Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: There Will Be Blood

This is topic There Will Be Blood in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001367

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-22-2008, 10:30 AM:

Short Synopsis: CITIZEN KANE in the oil business

What was good: Incredible overpowering performance by Daniel Day Lewis. Paul Dano is equally as good as his Christian nemesis, and he should have received Oscar recognition. Musical score is unique and very, very good. Cinematography is also very fine.

What was not good: The film slows down in the middle, with some scenes that could easily have been cut.

Academic rating: B+ Worth seeing, but not the best you will see this year.

Comments: Plainview is one mean old guy!

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 02-01-2008, 02:12 PM:

I had a hard time sitting through this. The story isn't bad, the acting is superb, but man is the film SSSSLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW!
I checked my watch more times then there were reels! An hour could have easily been cut out. There is literally no dialog in the entire first reel of the film.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-01-2008, 03:17 PM:

Paul Thomas Anderson movies are so few and far between that when one comes out, it's a big deal. For that reason, I'm disappointed with THERE WILL BE BLOOD. It's an awesome movie, but it's supposed to be better. I feel like he's abandoned what makes him spectacular in favor of something a bit safer.

You always hear about filmmakers like Spielberg and Coppola, and how their movies get worse as they get older. It seems like we're witnessing the start of that with PTA. And that makes me really sad.

But still, the writing and acting in THERE WILL BE BLOOD are leaps and bounds above anything else that came out in 2007, and the film is certainly one of the year's best.

Posted by Robert W. Jones (Member # 4228) on 02-01-2008, 04:10 PM:

Sounds like something Terrence Malick could have directed (e.g. Days of Heaven).

Posted by Carl James Valentine (Member # 2071) on 02-10-2008, 02:07 AM:

Um, I think they should have titled this movie "There Will Be
Refunds". Almost every patron I've talked to after they saw this didn't like it at all. It brings in the older crowd, but its been the worst performer in the past two weeks.

Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 02-11-2008, 12:33 AM:

That's interesting. It seems to be doing decently here. I guess it really depends on what kinds of crowds you normally get. If you cater more to the younger crowd then it's quite obvious it won't do as well.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 02-11-2008, 06:05 AM:

Starting with an unassuming title card and without fanfare, in an Old English typeface, white on black and silent like the films at the turn of the 19th century in which this story takes place, the title appears: "There Will Be Blood". Cut to a figure beavering away with spartan hand tools and volatile explosives in the darkness of a hand-dug mineshaft, hoisting bucket after bucket of worthless rubble to the surface, in the vain hope of stumbling across a lode of precious metal. Paul Thomas Anderson's long awaited follow up to the excellent and unconventionally sublime Punch Drunk love is a loving ballad to the perilous hardships of early prospecting. The detail is superb and feels so authentic that the audience remains enraptured despite the passing of a good 15 minutes before the first line of dialogue is spoken.

The lonely prospector, who we learn is Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), eventually strikes gold of the black variety and thus begins his oil empire and his subsequent vampirism of the small villages who possess it. One of the inhabitants of such a village is Eli Sunday (Paul Dano with a sensible haircut for a change), an evangelical small town preacher who will lock horns with the atheistic and capitalist Plainview; a power struggle made all the more intriguing for it's apparent triviality.

Anderson's fascinating portrait of the early American oil industry culminates in the splendid mid-film burning derrick sequence. It's a significant event for both Eli and Plainview: for Eli it's an allegory for Plainview's unleashing the fires of hell and for Plainview it's a symbol of his all-consuming ambition. It's a telling moment for Plainview, captivated by the burning structure, displaying little concern for his son seriously injured in the explosion. When asked if his son is okay, he simply and vaguely responds, "No, he isn't." It's a great moment which lays the foundations for the remainder of the film and sets the tone for what is to come........well, at least we'd like to think so but sadly that is not the case.

From the midpoint on, the film appears to come apart at the seams in parallel to Day-lewis' character. Plainview begins the film as a rising oil baron with barely (but tightly) restrained megalomania but following the burning derrick sequence his madness is suddenly and inexplicably released, winding up a caricature of a cartoon villain replete with an uncharacteristic dose of violent psychosis. Astute businessmen (such as Plainview is) simply don't lose their minds at the smallest provocation; after all, if he were really that volatile, he surely would not have achieved his success. This instantaneous degradation of character doesn't make sense and it gives the appearance of a script having great chunks missing. Additionally, the most interesting counterpoints to Plainview, his son and Eli, vanish almost completely from the second half of the film to be replaced by a superfluous subplot involving the mysterious arrival of his brother. The script seems to be following too many plot strands making the film weaker as a whole.

Much praise has been lavished upon Day lewis' performance and it's half worth it. In the beginning his performance is precise, measured and compelling but in the second half of the film his acting becomes hammy and over the top. It's practically vaudeville and we half expect him to start twirling his moustache as he hatches a fiendish plan. Dano, however, is consistently excellent. Who would have thought, that after his roles in Fast Food Nation and Little Miss Sunshine he could have achieved so much given the chance? Obviously Anderson did.

