There Will Be Blood

A great film in every way, which confuses me the most with its clash between visual grandeur and moody unwatchability. Several scenes seem to have come straight out of the greatest classics of golden age Hollywood, with the landscape stretching from horizon to horizon – and yet such an environment is perhaps too generous for the pervasive malevolence of the story. Both extremes cancel each other out and thus I can never connect with the (perhaps intended) oppressive gloominess, nor do I ever experience sincere joy as a viewer. For some, Plainview is an immortal figure because of his journey on a cynical path, but for the same reason, I never really understand him completely. I don't root for him, I don't wish him well, I just shake my head wondering why he willingly makes mistakes and creates such a disproportionately large enemy in Eli due to his own self-centeredness. However, I too was left breathless by Daniel Day-Lewis, who captivates, crushes, and in the last half hour, blatantly destroys everything that remained inside me until then. 70% for a unique film of its kind. I regret that I missed it at the time of its release because I would have liked to have discussed with someone the reasons this piece is supposed to be considered one of the best ever produced, with Paul Thomas Anderson alongside giants like Sergio Leone or Francis Ford Coppola. Even Once Upon a Time in America or The Godfather are films that do not overly embellish the olden days and occasionally hit you in the face with their period power. However, they never want to leave the viewer emotionally unaffected. (09/27/2021)

If is it was less protracted, it would be great. I have to admit that in terms of filmmaking, There Will Be Blood is close to perfection, but I prefer films that are a bit more human (not so dry). Oscar here, Oscar there, but I just got bored and it be couldn’t avoided, even with Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance – anywhere else, I’d probably be unable to take my eyes off him. 3* for me, but it’s certainly worth watching. (10/03/2008)

Masterful craftsmanship without artistic compromise. A perfect study of an ambitious, egocentric soul, in whose bearer – the oilman Plainview – the film world has one of the juiciest characters in its history. The gripping first half, when the plot revolves more around the building of an oil empire, is almost visually hypnotic (the scene of the oil rig fire accompanied by rhythmic percussive music has a kind of horror-apocalyptic feel). The second half is more intimate, with the narrative focusing more on the oilman's troubled relationship with his son and the sycophantic religious fanatic Ali (Plainview's "confession" at the baptism gave me chills). It seems as if no one played Plainview, that this slightly stooped man with a distinctive moustache was brought in by Anderson in a time machine from a hundred years ago and filmed with a hidden camera, letting him live out his story… No, really. Daniel Day Lewis… There are no words to describe my fascination with his performance; the facial expressions, the complete change of voice (which doesn't seem mannerist at all), the slightly hunched posture, the imposing appearance. That's no longer acting, that's reincarnation, which perhaps only Day-Lewis is capable of using his famous 'Stanislavsky method'. Daniel and Paul, you have my applause. When Day-Lewis accepted his second Oscar this year with his aristocratic appearance and massive earrings, he looked like a being from another world. And so does this film. (03/09/2008)

Maybe I was too excited by the five-star compliments from my favorite users and their enthusiastic comments full of superlatives, just like the Oscar nominations, because when I finally managed to watch it thoroughly, I was slightly disappointed. It is definitely a case of professional filmmaking with quality camera work, a strong storyline, and quality actors. However, fitting 30 years of the main character's life and work into a single feature film is still a challenge, and the screenplay could not avoid a few significant jumps in time, cutting out certain motifs, and overall flattening. Sometimes the character Daniel Plainview is compared to the main protagonist of The Social Network due to his self-centeredness, but with that film, it only took one year spent alongside Mark Zuckerberg for me to get into his mindset and understand his motivation, whereas, in the case of the oil prospector, his motivation and character slip through my fingers somehow. It could have been a great film about the oil industry, which, along with the automobile industry, shaped the economic history and prosperity of the United States in the first half of the 20th century, but the screenplay fails to capture the grandiose growth of innovation and wealth or simply everything that moved the lives of the residents of the mining areas. Nevertheless, there are a few scenes that leave no doubt in my mind that the film deserves its 4-star rating, such as the final confrontation between Plainview and his ideological opponent, the leader of the religious community. Overall impression: 75%. (01/09/2012)

Here we go again. A good film in every respect, but I have one major problem with it: Its main character is an anti-hero. On the one hand, of course, I bow down to Daniel Day-Lewis, who made the initially somewhat sympathetic Plainview convincingly and utterly disgusting to me with his brilliant performance, but on the other hand, I take no pleasure in watching a man who deliberately hurts, abuses and despises his fellow human beings. I know that such people exist (and that there are lots and lots of them), I just don't have to watch them in realistic dramas. So from about an hour ago, I wished Plainview the worst possible ending... And that's probably why I didn't enjoy There Will Be Blood as much. Otherwise, of course, I praise the unusually but sympathetically slow direction, the strange but impressive music, and the beautiful cinematography. (01/07/2012)