There Will Be Blood
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.41 You Save: $10.58 (71%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.90 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of There Will Be Blood
Movie Review: Blood as thick as oil
Summary: 5 Stars
Since hitting it big with 1997's critically-lauded "Boogie Nights," Paul Thomas Anderson has stood in the front ranks of American filmmakers. Actually, Anderson has crouched in the front ranks, dreaming about what would make a great shot and how he could do this scene or that scene, while all the other filmmakers stand around and chat. For his fifth film, "There Will Be Blood," Anderson has set aside his trademark Altman-esque lushness for a style which recalls Francis Ford Coppola in his prime. Finally, Anderson stands in the front ranks - and it comes as no surprise that he has perfect posture.
The spine of "There Will Be Blood" is Daniel Day-Lewis, who stars as oil-drilling entrepeneur Daniel Plainview. It is the single greatest performance of Day-Lewis' distinguished career as an actor. To go further, it is one of the greatest performances in cinematic history. Daniel Plainview is one of the most fascinating and complex protagonists ever seen on the big screen. I use the term "protagonist" loosely. Plainview is as slimey as the oil he has devoted his life to drilling, and as dangerous as the tools he uses to do so. He may look human, he may sound human, and at times he may even act like a genuine human being, but if there is any humanity in this man, it is buried deeper than the oil he drills.
Plainview swindles people out of their homes, their property, their fortunes, without a care. But what makes the character so interesting is the sneaking suspicion that he's not completely cold, that there is humanity in the depths of his soul, or was, at one point. It seems like he may love his adopted son, H. W. (Dillon Freasier) - but just when we're sure he does, Anderson pulls the rug out from under our feet. Plainview's memories of "back home," recounted to his brother Henry (Kevin J. O'Connor), are worth noting. Plainview talks about a house he saw when he was a boy.
"I thought as a boy that was the most beautiful house I'd ever seen, and I wanted it," Plainview remembers. "I wanted to live in it, and eat in it, and clean it. And even as a boy, I wanted to have children to run around in it."
Henry points out that Plainview can have anything he wants now. He can make his own house, one that looks just like the house from his childhood.
Plainview grimaces. "I'm sure if I saw that house now," he spits, "it would make me sick."
It's one of two scenes in the film which offer glimpses into Plainview's soul, or what remains of it. The second also involves Henry: this time, Plainview admits, "I see the worst in people. I don't need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I've built my hatreds up over the years, little by little ... I can't keep doing this on my own, with all these ... people." He spits out the last part as though he'd swallowed an insect, and then he laughs. The world is his own private joke.
But there can be no joking about Day-Lewis' performance. Daniel Plainview is in his eyes. He's in the way he talks, the way he moves, the way he breathes. He is Daniel Plainview. And though the film rests upon his broad and sturdy shoulders, he is supported by a similarly talented cast.
Highlighting the supporting cast is young Paul Dano, last seen as the irritating emo kid from "Little Miss Sunshine." Dano, as the media has noted, plays two different roles: brothers Paul and Eli Sunday. Paul Sunday appears in only one scene, informing Daniel Plainview of the wealth of oil ready to be drilled on the Sunday farm. Eli Sunday is, essentially, the head of the Sunday family, and even the head of the town. He leads the local church, and delivers passionate sermons that are, frankly, godawful. He is also the thorn in Daniel Plainview's side. It's the perfect role for Dano to showcase a depth not even hinted at in his previous roles. He may be one to watch out for in the future.
Dillon Freasier is also noteworthy. There is something absolutely fascinating about his distant and confused portrayal of H. W. Plainview. He seems like the embodiment of all the good devoid from his adoptive father. This is Freasier's first film role, but he's already make his mark.
Paul Thomas Anderson, on the other hand, made his mark a decade ago, but only with "There Will Be Blood" has he truly had an impact on cinematic history. Though elements of the film may recall the work of Stanley Kubrick, or the work of Robert Altman (who was one of the biggest influences on Anderson's previous films), this is the first film Anderson has made which has felt wholly original. It's the work of a true visionary. Finally, Anderson feels like the god behind-the-scenes who ties together all the threads of existence, rather than the gifted puppetmaster with a vision as he may have seemed before. Each shot, stunningly photographed by Robert Elswit, has a beautiful directness which recalls the glory days of Hollywood studio epics.