There Will Be Blood (which is a terrible title, by the way) is a Jekyll and Hyde film, starting as an astonishingly accurate portrait of gold rush pioneers and ending as a disappointing comic farce. To be so consumed by a film, only to have it ebb away is a frustrating experience to say the least.

7 out of 10

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-11-2008, 07:43 AM:

I had to smile when he broke (at the beginning) his 'Left Foot'.

[Wink]

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 02-11-2008, 11:03 AM:

My favorate line:

"I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!" SLLLLUUUUURURRRP

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-11-2008, 12:57 PM:

I can't watch this. Surely I am not the only person who thinks Daniel Day-Lewis overacts in every movie he is in. It is highly distracting. The few minutes I saw of this movie were no different.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 02-11-2008, 07:13 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Surely I am not the only person who thinks Daniel Day-Lewis overacts in every movie he is in.

I agree Brad.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 02-11-2008, 09:54 PM:

I'm not much of a Day-Lewis aficionado personally. The only other film I've seen him in is the mediocre Gangs Of New York and I don't remember much about him in that. I think the first half of Blood shows that he is capable of greatness but in the second half it looks like he's taking the piss.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-12-2008, 12:17 AM:

How can anyone be an aficionado of someone having sampled only two out of a couple dozen examples of a man's work?

Suggestion: Watch "My Left Foot" (1989) or "In The Name Of The Father" (1993) and then reevaluate your opinion.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 02-12-2008, 12:28 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
How can anyone be an aficionado of someone having sampled only two out of a couple dozen examples of a man's work?

You can't, that's my point.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-12-2008, 01:17 AM:

No, you're repeating my point.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 02-12-2008, 01:55 AM:

I didn't. I only judged the work that I have seen. I don't call myself a fan of Day-Lewis because I have only seen 2 of his films. I thought I was quite clear about that. And just because I'm not a fan doesn't mean I hate the guy (I don't) because after all, as you quite rightly state, I haven't seen enough of his films to make that judgement. In short, the purpose of my post was to judge Day-Lewis' performance in Blood only and the purpose of my "aficionado" comment was merely to differentiate my point from the 2 posts immediately prior which were judging his career as a whole.

Not that any of this really matters; let's move on shall we?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-13-2008, 01:45 PM:

Bump.

This is another movie I put off seeing until I could rent it on Blu-ray disc. Like Cloverfield, this is another one I'm glad I only rented. That's disappointing because I liked Paul Thomas Anderson's three previous films (especially Magnolia and Boogie Nights).

There Will Be Blood is interesting in parts, but unfortunately not as an entire film. The production showed great attention to detail and maintained a very authentic feel to the time period and industry involved. The cinematography is very good. Not sure if it's really Oscar-worthy, but it's good. The music score sounded like an homage to parts of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But all of this stuff is for nothing if the story takes 2.5 hours not going much of anywhere.

I think Daniel Day Lewis did a good job portraying the enigmatic Daniel Plainview character. However the character arc and story plot is pretty muddy. Certain events happen that make the story feel like it is going to gear up and finally get some momentum, but then nothing comes of it. Plainview threatens executives from Standard Oil. Isn't something supposed to happen as a result? He commits acts of fraud and violence against other people. Same thing. Little if any consequence. I felt the abrupt ending left a long movie seeming unfinished (despite the main character's parting line).

I'll give P.T. Anderson credit for taking the chance to not make a conventional Hollywood film. However, any filmmaker is still playing his movie to an audience. I'm sure lots of P.T. Anderson fans want him to get back to the style of film making he used on Boogie Nights and Magnolia. No artist wants to repeat himself either.

Many critics have lavished this movie with rave reviews. Some have even noted the film's similarities with Citizen Kane. But any similarities are superficial. Charles Foster Kane has a very clear character and story arc, going from a bawdy, fun loving young man with lots of friends to a destroyed and isolated egomaniac surrounded by mountains of material wealth. Daniel Plainview gets a mansion with its own bowling alley where he wallows in alcoholism and isolation near the film's end. But he just strikes the same paranoid, scheming note through the whole movie. If anything, it's only the characters around him that change.

The term "epic" has also been applied to this movie. There Will Be Blood was filmed in Panavision like so many "epic" movies, but it felt more like a smaller art house film to me.

The Blu-ray disc of There Will Be Blood doesn't contain many extras. It does have The Story of Petroleum, an interesting B&W silent film originally produced by Sinclair Oil. The 25 minute feature is educational in tone and some viewers may find it more enjoyable to watch than the main feature on the disc.

quote: Stu Jamieson
Starting with an unassuming title card and without fanfare, in an Old English typeface, white on black and silent like the films at the turn of the 19th century in which this story takes place, the title appears: "There Will Be Blood".

