There Will Be Blood

Paul Thomas Anderson et le directeur de la photographie Robert Elswit sont des scientifiques du cinéma, Daniel Day-Lewis est un acteur formidable et leur film There Will Be Blood deviendra très probablement le Citizen Kane de ce siècle. Une représentation cynique, originale et épique de l'Amérique capitaliste. Chef-d'œuvre. (20/03/2008)

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. (09/03/2008)

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. (03/10/2008)

An epic fresco, in which Anderson's purposeful filmmaking is matched by the riveting acting of Daniel Day-Lewis, who once again gets to the heart of his character and doesn't act, but simply is that character. The two-and-a-half-hour portrait of a tough egotist who managed to fulfill the American dream without faith and family may not be to the liking of many American churches, but at least it creates a functional subversion of the established rules. This is the essence of perfect filmmaking! (15/03/2008)

"That was one goddamn helluva show." Yup, it sure was... In other reviews you frequently come across strong claims such as movie of the year and the like. I might even increase the aforementioned unit of time to cover a longer period. Why? Because it’s already a good few hours since the movie ended, but I’m still quivering with absolute delight. And something tells me that I will continue to quiver for a long time yet. I feel as if Anderson made this for me alone. This grand work may be described using but four words: cynicism (with respect to mankind), cynicism (with respect to religious fanaticism and religion in general), cynicism (with respect to the American Dream), and cynicism (with respect to everything else). Simply cynical egoism to the core and a good feeling from knowing that Anderson watch The Treasure of the Sierra Madre very attentively. Additional note: Second time round it’s maybe even better. On my second visit to the movie theater, Anderson again drowned me in black gold. And I had a great time all the while he was drowning me. It’s high time to take a good bath. (29/03/2008)

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. (27/09/2021)

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%. (09/01/2012)

A delicacy. Daniel Day-Lewis steals the whole picture. He is the type of heavenly actor who would be capable of ripping down and retracing in all of David Plainview’s character contours. A struggle for money and faith, where money always wins. A demolition of the American dream, a dream that doesn’t just sit and wait for you, but you have to wade through mud, oil and blood to get to achieve it. Paul Thomas Anderson knows this. A masterpiece. (25/02/2013)

Technically, it’s flawless, with masterful camerawork, visuals that are properly dirty and grainy, without a single slow motion shot, completely raw and believable (the injuries, the fires, the deaths). The scenes featuring platforms and heavy machinery are among the best. They have captured the power of both natural elements (earth, gas, oil) and all necessary tools for their extraction (drills, platforms, etc.) in an unbelievably realistic way, and in the accidents involving heavy machinery, which almost always result in fatal injuries, you literally feel the weight of each metal object in your seat, as well as the tremendous pressure of a tensioned rope or gas pocket. I have never seen/felt/experienced anything like this before. Daniel Day-Lewis is excellent, but towards the end it was a bit too much. Not that he acted poorly, but the screenwriter pushed things a bit too far. Nevertheless, I rate very highly at least the first, non-intimate and relatively action-packed first half, which succinctly and more factually depicts the rise of an oil magnate, his persona, and his work. The second, more intimate part is not as entertaining, but it is still one of the gems of the past few years, certainly from a technical standpoint. (06/08/2008)

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. (07/01/2012)

It's difficult to fully define the character of the cinematic journey of this thoroughly distinctive gem. Anderson does not convey a mere story as a set of twists and turns with their causes and consequences; he manages to subtly infiltrate deep into the brain of the viewer, who, thanks to an overwhelming psychological form and the most personal approach to a protagonist imaginable, is compelled not just to watch the action, but to experience it and actively participate in it as a creature with their own opinions and emotions. The dense and daunting atmosphere, evoked from the opening seconds by an unpleasant-sounding minimalist soundtrack, long static shots and shocking visual naturalism, is one of the strongest in film history, as is the incredible chameleonic performance of Daniel Day Lewis, whose character transformation is phenomenal in itself... An amazing visionary work, breathtakingly combining all the basic filmmaking techniques, while ingeniously applying them to a vast emotional spectrum almost on par with the best of Stanley Kubrick. 100% (03/02/2012)

There Will Be Blood repose entièrement sur la performance de Daniel Day-Lewis. Sans lui, ce film n'aurait absolument rien à offrir. C'est un avis purement subjectif, car le monde du forage, du pétrole, des magnats et des magouilles étant bien loin de mes préoccupations, me farcir deux heures et demie de l’enrichissement d’un sale merdeux agressif, vulgaire et sans personnalité, j’aurais franchement pu m’en passer ! La prestation de Daniel Day-Lewis est incroyable, mais ce n’est pas étonnant, vu qu’il joue toujours remarquablement bien. Par contre, j’avais plus à cœur ses rôles dans Le Temps de l’innocence et dans La Chasse aux sorcières. Paul Dano a assuré, lui aussi. Pour ce qui est des éléments positifs, mentionnons encore la composition musicale finale. Donc, ça nous fait cinq étoiles pour Lewis, une demi-étoile pour Dano et la musique, et encore une demi-étoile pour l’histoire. (18/11/2009)

I have a feeling that Paul Thomas Anderson hates the viewers and purposely directs films, at least recently, where he does his own thing and doesn't care how the audience takes it. The main thing is that it will be depressing. And you will be depressed. This is not a nice film. There is essentially nothing nice about it. The sound and music component literally annoyed me at times. However, then there are the actors, led by Daniel Day-Lewis. For an hour, I had no idea why he received an Oscar, but then he showed how he can grasp his character comprehensively and how incredible he is in every moment. You don't see such a repulsive person easily, and in some moments, you can't even believe it's just acting. He is unbelievable. It's a pity that the film is not fond of the audience. The rating could be even higher. (07/04/2014)

I've been thinking for a long time how I would rate/review this film for myself. In the end I would rate it as follows: There Will Be Blood represents, in my opinion, the highest possible level, the highest possible level of cinematic artistry, and I am really very happy and thankful that it is in the hands of Paul Thomas Anderson, Daniel-Day Lewis, and Robert Elswit, i.e. the most competent ones. (31/01/2010)

A nearly perfect study of how a poor man came to great wealth through his instincts and morally corrupt actions. Daniel Day-Lewis is a huge asset to this film. What he does here is unparalleled in terms of acting. Of course, Paul Dano as the fanatical preacher is also worth mentioning. I was often sickened by the characterless filth that flew out of both of them. From a filmmaking point of view, it is certainly a masterpiece. When I also consider the dramatic moments that escalate with the support of very aptly chosen music, I basically have nothing to criticize. There Will Be Blood is a film that probably won't evoke pleasant feelings while watching it, but it is so masterfully directed that I can't fault it and must duly reward it with five stars. (90%) (21/07/2020)