Thematically, "There Will Be Blood" recalls one classic in particular: John Huston's "Treasure of the Sierra Madre." Huston's dark masterpiece, which revolved around two beggars who wind up a trip to Mexico and discover a wealth of gold in the hills, has a lot in common with Anderson's own bleak masterpiece. Both portray the corruption of the human soul as inevitable, although "Blood" is a little less harsh in its delivery of the statement. At the start of each film, audiences are allowed the tiniest bit of hope, which is gradually squeezed until there is nothing left to do but submit to this frightening vision of humanity. Lastly, both films end on a comic note, albeit a blood-stained note for Anderson's film. He's said that he watched "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" every night during production before going to bed. Suffice to say it shows.
As far as editing goes, "There Will Be Blood" owes a lot to the taut, scene-into-scene style of Stanley Kubrick, particularly "The Shining." "Blood" is edited by Dylan Tichenor, who also edited "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia." "Boogie Nights"' pacing recalled the work of Martin Scorsese, while "Magnolia" moved with the frenetic pacing of an Altman movie on crack. Anderson's last picture, 2002's "Punch-Drunk Love," is among the most lush, dreamy movies in recent memory; that film's editing was smooth and breezy. Even the most astute moviegoer would have a hard time believing that the same man who brought you the film where Adam Sandler acts or the movie where the sky rains frogs has now brought us this hulking, somber reflection on the human spirit.
One final note: the score is composed by Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood. As one might expect, it's a bit of an oddity, which makes it all the more fitting for a movie like this. It is certainly among the most sparse film scores in history, but its unusual instrumentation renders it one of the more interesting and potent soundtracks of the new millennium.
Just how good is "There Will Be Blood"? It's good enough to drink the milkshake of any other movie released this decade. It is the finest film of 2007, surpassing even the Coens' extraodinary "No Country for Old Men" - but better still, it's one of the best movies ever made. Very, very few films this century have come near this level of greatness - in fact, only Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy comes to mind. "There Will Be Blood" is a film which makes a powerful statement through powerful filmmaking. Its performances are peerless, its photography is beautiful and direct, its editing is classically tight, and its direction - well, P. T. Anderson may not be Scorsese or Coppola yet, but by god, he's on his way.
Movie Review: Drink up; drink it all up, for there is nothing like it anywhere else...
Summary: 5 Stars
There comes a point when even a great film can be over-hyped; when even a marvel of cinema, a masterpiece if you will, will get so much attention and accolades that it becomes `that movie that failed to live up'. On the outset, while watching `There Will Be Blood' you could come to believe that to be true of this film. Heralded as PT Anderson's finest film to date and regarded as one of the two cinematic masterpieces of this year past, `There Will Be Blood' has an obligation to deliver. What is sad is that many people are not aware of exactly what it plans to deliver. I can see now how backlash can begin, but I'm here to say that `backlash' in this case is undoubtedly undeserved.
Paul Thomas Anderson's epic masterpiece (there, I said it) `There Will Be Blood' is not the movie many may believe it to be. It is a slow and conflicted journey through the desperations and frustrations placed upon us by greed and selfishness. It exposes the similarities between materialism and religious self-righteousness and it proves that nothing good can come of evil.
`There Will Be Blood' is loosely based of off Upton Sinclair's novel `Oil!' but truly it serves as Anderson's very own vision. Anderson pits oilman Daniel Plainview against religious preacher Eli Sunday in a small town of Little Boston during the turn of the century. Plainview is a greedy man, a selfish man who will do anything he can to get what he wants, but Sunday is not much different. Sunday is a man consumed with a fire that matches the determination of Plainview himself. They are a perfect match; thus they are perfect enemies.
