What???? There Will Be Blood has nothing in common with those movies. More like Citizen Kane as interpreted by Sam Peckinpah.
The movie has classic film noir ideas : ie blood simple, read: I'm done! If you look at all the angles in the film, every setting has an interesting angle to it: read, A Clockwork Orange. I am not discounting Citizen Kane reference, though. That's a good interpretation, too.
Daniel Day Lewis flourished his performance into a legendary icon.... Damn dawg, this fool be wreckin the screen with his astonishing skills yo.... There is this one scene towards the end of the film where he's biting into a steak like he has the whole world in his hands... Daniel Day Lewis's Performance alone is more startling and original than the whole movie of "Cloverfield".....
Yeah just got back from the movie...and I absolutely loved it. Daniel Day Lewis was dominant throughout the movie. He should win best actor. A tad long, but it still moved along pretty well. And Dano was impressive as well.
No Country For Old Men set the bar, but there Will Be Blood left me astonished at what PT Anderson and DD Lewis have done... its like this movie came out of nowhere.. if No Country is the Coen's fine wine, this is PTA's magnum opus. he has made his masterpiece
This is absolutely the worst POS movie I have ever seen. I cannot fathom how bad this movie actually was. Nor do I have the words to convey how absolutely, positively r****ded this movie was. I rather sit through another 2 and half hour of Rockets getting their ass kicked in a game seven then watch this garbage again. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DDL's acting on the other hand was awesome.
If you're going to so strongly state your minority view, you might want to provide reasons. You're wrong, by the way. The story, the acting, the cinematography-- exquisite.
Yea I agree with R0ckets03. He's not wrong at all. DDL's acting was amazing, but good lord, the movie had NO POINT. I'm all for different movies. I personally can't stand mindless action movies, and love more dramatic movies, but this just isn't it. It has absolutely no point, and a good 45 minutes could've been cut from the movie. Like I said before, DDL's acting was just great, and it wouldn't surprise me if he took home the Oscars. The movie on the other hand doesn't deserve a single award. It was an overly long, uninteresting movie with no real point, and a climax that was more funny than dramatic... Please someone, tell me what the point of this movie was. What makes it so good?
How greed, ambition and pride can shape a person for the worse. Also, I can't think of many other movies about the oil industry; other than Giant or, less directly, Hellfighters. When I first saw previews about it, from Plainview's physical appearance I somehow thought it was a Rockefeller biography. That scene about drainage/capture was downright hilarious (even though the baptism scene was even funnier).
I understand it was about greed and pride. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I just didn't find the story appealing at all. It just wasn't interesting. DDL's acting could take the movie only so far. The story just needed more meat to it.
None of those things were enough for me to really enjoy this movie. Plenty of movies have tackled man's obsessions and the resulting descent into insanity. And the mere fact that There Will Be Blood is about the oil industry, a topic that hasn't often been chosen as a movie subject, didn't make the movie any better. By that logic, a movie about tapeworms would be groundbreaking since never before has someone made a feature film about them. I wanted to love this movie but I ended up not even liking it. I could certainly appreciate the cinematography and the skill displayed by Anderson's direction. The acting was mesmerizing. But the movie itself lacked a compelling story and, despite Lewis's performance (which, despite his indisputable brilliance, was borderline overacting in several scenes) Plainview simply wasn't an interesting character. Like I said before, his descent into a total nutjob, though exquisitely portrayed by Lewis, is nothing new and not particularly interesting. The only suspense or intrigue this movie had came from the score, which drove the entire movie all the way through to its disappointing finish. The only enjoyment derived from watching this movie comes from one's ability to appreciate the skill that was apparent, from the direction to the acting to the cinematography. The movie itself, however, is much less than the sum of its technically excellent parts. No Country was a much more enjoyable and thought-provoking movie in my opinion. And even on its technical merits, I thought The Assassination of Jesse James was superior. That movie had incredible cinematography, a hypnotic score, and an amazing performance by Casey Affleck who managed to convey just as much range with his character with far more subtlety than Lewis did in There Will Be Blood.
I expected to come to this thread and be the dissenting voice, but no. We saw the movie last night, and all I can think of is Yosemite Sam crossed with Howard Hughes. As a few of you have said, it was just not that interesting. Greed, etc, did not change this guy from the first scene onward. He was just the same way throughout. He got a little bit crazier and more drooly. And the preacher character was kind of whimpy and lame. The little boy / deaf son was the interesting, human character for me at least. "I've got a competition in me. I don't want to see Al Pacino succeed in out-hamming me." Victory is yours, DDL. He was over the top, and it's the director's fault. He was so cartoony, in my view... hence the Yosemite Sam comparison. Now, for a much better movie (IMHO), No Country for Old Men, there was another cartoon character, but he had more interesting lines, cool weapons, and there were real humans around for you to empathize with. That being said, along the lines of Alien versus Predator... Daniel Plainview versus Anton Chiguhr (sp) They have the same home turf of west texas! (that's where TWBB was filmed anyway)
that pretty much sums up my opinion perfectly. i wanted to love this film, everything about it seemed right, the acting was great, each scene by itself was good, but at the end, i really got nothing out of it. there just wasn't an interesting story as i didn't find him becoming mad all that interesting. in fact, it pissed me off. Spoiler he was kicking ass and taking name for years and then a little preacher guy knocks him off his rocker? his son goes deaf and now he's drinking and going crazy and then lets that obviously fake brother in and be part of his downfall. but even after all that, he gets his pipeline and then we just fast forward 16 years (was it 16?) and he's completely crazy and drunk, disowns his son (which i could actually believe), and then just kills the preacher and we're done. so what was i supposed to get from it? how you might go crazy if you're greedy even if you've held it together for years and there doesn't seem to be much reason for you going crazy? i guess movies that are just comments on human nature (much like No Country) just don't do it for me. i went into both movies wanting to love them and came away from both thinking "meh" as i needed some sort of compelling story or plot to make me care about the comments on human nature. add in the fact i didn't love juno which everyone seems to love and even Cloverfield wasn't amazing to me, and i've left about 5 straight movies, all of which have done well and been reviewed well, just thinking "meh." i feel like i've forgotten how to like a movie or maybe i just need a good superbad-esque comedy or transformers-esque summer blockbuster to get me back on my feet again.
Haha I saw it today. I was ok. But hell, I'm more insane than the Danny. And the unsettling violin and weird artsy music was just a bit too much for me. It's weird. I get it. I do think 90% of the Texans I saw the movie with today didn't like it. Everyone came out of the theater going wtf. I also think it would of worked better as a musical. A big song and dance number at the end would have made it really nutty. Actually it reminded me of the movie Barney made on the Simpsons. Well, I found it in Spanish: <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tzX_4-3XfvE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tzX_4-3XfvE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
i loved it - it was weird, but knowing pt andersons work what did you expect? i thought it was a classic story - someone mentioned citizen kane, which is a good comparison. and this is the first 2.5 hour movie that kept me in my seat the whole time - despite drinking 2 beers during the flick. the soundtrack was cool too - didnt really fit w/ the music or setting, but i liked it. as far as texans not loving it, i saw it in austin at the new alamo drafthouse downtown (which is fab-u-lus) and i didnt hear one bad comment about it on the way out.
My viewpoint remains that as a movie, it doesn't stand up to No Country For Old Men, but it is a tremendous achievement in acting and direction. The cinematography is outstanding. I thought Paul Thomas Anderson might have done enough to get himself a Best Director Oscar, but judging by the award ceremonies so far, it appears the Coen Bros will take the honor, which I believe is fully deserved.
