Paramount Vantage | Release Date: December 26, 2007
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1347 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,057
Mixed:
120
Negative:
170
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
cindynnevinsApr 3, 2008
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
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
DaveS.Jan 24, 2008
Daniel Day-Lewis awesome as usual. Most annoying sound track I have ever heard. Scenes dragged out too long.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
mmiddleJan 29, 2008
What Michelle said. The photography is gorgeous, the actor playing the son is fine, but the storytelling is flat and careless, and Day-Lewis just extends his silly performance in "Gangs."
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
jimhJan 7, 2008
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.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
FredGFeb 10, 2008
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.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
BetsyMFeb 2, 2008
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 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. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
FrankL.Feb 6, 2008
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 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
BillL.Mar 11, 2008
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.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
MattB.Apr 11, 2008
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 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. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
ELMay 4, 2008
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 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. Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful
3
JoeM.May 4, 2008
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 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
AlexROct 22, 2009
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, 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
6 of 11 users found this helpful
3
DWillyDec 30, 2007
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 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
2 of 2 users found this helpful
3
DonnaS.Jan 19, 2008
Disappointed with the plot, but DDL was worth watching.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
DaveBJan 26, 2008
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?
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
DanGJan 29, 2008
Unappealing and long. "Pixote" meets "Citizen Kane". Great performance by Day-Lewis, but on what dispiriting material!
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
MattyJJan 31, 2008
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 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
BarryS.Feb 16, 2008
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 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
JohnS.Feb 8, 2008
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 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
RobertMAug 25, 2009
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 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! Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful
3
MchelleJan 28, 2008
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.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
3
JoeyHFeb 15, 2008
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 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. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
3
TheoSFeb 24, 2008
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.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
3
CuthrinK.Aug 29, 2009
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.
1 of 3 users found this helpful
3
EricS.Dec 29, 2007
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, 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
Trev29Mar 31, 2012
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.
0 of 6 users found this helpful06
All this user's reviews
3
YoursTrulyNov 11, 2012
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 andThe 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
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
3
marceliniJan 10, 2016
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Tenía muchas expectativas por la puntuación, pero salí defraudado completamente. Cuando había transcurrido una hra y 15 minutos, decidi apagar el televisor. En una sola palabra ABURRIDO. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
tinah.Jan 5, 2008
Totally unlikeable character, never learned anything . Very male film. I didn't like it
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
AmberC.Apr 7, 2008
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 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
2 of 2 users found this helpful