Spoilerific...so don't read if you haven't seen it.

Super-Summarized-Analysis:
This isn't an epic battle between capitalism and faith as you've probably been lead to believe. In fact, religion has very little to do with it. Eli, the founder of his own church, uses his religion only as a mechanism to compete. Ultimately, however, he is taken down by the hurricane that is Daniel (both Plainview and Day-Lewis). The film is Man versus Man, or rather, Men. Daniel versus Eli. Daniel versus his Son. Daniel's self-obsession versus Daniel's parental instincts. He constantly looks for someone to share in his domain with, but ultimately, no one can compare to prophet that he is in his mind, no one is worthy.

Ehh....that was a bit vague. Maybe I'll explain some applications of it later on.


Anyways, Review:
I think it just falls short of being a masterpiece, and really only for one reason: the story is just too simple. Because of its simplicity, the characters become somewhat static. Well, I guess Plainview is meant to be static, that's sort of the point, but the plot never successfully brings him down, as it attempts to do twice (very beginning and very end). His struggles don't last, and this makes his epic drive less gritty and believable.
Otherwise, excellent. Disturbing, astonishing, hilarious and memorable.

A #3 of 2007 (could move up or down)

As for what Oscars I think it deserves:
Best Picture-Nomination
Best Director-Nomination
Best Actor-DDL- Win (best performance I've seen since....ummm....probably since DDL in My Left Foot almost 20 years ago)
Best Supporting Actor- Paul Dano - Nomination
Best Score- Win....that's right, I thought Atonement's was better.
Edit: After seeing Atonement again...I think TWBB's was better.
Best Cinematography- Nomination/Possible Win (we've had some great cinematography this year. Diving Bell was just as impressive, and Atonement's was beautiful, although that might have been more due to the fabulous art direction)
and some technicals.

This film really is the supreme achievement of the year, if not the decade. It features some of the best ensemble acting I've ever seen - led by easily the best performance of the decade from Daniel Day-Lewis - and all of its technicalities are absolutely phenomenal: dozens of long, fabulously filmed camera shots, an extraordinary score from Jonny Greenwood [it's not anything like a John Williams work, I can tell you that much], and a fantastic understanding of film from Paul Thomas Anderson. I really think this can be called the "Citizen Kane" of our time. It's a film about two things: a man's greed and desire for success and money as well as how it ultimately morphs him into a terrible person...and it's also about America during one of its turning points in history. Both of these stories come around full circle perfectly, as portrayed by the final scene of the film, and everything leading up to there is just as fantastic in my opinion. From the twenty minute dialogue-less opening to the portrayal of America around 1900 to its surprisingly sharp sense of humor to the absolutely heart-pounding scene involving the oil rig catching on fire to the relationships of the numerous characters of the film to the descent into madness of Daniel Plainview, this film succeeds on every single level in my opinion, and I have much confidence in saying that this will someday be regarded as a truly classic piece of cinema.

A+

This is my #1 of 2007 without a doubt, which says a lot considering I've seen "Ratatouille"

Wow...I totally didn't realize the dialogue-free intro was 20 minutes. Didn't feel nearly that long. Actually, the movie felt quick in general. A lot of people are making comparisons to The Godfather: the both share nearly the same 3 hour running time, but in The Godfather, you feel every second of those 3-hours...it's not a quick ride at all. I don't know whether that's good for TWBB's chances as being regarded as a classic.
That sort of coincides with my reivew. It might be too consistently frantic...never slowing down, to become a classic.

Well I sorta guessed it was twenty minutes. Maybe it was only like fifteen minutes. The whole opening moved so slowly, though, so I don't see how you could feel like it was that frantic. The only fast-moving part involved the oil rig that ultimately caught on fire, but the individual scenes in that segment of the film were very long and drawn-out and I loved them for that.

Hmm...maybe frantic isn't the correct description. I basically mean that there is never an extended period of an up or down shown for Daniel. It's constantly wavering. While that made it less boring to watch, it detracted from the emotional impact.

This now surpasses Juno as my number one movie to see.

Really good, but biased I thought.

8.0/10

A

That is what I am worried about, being biased

I feel ya, Loyal, oh how I feel ya.

January 18, January 18...

biased in what way?

I was gonna say. Biased? Were you having an argument with the movie?

My question to people who've seen it is: Was DDL imitating Noah Cross's voice (Chinatown) as distracting as it seems like it would be?

