There Will Be Blood Review
Posted by Chad Webb on 12.28.2007
Paul Thomas Anderson returns with his first film in five years. Is it one of the year's best?
Daniel Day-Lewis: Daniel Plainview
Paul Dano: Paul Sunday
Dillon Freasier: H. W. Plainview
Ciaran Hinds: Fletcher Hamilton
Kevin J. O'Connor: Henry Brands
Sydney McCallister: Mary Sunday
David Willis: Abel Sunday
Hans Howes: William Bandy
Written/Directed By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Release date: December 26, 2007
Running Time: 158 minutes
Rated R for some violence.
It's amazing that the newest film from Writer and Director Paul Thomas Anderson has lived up to so much hype. Five years is the length of time that has elapsed since his last offering. The exhilarating trailer for There Will Be Blood has been out for months, and buzz for awards began early on, yet the month of December has arrived, and along with it, a new American masterpiece. This is a powerfully hypnotizing epic, one of vicious grandeur and vivid eccentricities.
The story begins in 1898 where prospector Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is mining on his property for gold. He locates what he wants, and then some. Years later in 1902, Daniel is now intent on drilling for oil, and he has a group of workers at his side helping out. One day, a worker suffers a fatal accident, and Daniel is left to raise the orphaned son, whom he names H.W. Flash forward to 1911 and Daniel has become a well-known oilman that makes $5,000 a week, and who travels the country with his son (Dillon Freasier) in hopes of expanding his business. He receives a tip that a town called Little Boston has oil waiting to be found and dug. When he arrives, a young preacher named Eli (Paul Dano) wants Daniel to pay $10,000 to the local church before anyone signs a contract. A deal is made, but Daniel does not keep his end of the bargain. The well turns out to be loaded, but Daniel's life forever changes when an accident suddenly befalls H.W.
The performance of Daniel Day-Lewis is actually being compared to Orson Welles in Citizen Kane, and that is not from a quote whore, but a respectable critic. Of course that is an arguable point, but what is important about the statement is that this surpasses every other display of acting in 2007...by far. In a year where the deck seemed to be stacked with legendary stars like Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, and Tommy Lee Jones, Daniel Day-Lewis has delivered an eye-opening, mind-blowing miracle of a performance. As Daniel Plainview, Day-Lewis ascends to wealthy greatness with his faithful son, and then descends into insanity as a horrifically complex and evil person. His expressions are unwavering, his speech intense, and his mannerisms are irreplaceable. Daniel Plainview is an individual obsessed with greed, and literally has no soul.
It has been two years since Daniel Day-Lewis last graced the screen in The Ballad of Jack and Rose. He is known for his in depth and exhaustive preparation for roles. He has always been some sort of an enigma, but when is on, there is no stopping him. Some might arrogantly say that Daniel Plainview recalls his depiction of Bill "The Butcher" Cutting in Gangs of New York. Besides the mustache, the two are definitely not nearly as similar as the surface hints. Daniel Plainview is ten times more bizarre, and equally moreso infatuated with greed and the domination of others. Plus, viewers can observe an all-encompassing glance of Plainview, his beginnings, his temper, his loneliness, and his misanthropic tendencies. He has a subtle charm, but nothing better exposes his conscience than a conversation in the middle of the film. "There's a competition in me...I hate most people...I see the worst in people."
How astounding that Klitz in The Girl Next Door has evolved from teen comedies, and then advanced to Dwayne Hoover in Little Miss Sunshine. Now, Paul Dano has shown just how broad his range is as Eli Sunday, the charismatic and overly passionate preacher of the Holy Roller church. His crafty rise almost matches that of Plainview after the Sunday Ranch and all but one of the surrounding properties are purchased. The gaze in Dano's eyes as he asks Daniel Plainview to make a blessing on the newly built oil site before drilling is unbelievable. He is immersed in the part. This innocent-faced evangelist has a calm demeanor, but a sly undercurrent when exchanging with Plainview. Their escalating feud is exquisitely vehement.
There Will Be Blood is ostensibly based on Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil!, but Paul Thomas Anderson's goal was not to copy the source material. He uses it as a jumping-off point to shape his own searing version of capitalism. Thankfully, the title was changed, and furthermore, I am pleased that Anderson was not aiming to unearth some profound political motive for his message. The theme of oil can be misleading, but do not venture to see this in hopes of watching a polemic. The proceedings do not even have to revolve around oil. It could be any occupation. This is about power. Comparisons to George Stevens's Giant are inevitable I suppose, but hardly necessary. Both include oil, but Giant focused heavily on family traditions, melodrama, and following in parents' footsteps, whereas There Will Be Blood takes another distinct path. Anderson's brilliance pays homage to The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and possibly Aguirre: The Wrath of God as opposed to Giant.
