Not signed in (Sign In)

Blogs: Movie Review: There Will Be Blood

Bottom of Page

1 to 6 of 6

  1.  
  1.  (1150.1)
    (March 15th, 2008 edit: my opinion changed drastically about the film. I wrote a new post that corrects several points of this review here.)

    "Sigh". I lost count of how many times I said that as I stared at the screen, a headache starting to pound my brain. This is a movie I'll never understand why it was so critically acclaimed, and I'm fucking serious. You might say I went to see this movie with very high expectations. Wrong. I went to see "No Country for Old Men" and "Sweeney Todd" with way higher expectations. You'll notice I loved them both.

    The movie's about the life of fictional character Daniel Plainview, a monster who pretends he's sincere and nice so he can drill on other people's lands. He even uses his adopted son, cute little HW Plainview, as a way of gaining the sympathy of his customers.

    That could be a great story. But director Paul Thomas Anderson can't seem to find the balance between humor and drama. Clearly self-indulgent, Anderson insists in incredibly long shots. If a character's walking across the desert, it'll take thirty seconds until Anderson cuts to... another angle of the character walking across the fucking desert. Most of the movie's made out of long, silent shots where nothing happens or dull dialogue scenes. There's two or three good scenes, but they're good just because they contrast with the tedious rest of the movie: the gas explosion scene, the scene at the church (hilarious) and the ending.

    When the humor does show up in the movie, it feels heterogeneous, out of place, because it's been preceded by many scenes with no humor at all. Instead of keeping the whole movie in a careful balance of humor and drama (as the Coens brilliantly did in "No Country for Old Men"), "There Will be Blood" has some far between funny scenes that are not enough to make me regain my interest.

    Anderson's script has one or other memorable dialogue ("I drink your milkshake. I drink it up."), but it's mostly made out of dull, by-the-numbers dialogue. Anderson's direction is even worse: I lost count of how many times the camera slowly zooms in the face of a character as he speaks. The cinematography received lots of compliments, but not from me. The shadows of "Sweeney Todd" are far superior. "There Will be Blood" has no interesting visual logic (like Sweeney Todd had, going from monochromatic to hot colors) and the shadows constantly hide a character's face, making it hard to see their expression. "Oh, it's because we wanted to portray Plainview's dark nature". Oh really? How fucking subtle and original.

    Of course, Daniel Day-Lewis is fantastic. He's the one who keeps this movie bearable. If it wasn't for him, this movie would simply suck, but Lewis saves it with his amazing work. Also, I have to mention Paul Dano, who does a great job too. But as good as Lewis' work is, Johnny Depp and Javier Bardem were in better movies, playing more memorable characters and doing it brilliantly. (For some reason, Javier Bardem wasn't considered the leading actor in "No Country for Old Men",which he fucking IS). This academy award belongs to Depp.

    After one hour of "There Will be Blood", I found myself wishing the movie would end, and every time it seemed it would, a new scene popped up and my headache pounded harder. It gets better at the ending, but this movie failed to capture me emotionally and intelectually. In the end, I felt like I wasted a night at the movies.
    •  
      CommentAuthortedcroland
    • CommentTimeFeb 24th 2008
     (1150.2)
    I wouldn't let Warren see this. Arse eels a plenty may be in your future.

    While I do disagree with your assessment, I understand that this film is far from the "for everyone" category.

    I do have to stress that Lewis deserves the Oscar. Even if you enjoyed Sweeney better and have fondness for the character that Depp was portraying, all you have to do to see character in Lewis' work is look into his eyes. The man's expression throws his far above Depp (whom I love, don't get me wrong, and I thought he was fantastic as Sweeney). Upon hearing him speak, at least I and others I know were imbued with his character and the immense power the man brings to the role.

    Whether or not the film was better (which it was, IMO) Lewis' work was superior to Depp's, and therefore deserves the Oscar.
    • CommentAuthorSteerpike
    • CommentTimeFeb 25th 2008
     (1150.3)
    Plainview isn't just a monster - he's obviously devastated as he cries out "I abandoned my boy," for one example. I took it as the competitive nature of the oil industry requiring a certain monstrousness to succeed. The Standard Oil guy might put on a nicer front, is all. Definitely agree that No Country for Old Men was superior in terms of cinematography, though, and I think a more interesting movie.

    Bardem isn't considered the leading actor because the sheriff was the focus, with Moss and Chigurh providing the moral crisis. Bardem gives a hell of a performance, granted, but he's a void, a cipher, a symptom. As for use of humor, I despised what was done to Carla Jean's character and her mother could and should have been left out entirely. I felt the Coen Brothers had a rep for quirky they felt they had to maintain, even when it wasn't appropriate to the movie.

    Didn't see Sweeney Todd, so can't comment on that.
  4.  (1150.4)
    The Sheriff isn't the leading actor, he's more of the voice of reason. The movie has a theme: violence and evil. Who represents that? Bardem's character. Leading actor? Bardem.
    •  
      CommentAuthortedcroland
    • CommentTimeFeb 25th 2008
     (1150.5)
    The Sheriff isn't the leading actor, he's more of the voice of reason. The movie has a theme: violence and evil. Who represents that? Bardem's character. Leading actor? Bardem.


    Technically, the theme is the struggle against evil in an ever-increasing environment of said evil. Bardem represents the theme, but Jones is the one viewing it and telling you about the evil--how it operates, why it exists, etc. Bardem is the antagonist to Lee as much as he is to Brolin. It's sort of like saying the lava is the main character in Volcano (to reference another Tommy Lee Jones film).
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2008
     (1150.6)
    I thought Brolin's character was the lead, and Bardem and Jones were more supportive roles. Story wise. Ted certainly nailed the theme, I just think in terms of screen-time, the plot is developed more by Brolin, and he's the guy you're rooting for. It's Moss vs. Chigurh, whereas Sheriff Bell's battle is internalized. He's trying to figure out how to work toward good in a world where these two guys are exhibiting such evil. Moss included in the 'evil' category.

1 to 6 of 6

  1.