day Lewis does give a bravura performance (doing the same character he did in "Gangs Of New York") but it's invulnerable and not by itself affecting; this could havedThis might have been a character study... but no, it's not really, there's no revelation of character (he has no sex drive? he's pissed at the preacher as a rival for power or is it a God thing?); Daniel Day Lewis does give a bravura performance (doing the same character he did in "Gangs Of New York") but it's invulnerable and not by itself affecting; this could have been a story about the clash of ideals, or no ideals or... no, it's not that either (the preacher character disappears for maybe an hour at one point). There's a lot of lot of good cinematography and atmospherics on location along with the style of mixing big theatrical performances with realist ones (using many non-actors), but NO STORY. Expand
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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.
  50. 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
  51. 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.
  52. 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
  53. 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.
  54. NathanK.
    Jul 30, 2009
    4
    Boring and contrived... one of the most horrid movies i've ever seen. the best part was the credits.
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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.
  58. IverP.
    Feb 26, 2008
    4
    Great looking, but ultimately quite tedious and unbalanced.
  59. 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
  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. JimM.
    Apr 22, 2008
    4
    Didn't get it. Two hours I'll never get back.
  63. 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!
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. [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
  68. 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
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.