Of all the films on Anderson's resume, this is so far the best. Boogie Nights dealt with pornographic films and therefore failed to reach all audiences, Magnolia was incredibly misunderstood due to the raining frogs ending, and Punch Drunk Love was met with scratching heads. All are brilliant films, but none rival the majestic energy of There Will Be Blood. Anderson's genius is unparalleled here. Every single frame is deliberately paced, constructed, and balanced with the utmost care and precision. He has a natural gift exceeding anyone's calculations. This is also a departure for the acclaimed filmmaker. He has never tackled a period piece drama, nonetheless one that is more conventional than anything he has done before.
The tale that spans three decades is dispersed across a vast canvas, and partially shot in Marfa, Texas. Robert Elswit's stunningly arresting cinematography, which captures shattering images from a dark room slightly lit by fire to the barren rocky terrain of Little Boston, is divine. His dedication to augmenting the atmosphere is evident and overwhelming. And combined with the immense and terrifyingly realistic set design of Jack Fisk, countless revelatory moments are born. Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood's score is surreal. It acts as another character in the plot. His eerie music emerges and swells in such peculiar spots, yet excavates the spirit of what is happening. From the blaring siren that commences the substance to the pulse-pounding drums leading to a climax, this is phenomenal.
Similar to The Departed and United 93 of 2006, There Will Be Blood marked an unforgettable movie experience. This was my most anticipated film of the month. When I searched the amount of theaters housing it, and found one in New York City, I became worried, but knew I had to pre-order tickets. That turned out be a wise decision as the showing I attended was sold out. The feeling in the room was electric, and once the feature began, everyone was silent. The ending induced immediate applause, not the kind that happens gradually at the wrong type of movie, but the joyous clapping that only occurs on rare occasions. The reactions from the group I was with were mixed, but then again, it was for 2001: A Space Odyssey as well. When I questioned some friends on their thoughts, they replied "I'm not sure." There Will Be Blood takes a moment, maybe longer, to fully process, but what they did know was that it was more than just a movie. It is a classic.
The 411: There Will Be Blood is currently only playing in New York and Los Angeles, but it goes wider early in January. Do whatever you have to, but see this in the theater. It will be worth the wait and the money. Filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson is proving to be one of the greatest new directors of his generation. Daniel Day-Lewis hands in a tour de force performance, as do Paul Dano, Ciaran Hinds, and other supporting cast members. The cast and crew really outdid themselves here, and this is quite possibly the best film I have seen this whole year.
I'm so sad this didn't open in Chicago cause I would have seen it. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing this film though because I think it'll be one of the best of 2007.
Posted By: Jerome Cusson (Registered) on December 28, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Wait? this ISNT a Prequel to Saw?
Posted By: natedoggcata (Guest) on December 28, 2007 at 09:57 PM
HORRIBLE! HORRIBLE! HORRIBLE! So sorry I saw this thing called entertainment. Only gruesome and very disjointed.
Posted By: Jan (Guest) on February 13, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I must disagree with this review. There Will Be Blood is another lazy Hollywood bandwagon movie. It follows the latest trend of make 3/4 of a movie and just quitting. Definitely not worth watching! I give this movie a 3 out of 10. Also.. the soundtrack doesn't even match the movie. There are suspense sounds at the dumbest times when nothing is happening.
Posted By: Dustin (Guest) on May 01, 2008 at 03:05 AM
I also disagree with this review. The movie was torture to sit through, and the music was confusing at best. If this is "art" and "entertainment" then i officially give up on trying to enjoy myself. Why can't art be something fun? Better yet, why can't it be a movie that at least makes sense? Also, after i watched the movie, I read the back of the dvd case, and discovered the plot was Plainview's fight against the preacher... as far as i knew from watching it, that was just a minor part of the movie. Is there anyone else this confused and dissappointed by this movie?
Posted By: guest (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 05:32 PM
I also disagree with this review. The movie was torture to sit through, and the
music was confusing at best. If this is "art" and
"entertainment" then i officially give up on trying to enjoy myself.
Why can't art be something fun? Better yet, why can't it be a movie that at
least makes sense? Also, after i watched the movie, I read the back of the dvd
case, and discovered the plot was Plainview's fight against the preacher... as
far as i knew from watching it, that was just a minor part of the movie. Is
there anyone else this confused and dissappointed by this movie?
I completly agree with you. This movie was a waste of time, we do not see the sons agretion toward his father, nor do we know why he doesnt kill that man that told him how to run his family. I give this movie 1/10
Posted By: Guest#4706 (Guest) on May 21, 2008 at 12:14 AM
After all the hype, I found this film to be an abyssmal disappointment. I found confusing lapses in continuity between several scenes, and was left with the sense that the film could have been so much more than it was.
Posted By: Mark Bunds (Guest) on June 30, 2008 at 11:40 AM