Technically, the font used is "Linotext" by LinotypeAG. It's been hit with some Photoshop filters to smudge it up a bit.

Posted by Andy Frodsham (Member # 4061) on 06-22-2008, 10:39 AM:

I must admit that I quite liked the film and Daniel Day Lewis's performance. I did get the feeling that he was doing an impersonation of the late John Huston at times (the latter's role in 'Chinatown' specifically)!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-26-2008, 04:15 AM:

Seen when trying to purchase There Will Be Blood from Amazon:
"People who liked this movie also enjoyed anal warts, brain cancer, paralysis and scurvy."

Seriously, this movie is more pretentious than anything. But hey, it's Paul Thomas Anderson (who I was not aware directed this POS until the end credits started). PTA films are supposed to be pretentious. You're but a lowly commoner if you don't love his shitty films. I'll tell you something, he really needs to hire an editor. Clearly every single frame shot on the camera made it into the movie without exception. You will experience two or three birthdays during one viewing of this thing. Wait, it's Paul Thomas Anderson... he knows nothing of pacing. The music was clearly taken out of a horror film and was completely out of place here. Oh? It's "unique" you say? FUCK THAT! Just because something is unique or new doesn't mean it is good. The story was about... nothing. Nothing at all. When it ended, nothing was resolved, it was a story that was not worth telling, that nobody cares about. A story about a skunk fart would be more interesting.

The acting was ass for the most part. Once again the children performed better than Daniel Day Lewis. All he tried to do was a bad Sean Connery impression and lace everything with "intensity" which is the only thing he knows how to do. He sucks ass and does not deserve to act. I don't know what society did to deserve watching him in this movie. And since Danny DL won an Oscar for this nonsense, that means other actors will try to do the same type of overacting in their attempt to achieve the same. Thanks for indirectly cursing us with even more bad movies, asshole.

Please, let's get rid of these lame-o directors like Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson and all other Andersons who make pretentious movies.

Now I'm off to watch 10,000 BC, sure to be a winner! My hopes are high.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-26-2008, 02:28 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
He sucks ass and does not deserve to act.

As the story goes, we can all thank Scorsese and DiCaprio for wooing Lewis out of acting retirement, from his career as a cobbler, to make Gangs Of New York, which restarted his acting career.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-26-2008, 06:17 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I'll tell you something, he really needs to hire an editor.

His editor is Dylan Tichenor, who is easily one of the best in business. Personally, I don't have a problem with the editing, but if you do, PTA is more likely to blame. Prior to the film's release, an interviewer commented that there is nothing in the film which doesn't need to be there. PTA laughed, and said, "I'll have to tell my editor you said that."

As for the music coming from a horror movie, PTA has said from Day One that this film is a horror movie.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-27-2008, 12:41 AM:

Wow, Paul Thomas Anderson is an even bigger failure at life than I thought. Thanks for clearing that up. The only thing horrifying about this movie is how bad (and boring) it is. I'd hate to see him try an action flick.

But I bet you were scared, right Mike? [Smile]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-27-2008, 01:13 AM:

I just got this from netflix. My question is, will I end up fast forwarding through most of it, like I did with the yawn fests that were No Country for Old Men, and the Brad Pitt Jesse James flick with the untalented Affleck brother? (That assumes anyone actually thinks either of the Afflecks have talent)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-27-2008, 11:45 AM:

Personally, I remember running My Left Foot, Last of the Mohicans and In the Name of the Father remembering how awful the performance was. (I never actually watched these movies, just out the port window here and there checking presentation and that was more than enough.)

Then I was forced to sit through Gangs of New York to check the print. Sorry Marty, but that movie sucked and Daniel's performance was just terrible. WAY overacted and laughably bad in parts.

Then was There Will Be Blood, which was awful right down to the stupid title. I flat out REFUSED to watch this, although I did sit through about 10 minutes of it during the print check screening, where the projectionist told me how awful his acting was and wanted me to witness it for myself.

I agree with Joe that PTA is a boring director, but moreso Daniel Day-Lewis needs to understand there is a big difference between stage acting and cinema acting.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-27-2008, 12:31 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
But I bet you were scared, right Mike?

I didn't jump in my seat, and I didn't look under my bed before I went to sleep that night, but I do find it terrifying that people like Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday exist. That's way more scary than supernatural nonsense like THE EXORCIST or something.

And for the record, I would love to see PTA do an action movie.

quote: Mike Heenan
My question is, will I end up fast forwarding through most of it, like I did with the yawn fests that were No Country for Old Men, and the Brad Pitt Jesse James flick with the untalented Affleck brother?

The pacing in THERE WILL BE BLOOD is slower than NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, but TWBB is much more compelling. Nothing can compare to the boredom of the Jesse James movie.

Also, has anyone else noticed how on BD/DVD, the chapter breaks are the same as the reel changes?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-29-2008, 06:27 PM: