|
|
 |
 |
[Click To Enlarge]
Email A Friend - Gift Reminder |
There Will Be Blood
Availability:
In Stock
Price:
$14.99
$3.99*
|
| Part No: | B0013FXWU6 |
| Manufacturer: | Paramount |
| MFG Part: | 097363479246 |
| Customer Rating: | 3.5 / 5.0 |
|
|
Having come to California at the turn of the twentieth century to find oil, a man and his son are challenged by a preacher's ambitions and other event
Unmistakably a shot at greatness, Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood succeeds in wild, explosive ways. The film digs into nothing less than the sources of peculiarly American kinds of ambition, corruption, and industry--and makes exhilarating cinema from it all. Although inspired by Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil!, Anderson has crafted his own take on the material, focusing on a black-eyed, self-made oilman named Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), whose voracious appetite for oil turns him into a California tycoon in the early years of the 20th century. The early reels are a mesmerizing look at the getting of oil from the ground, an intensely physical process that later broadens into Plainview's equally indomitable urge to control land and power. Curious, diverting episodes accumulate during Plainview's rise: a mighty derrick fire (a bravura opportunity that Anderson, with the aid of cinematographer Robert Elswit, does not fail to meet), a visit from a long-lost brother (Kevin J. O'Connor), the ongoing involvement of Plainview's poker-faced adoptive son (Dillon Freasier). As the film progresses, it gravitates toward Plainview's rivalry with the local representative of God, a preacher named Eli Sunday (brimstone-spitting Paul Dano); religion and capitalism are thus presented not so much as opposing forces but as two sides of the same coin. And the worm in the apple here is less man's greed than his vanity. Anderson's offbeat take on all this--exemplified by the astonishing musical score by Jonny Greenwood--occasionally threatens to break the film apart, but even when it founders, it excites. As for Daniel Day-Lewis, his performance is Olivier-like in its grand scope and its attention to details of behavior; Plainview speaks in the rum-rich voice of John Huston, and squints with the wariness of Walter Huston. It's a fearsome performance, and the engine behind the film's relentless power. --Robert Horton
| Do NOT Miss out on this Gem. | 2010-09-01 | 5 / 5 |
| | Remember when There Will Be Blood came out in 2007? I remember seeing it in the video store and hearing rumors that it was a long boring epic that would only get recognition from critics and not the public. Well, when I finally viewed this movie i was absolutely blown away and I now look at it as the best film of the 00's. Daniel Day-Lewis gives the most outstanding performance I can remember as Daniel Plainview, a self-described "Oil Man" with a competetive nature who slowly goes insane with his lust for power and wealth. Paul Thomas Anderson once again proves himself as one of the great filmakers of his time with this fantastic epic that should be seen at least once by anyone with a love for great film. I can't remember when an actor disserved the Best Actor honor as much as Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood. |
| Overall, There Will Be Blood is a film with a good opening, a few good potential moments and scenes (as with the faux brother), but it ends in near disaster. Its ending would rank as one of the worst in history (think Akira Kurosawa's Rashomom) if only the rest of the film had been stronger. Also, in no way, shape, nor form is the film an `epic.' Other than the word `surreal' the term epic may be the most overused and misused word in the arts. An epic is a tale that covers a great deal of history, time, and place. It also delves deeply into the characters and plot. There Will Be Blood is a series of cursory sketches that are meager and often poorly connected. I spoke of the hit and miss cinematography, but the musical scoring to this film is even worse. And, even if one were to put aside the technical lack, and the script problems, there's the acting. It's simply not good. The two main characters, Lewis and Dano have no chemistry, in the sense that their hatred of each other never seems genuine. And, while Dano is a cipher emotionally, Lewis chews scenery even more than he did as Bill The Butcher In Martin Scorsese's Gangs Of New York. Granted, while not a great film, that film was better written than this one, but there is a certain cartoonishness in Lewis's portrayal that neuters all attempt at real drama. One cares not a damn for any of the mannekin-like characters- save perhaps for the faux brother, whose very fakeness was designed merely to show of Lewis's character's rage and psychopathy, but did nothing of the sort. It only made the faux brother's character seem slighter by his casual dismissal from Daniel's life. Also, the tale is both too linear and too sparse in development to have any real poesy. It relies not on characterization but grotesques- they aren't even caricatures. And, after the first fifteen minutes, I kept wondering what a real visionary director like Theo Angelopoulos or Michelangelo Antonioni would have done with this film's premise- even its footage, for quality editing could have severely tightened the film up, and made it less dependent upon overwrought theatrics. In essence, one can tell this was a Hollywood film, even from the first minutes of silence.
There Will Be Blood attempts to be epic, great, and tie in with the current political zeitgeist by showing viewers the beginnings of what caused global warming. Instead, it is a meandering tale that relies on soap operatic tricks (such as Bandy's blackmailing Daniel into Eli's church- why?) that don't even have a payoff, however cheap; as well as being dull and poor in almost every filmic aspect (not unlike its twinned, wildly overpraised critical cousin, the Coen Brothers' No Country For Old Men). That this film got so raved over as a great piece of cinema shows how little critics and filmgoers today understand real art and/or care about it. Which scenario is worse is open for debate. This film's quality isn't. |
| Good Acting, weird movie? | 2010-08-28 | 2 / 5 |
| | Daniel Day Lewis is one of the greatest actors of all time. Unfortunately, this movie isn't as good. My problems with this movie were the script and story. Not only did it not make sense, the plot is best described as awkward and depressing. The guy who plays the young preacher shouldn't be in acting, I can't stand him. I am willing to watch this movie again because I feel there may be more to the story than I give it credit for. That is why I give it 2 stars. I would recommend renting over buying. |
| There will be hell to pay... | 2010-07-08 | 5 / 5 |
| | This movie is unbelievable! It's a main character that you must-see. Me and my husband could not get over how insane this man was. Ruthless, if you dare get in his way. Great story. |
| One of the best films of the last decade | 2010-06-30 | 5 / 5 |
| When I first saw "There Will Be Blood," I was disappointed. While I enjoyed the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis and I appreciated the gorgeous cinematography, the film did not do much for me. For one thing, it felt pretentious and overlong, the work of a talented, but self-indulgent director.
What a difference a second viewing makes. One of my favorite film critics, Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune, picked the film as his favorite of the last decade, so I decided to revisit it. After that re-viewing, I watched it a third time. This is the rare film that grows on repeated viewings.
The second time around, I did not find the pacing of the film to be slow, but patient. The film, to me, really penetrates to the heart of the American tradition of rugged individualism and the good and bad of capitalism (put roughly, the first half of the film shows the good of capitalism and the second half shows the bad). Daniel Day-Lewis is just mesmerizing as Daniel Plainview, a character so mysterious, he makes Kevin Spacey in "The Usual Suspects" look like Mary Poppins. The lack of any backstory or context provided for him and his son, H.W., will no doubt frustrate some filmgoers, and this film is certainly not for everyone, but for me, it's really excellent stuff.
Every time I come back to this film, I find something new in it; the more I see it, the stranger and sadder and more ambiguous the film seems to me. Many critics have taken issue with the last forty five minutes or so of the film, which takes place much later than the earlier part of the film, but for me, that is what really makes the film great. I would compare the ending of the film to the ending of "Apocalypse Now"; frustratingly eccentric for some filmgoers, but for me, absolutely great.
If you haven't seen this, see it, and if you have, see it again. Whether you loved or hated it the first time, seeing this film once is not enough.
Five stars. |
* Current Price/Avail/Qty displayed on website may be delayed by up to 24 hours. Items added to cart and into the checkout process will reflect current price and status of product. |
|
 |
|
)
