Paramount Vantage | Release Date: December 26, 2007
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1329 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,038
Mixed:
120
Negative:
171
WATCH NOW
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)
6
TCFeb 7, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RussT.Mar 5, 2008
The film is inspired by Upton Sinclair
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PedroS.Apr 3, 2008
It
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
syzygyJan 5, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MarjorieW.Feb 24, 2008
My teeth are still clenched 12 hours after seeing this movie. Great acting, but ugly story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChaseW.Feb 2, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
rammJan 12, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
LindaL.Jan 28, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
OliverC.Jan 6, 2008
Great use of sound, good acting and directing bring to life an otherwise mundane plot that we've all seen a million times.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JamieH.Jan 7, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JeffLApr 19, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
SteveL.Jul 20, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
FoogRMar 23, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JoshG.Dec 25, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
GlenC.Dec 26, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DavidM.Dec 27, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JimboDec 29, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
stevegJan 18, 2008
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 mainIt'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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JohnGJan 19, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JasonJ.Feb 19, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JackBMay 12, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
mathewB.Dec 29, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
SchizophreniacFeb 10, 2014
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
boguesswhatSep 18, 2016
There Will Be Blood is the slowest progressing film I've ever seen. It beholds some of the best vibrantly passionate acting in cinema, yet also few and far between in this 2 hour 38 minute film. Daniel Day-Lewis plays an AcademyThere Will Be Blood is the slowest progressing film I've ever seen. It beholds some of the best vibrantly passionate acting in cinema, yet also few and far between in this 2 hour 38 minute film. Daniel Day-Lewis plays an Academy award-winning, prosperous oilman raising a young boy he adopted as an infant. As Day-Lewis picks battles between a local priest seeking revenge through the works of the Holy Spirit, high-roller oil company executives in pursuit for more oil, and the struggles of raising a boy who biologically isn't his own, voids fill in between the lines (literally) either by long, useless pauses in dialogue, or unsettling orchestra cacophonies that don't fit the genre. Day-Lewis gets considerable help from supporting actor, Paul Dano, who plays the young pastor of small town, Little Boston, CA. Without the amazing performances of those alike randomly scattered throughout the film, There Will Be Blood would be a mere waste of time better spent learning how paint dries to a surface. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
DorothyV.May 5, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
adamwJan 7, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
HollyR.Feb 13, 2008
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, 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
P.O.Mar 5, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
LuisC.Apr 15, 2008
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JBMay 27, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful