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. (27/09/2021)

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)

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)

"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)

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)