Sorry Trix

Paul Dano essentially played Daniel Plainview.

Except, he worked with religion, DDL worked with oil

If you can see past the outer appearance, they were one in the same.

I disagree.

I think Paul Dano's character somewhat aspired to be as obsessive/single minded about his church/religion as Plainview was about oil, but he fell from that path.

There's no way he's as single minded and ruthless as Plainview. Plainview always wins. That's the point.

Well of course Plainview always wins.

I didn't say Dano was as good as being Plainview as Plainview was. I just said the character was essentially the same.

Dano was just a weaker version.

Maybe. And this is all well and good. But if you wanted to put in a major character to contrast with Plainview, like the preacher, you owe that character a little more than what Dano got to play with.

Essentially what we're handed is this immensely complex character in Plainview, and everyone else around him falls into stereotypical holes (the preacher goes to the big city, builds a big church, and goes all 80s evanglist on us) and on top of it, it's really poorly handled structurally.

At least in my opinion.

Plainviews character to me was logical. I mean everyone of his actions made perfect sense in relation to his character, plus he felt like a real human being. I could look at Plainview and understand everything he did.

Dano however............................the character to me was like a poor joke. I think I'd disagree with Roo about him aspiring to be as single minded as Plainview, he was just a control freak wrapped up in religious reasoning. Plainview was the embodiment of humanity on all the levels we care not to dwell on, especially when we see them in ourselves.

This I totally agree with actually.

The reason why I think he aspired to be Plainview is that Plainview comes across as a bit magical. Plainview is an extremely pure character in he's so dastardly and in-control that he became an ultimate leader. I think Eli Sunday (I looked it up!) wanted that because he saw himself as the leader of his community and even the leader of his immediate family (like when he kicked his father's ass).

Of course... I keep coming back to it... all of this wouldn't be guesswork and impression if we had gotten a deeper glimpse at the character in the film...

What about PAUL SUNDAY?!?

I can understand why PTA decided not to develop him to much. I mean you just slapped me and Squee around in the chat about Plainview and I'll give you those points

Otherwise Plainview for me is the classic example of a man who's ultimate reward is the one he is working on in terms of trying to grab the erroneous one. The constant battle and search is his goal but he never notices it. As a viewer you do notice it, like the scene where the well is burning and he looks at it in awe.

You did say alot of characters in cinema like Kane or Gecko are like that but for me Plainview is the most raw, the man who doesn't even grab enjoyment from any of his rewards.

Yes but Kane and Gecko aren't ultimate evil. Kane semi realizes it at the end.

Plainview is the embodiment of selfish Biblical *evil*. And he follows it into hell. There is no self-delusion.

Hmmm maybe I like this movie more than I have been giving it credit for.

Maybe I'll give it an A- or B+ rather than a B.

Damnit!!

*Note to self, don't get Roo to like flawed movies more*

Great success!

I still think it's extremely flawed!

I'm more or less in the same camp as you two. There's a LOT to appreciate here, but...it just never caught me personally like a great movie should. 2001 did, I'm Not There did, The New World did...this didn't.

I'll need to watch it again.

I still think YOU'RE extremely flawed. Or something.

On topic, I didn't really mind/notice the lack of development for Eli because I was so immersed in Plainview's story. This isn't a film concerned with giving both sides of the religion/capitalism battle equal weight. Capitalism rules all; it uses religion as nothing more than a stepping stool on the way to the top. And then it kills it with a bowling pin.

I AM THE THIRD REVELATION!!!

I actually didn't think it was anti-capitalist in any major way myself. Plianview was driven by a singular motive to drill for oil and that was it. The nadir of capitalism to those that oppose it is those that are driven by wealth and possessions. Plainview was driven by neither in the end, only by competition and the next find, the next strike. And when that was taken from him you had that shell of a men you saw in the last 15 minutes.

This movie is about Daniel Plainview. The end. To ask what are ultimately side characters to be as drawn out as the center of the story is ridiculous. It'd be like getting upset because Jedediah Leland or Walter Thatcher aren't as fully realized as Charles Kane.

There Will Be Blood isn't about religion vs. capitalism. It's about America, and those are its corner stones. It's not so much that they are battling each other, but that they are both being improperly used for the same reason - to dominate. It's certainly an attack on these two foundations (or at least the harm they can do in the wrong hands), but to say that is ultimately what the movie is sells it a bit short.

Chip is right ( ) in the sense that Eli Sunday and Plainview are essentially the same person, at least as far as their desires are concerned. They are both egomaniacs that brandish something to control people. We are told this not only overtly throughout the film, but also subtly through visual bookends. This doesn't mean that they need to be equal characters, though. It shouldn't be gleaned that Sunday and Plainview are some how a match for each other and should therefore have equal character development and characters arcs. They aren't, and they don't. Plainview dominates Sunday throughout the movie. He dominates him in a filmic sense and in a story sense. The fact that Sunday is "shortchanged" as an overly-simple zealot caricature is actually kind of brilliant when viewed in this context. He isn't half the character Plainview is, literally and figuratively.