DDL's voice wasn't distracting. In fact, the voice you hear in the trailer is much unlike the one you hear for much of the movie. He has a calm voice the majority of the time, and it's only when he's doing business - and of course at the end - when that changes. Regardless, I've never seen such a jaw-droppingly intense performance...ever...it's like Hannibal Lecter except twice as easy to relate to [hating people is much easier to relate to than eating them, at least in my opinion...] and a third as charming.

You know which scene was pretty brilliant and I can't get out of my head?


So...I sort of want to move this higher into my top 5 (it's at 5 right now). I'm not sure what to move down though. I'm buying into this possibly being considered an American mastrpiece years from now, though. Even though the year overall wasn't that strong IMO, my top 5 is one of the strongest ever. (Diving Bell, No Country, Lives of Others, Savages, There Will Be Blood). All but The Savages have a great chance at being long remembered (with The Savages, it's more of a genre issue though).

you're right, that scene was fantastic...i hadn't thought about its significance, but it certainly had a lot. This movie probably had many more metaphors and such than one would notice upon initial viewing.

Yes, biased. It makes the atheistic capitalist completely unsympathetic. A murderer driven by greed. The 'prophet' is treated nearly as badly; made out to be a power-hungry hypocritical fool. The way both are made out to think, feel, and act is based on a limited viewpoint. There tends to be far more to people like them.

This is no coincidence.

I ranked it #2 of the year there. It's well made, and yes, creates its metaphors effectively. But it treats its ideas and characters poorly, is narrow-minded, and lacks realistic complexity or duality. Intellectually I'd give it a D or an F. That would make it like most movies, and wouldn't bother me much, but a movie like this takes itself very seriously.

I like it less as I think of it. 7.5/10 as of now.

if it makes both the super-god-loving and the no-god-for-me guys terrible people, in which way is it biased? The Great Debaters, where all black people are fantastic lawyers and all white people are racist hicks...now that's biased.

anyways, this film is a brilliant character study, regardless of his outside beliefs...i haven't seen better filmmaking in years.

Making both your enemies out to be terrible people does not make you better. It does not make you unbiased, if anything it makes you more biased.

I think the movie is great in many ways. It's terrible with its characters though.

I think this is one of those that's worth paying/waiting to see on the big screen.

wait, is Paul Thomas Anderson Jewish?

Every so often, a film comes along that truly surprises you in every sense of the word. Instead of conforming to expectations, it manages to soar past them and provide an unforgettable moviegoing experience. These are the movies that are equally compelling and thought-provoking - ones that are hard to shake long after the final frame has occupied the screen. Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood is one of these rare projects. Initially a film I saw more out of obligation than anything else, it is the year's biggest surprise - an unforgettable masterpiece that is destined to become a classic.

Set over a span of several years during the beginning of the twentieth century, There Will Be Blood tells the story of one man's quest for power under any circumstances. Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) quickly rises in prosperity, from the lowly ranks of silver mining to one of the most respected oil tycoons in the country. He runs his business along with his young son H.W, who travels with him as he continues to purchase promising land. After a tip from a mysterious individuial, Daniel and H.W. travel to the dusty, run-down town of Little Boston - where religion is king and hope has run dry. Determined to revitalize the landscape and get his hands on the oil that lies beneath the surface, Daniel quickly transforms the town into his own personal empire - where very few see fit to question him. The only individual that proves problematic is young preacher Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), who does not approve of Daniel's athiest beliefs. As his venture becomes more and more successful, Daniel is soon overcome with greed. He is now one of the most prosperous individuals in the oil business - and will do anything to keep it that way.

Although the film boasts a talented ensemble, the performance that will rightfully be remembered is Daniel Day-Lewis's unforgettable turn. Easily the best male performance of the year, Day-Lewis is a revelation here, touching on so many emotions that his character is always unpredictable. He can immediately turn from charming to terrifying, and there's a raw intensity present in every scene that is truly a wonder to behold. Day-Lewis's Daniel is an individual who doesn't trust anyone - and ironically this makes him the character the audience questions the most throughout the film. The actor also makes the character's slow descent into madness and corruption entirely believable and compelling to watch. His performance is a virtual lock for a Best Actor Oscar when the trophies are handed out this February.

The supporting performances are also quite good. Paul Dano is great in an understated performance as Eli, another character who does not make his true intentions known to the audience. Determined to prove his worth in society, Eli is a character that wants to be feared and respected - but in reality is just a scared, attention-seeking child. Dano really makes his character feel authentic and somewhat loathsome as well. Memorable turns from youngster Dillon Freasier and Kevin J. O'Connor also deserve mention.

The direction from Paul Thomas Anderson, previously known for more intimate fare, is phenomenal. There is a lot being said here about the false environments provided by both businesses and religion, and Anderson manages to show how both of these can easily corrupt previously innocent minds. He does not rely on cheap editing tactics to provide the audience with thrills or a compelling storyline. Long tracking shots are used throughout to magnificent effect, and the film's more intense sequences (namely the explosion of an oil well and the final scene) feel incredibly realistic and haunting. The many close-up shots of Daniel Day-Lewis also allow the audience to try and identify what is running through the character's head - seeming as if Anderson wanted to suggest that the character's nature is unpredictable. The production design is also noteworthy as it successfully paints a portrait of a rundown, deserted American plantation.

Another thing that makes the film work so well is the brilliant musical score by Jonny Greenwood. This is not an average composition. Every piece of music is critical to the scenes unfolding onscreen, and it always manages to add to a scene's intensity or effectiveness. The piece that is used during the oil well explosion should guarantee Greenwood award consideration this upcoming season. It contributes to making that particular movie moment all the more unforgettable - and does exactly what all film scores should do - aid the filmmaker in telling the story.

I should have expected more from There Will Be Blood. Despite the positive pre-release buzz, I just couldn't jump on the bandwagon - it didn't seem like something that was truly amazing. Even the fact that it was being compared to Citizen Kane (another brilliant piece of filmmaking) couldn't sway my opinion. Well I was wrong. This is an unforgettable film - tragic, terrifying, haunting, darkly humorous and incredibly compelling. Daniel Day-Lewis's flawless performance is one of the best so far this decade. He will keep your eyes glued to the screen from the opening title card to the undeniably strange, disturbing finale. Do not miss P.T. Anderson's latest masterpiece, one of the year's very best films.

A+

I have no idea.

You should have known that was not what I meant. The movie was told from the perspective of someone with a more liberal religious perspective, either against organized religion, or belonging to a liberal branch.

am i the only one not interested in this movie in any way?

HOLY SHIT.

I can't stop gushing about this movie. It is now roughly 2h30m after.

With this movie, Paul Thomas Anderson has set a new bar for - not only himself, but cinema in general. "There Will Be Blood" is a roller coaster of a ride; by the final bang (literally - a bang!), one thing is clear - Paul "The REAL MAN" Anderson's roar has been hear: "Scorsese, Scott, and Spielberg - THIS is how you make a fucking movie."

This is not the impeccably neat production "Atonement" was. There are some scenes that need serious cutting, there's a share of shoddy acting, and there's even an entire section of the film that is super underdeveloped (the part where Plainview abandons his son). But, all that said, this is character study at its best. For every thing that doesn't work, there are about 17,893 things that do work, things that excite me to experience this movie again...and again...and again. There are always special moments wrapped in films that remind us why we love this art so dearly; what distinguishes "There Will Be Blood" from the rest is that 90% of the film, not just one mere line or scene, evokes these emotions. How can you not be intrigued by this movie's production? In Daniel Day-Lewis' performance? In Jonny Greenwood's brilliantly erratic, string-oriented score? In the cinematography? In the ending scene? In the themes of greed, hunger, religion, and everything else in this movie? Also, for a simple "rise-and-fall" character study - and one so bold and in-your-face as "There Will Be Blood," there are many subtleties that beg to be explored in repeat viewings (but maybe I'm not so clear about everything because I don't want to believe that Anderson is adopting Sinclair's anti-capitalist school-of-thought, so, I figure, there's gotta be something hidden here...). Think about the scene in Eli's church, where Plainview calls Eli's sermon a "show." Is Paul Anderson so "dark" an individual as to dismiss both devotion to Christ (Eli - up until this point we don't know that he's a fraud) AND opposition to Christ (Plainview)? Or is he suggesting something else here? If you have a full grasp of Anderson's intent with this scene, holla...please.

Regardless of this movie's implications, Anderson's latest is fresh air for cinema. I'm so glad I got to see this before I could let you guys over-hype me for it, and leave me disappointed. Even if you find the first two hours boring (which you shouldn't, because this, my friends, is real "art"), stay for the climax, because it is easily fifteen minutes of film at its best.