Blood is a masterful character study of a person consumed, and it is one of the greatest aesthetic achievements I've ever seen. I think to dismiss it as a failed allegory because a supporting character is maybe poorly written (again, this is debatable) is a bit of a bamboozle.

Much like the oil in Little Boston, this movie has so much bubbling under the surface that it's hard to keep it straight. I would never disagree with someone that called There Will Be Blood structurally and tonally sloppy. But I would disagree with that person if they said it wasn't a key ingredient in its brilliance.

But Makeshift, Plainview doesn't want to dominate anybody in my view, and if he does its only a by product of his drive for oil, his drive for purpose. Plainview has zero interest in his fellow man while Sunday is obsessed with it.

I found Plainview completely normal, I'm serious..........................does this make me a loon

Plainview wants to dominate because he hates everything and everyone around him. He wants to dominate because it will ultimately lead him to his greatest desire - the ability to turn off the rest of the world. I would say Plainview is deeply interested in his fellow man, but for all the wrong reasons.

I might go with Plainview hating his fellow man but for the interlude with his "brother". I mean you could make a cause for him just finding the guy out on the beach with his musing's and questions but for me it was his attempt to grab somebody to take along with him on his journey since he tried to cast aside his son.

Its only when Plainview doesn't get the answers he wants and stays sober in the aftermath that he becomes the person you describe.

Oh, I have little doubt that Plainview has a desperate need to have someone in his life. Notice how he replaces H.W. with his "brother", and then vice-versa. This is what makes him such a fascinating character. He's a bundle of contradiction, self-destruction, and inner suppression. His need for a companion does not supersede his hatred. At the first sign of weakness (whether in the physical sense or their commitment to him), he cuts them out.

Well I can understand far better our differing views on the film Makeshift, and you know in a way i think we are both right and thats why I gotta love cinema......................and no im not delving into relativism

A-


Let me just start off saying that the movie probbaly deserves a higher grade than this. It's a movie with few flaws, very few actually. I'd also go as far as saying that P.T. Anderson delivered the best directional job of 2007 with this. The way he created the whole thing - the characters, the setting, the set-up - is pretty ingenious.

However, I've also gotta agree with those saying that it is probably one of the most American films ever made. The plot concerns the very pillas USA was built on - capitalism and religion - and attacks them both ruthlessly and furiously. Not being American, though, makes it a bit harder to connect to the whole ting and fully grasp it. That's what I believe anyway. I really There Will Be Blood as a technically and story-wise well-made movie, but for most of the time I just disconnected with it and didn't feel involved or engaged in the happenings. I think its intentions of contasting organized religion and greedy capitalists were good, but the execution maybe faltered at times. There were long stretches that should have been more exciting than they actually ended up being to me. The whole introduction and later killing of Plainview's "brother" left me cold whereas it shouldn't have. It was a well-done transition of Plainview's character from being an eccentric sociopath, to a ravaging psychotic he ends up being at the end.

Speaking of Plainview...Daniel Day-Lewis without a single shadow of doubt delivers the single best performance of 2007. His Plainview is such a multi-facetted, layered, contradicting and simply complex character that it's incredible how Daniel Day-Lewis could live up to all these aspects of the multi-layed screenplay. The scenes with his young son show his affection and love for him. The scenes with his adult son show us an entirely different Plainview, but still one that you always knew existed somewhere deep in him, even earlier in the movie. Paul Dano delivers a solid performance as well, but sadly, he is completely demolished by Daniel Day-Lewis' dominating, all-crushing turn.

The final scene in the bowling alley...wow. I don't think I can really say anything about it that hasn't been said here. This part of the film is pure A+ in my books. This, ladies and gentlemen, is cinematic perfection and also nihilism to the highest degree. Suffice to say that I rewatched this scene at YouTube at home for about 20 times after having seen the movie.

I must say, though that Plainview's descent into madness and alcoholism was portrayed in a too scattered way throughout the film sadly, without a steady pattern. The shifts in time were a bit annoying. Also, a complaint of mine would be that despite about 30 years passing between the beginning and the end of the movie, Plainview has barely aged on-screen. Couldn't they afford some solid make-up or what? Same, but to a smaller degree, goes for Paul Dano who still looked the same as 15 years earlier. Really, in a movie that is as technically perfect as this, they could and should have done that much better.

Speaking of the techs, the movie's technical aspects were astounding. The camera work was great, but never flashy. The editing and art direction very well-done. The movie's haunting, creppy and often very bizarre and unsettling score is definitely the best and most memorable of any 2007 film and that says a lot considering my love for Atonement's score. There Will Be Blood's music, though, is from a completely different universe.

To sum it up, I really enjoyed the film's cinematic achievements with its strong screenplay, its historical leading performance and its wonderful direction, but sadly, many parts of the film left me cold. That and other minor gripes which I named above hindered me from giving it a better grade. I must emphasize though that the final 10 minutes or so are simply outworldly great. I wish the whole film had been a bit longer and more elaborative, but it was still better than most of the fare that came out last year.