The film moves at a slow pace, taking it's time to build and flesh out these characters. Aside from Plainview and Sunday you have Daniel's son, H.W., a young yet oddly mature boy who takes in much more than one would expect. As his fathers `business partner', young H.W. stands comfortably at his father's side; a sight that is often as chilling as it is heartbreaking.
`There Will Be Blood' is a film that opens with such a savage calm, a feeling of unsettled tranquility. The score blazing in the distance, Plainview mining for gold; not a word spoken and yet so much is being said. It ends on a completely different note; one of tranquil savagery; a burst of manic violence that leaves the viewer feeling oddly subdued. It's such a masterful way to open and close a film; opening in such a way that keeps us on edge and closing in such a way that puts us at ease.
Yet another reason why PT Anderson should have won that directing Oscar.
The film is masterfully crafted; a film that just fits so beautifully together, each facet connecting nicely with the next. It's beautifully shot; the Oscar winning cinematography is spellbinding to say the least. The score is also a huge plus here, lending a helping hand in creating the perfect mood for this piece. I remember falling in love with Greenwood's score when I first heard it, but hearing it within the confines of this film adds a whole new light to its grace and beauty.
And then there is the acting...
Much credit has been given to Daniel Day-Lewis for his performance as Daniel Plainview. He's won just about every award imaginable and has received countless amounts of praise and admiration, for which he has received it with the utmost sincerity and gratitude. I am here to acknowledge once again his magnificence here. Day-Lewis completely becomes Daniel Plainview. He doesn't look like Daniel Day-Lewis; he doesn't sound like Daniel Day-Lewis; he doesn't act like Daniel Day-Lewis. Daniel Day-Lewis does not exist within this character; only Daniel Plainview is present. He flawlessly boils to the surface this mans flaws and transgressions, his bolstering greed and domination. There are moments when you know that this man is thinking the worst and yet all we see is that sly grin and his eyes, those eyes that speak volumes. This is not just one of the finest performances of the year, but perhaps in the history of cinema.
Daniel is not without good company though. There are two other performers here that steal scenes and command attention. Young Dillon Freasier, who plays H.W., delivers a brilliant performance. He masterfully creates and otherworldly maturity that chills the bones while speaking barely a word. Pay close attention to the relationship between father and son; there are volumes to be told. Of course we have Paul Dano who plays the eccentric Eli Sunday. His performance is mind-bogglingly good. There is a scene where he proceeds to expel the arthritis from the hands of one of the members of his church. It's the first scene where we really get a glimpse into this very complex character. It's brilliant to say the least and it serves as a masterful building block for what is to come.
`There Will Be Blood' is a film that everyone should see. Everyone should know what they are about to witness first; that way they can really embrace it for what it is. This is not an action film, nor a thriller in your most conventional sense. `There Will Be Blood' is quite frankly one of the best character studies I've seen in recent years. It's a film that flawlessly exposes the inhumanity within humanity and forces the audience to accept the `ugly' within our souls. As many have noted; this is not a film that wants to be liked. It will not leave you feeling warm and fuzzy on the inside, but it will leave you with much to ponder, much to think about and contemplate and will thus leave you with much to remember.
Movie Review: Better than No Country
Summary: 5 Stars
There Will Be Blood was one of the more surprising movies of last year. What initially struck me as a boring, pointless film thats only saving grace was Daniel Day-Lewis playing a character he already played later turned into one of my favorite movies. It's something you need to watch more than once to appreciate, as all of the magnificence of the movie comes in the form of all the little, unheralded aspects.
The movie tells the tale of an oil man named Daniel Plainview in early 20th century America as he thirsts for more money and power, received in the form of controlling oil. There are many characters in the film who are important to the work as a whole, but the entire movie is very clearly placed in the (obviously) capable hands of Daniel Day-Lewis.
Over the course of the American epic, Plainview meets and loses people, finds and loses things, and ultimately begins to question the very essence of humanity. No single moment in the film stands out as the pinnacle of Plainview's realization; rather the entire movie slowly works in a crescendo until you understand what he's seeing and going through.
The main conflict comes in the form of Plainview and a holy man named Eli. Eli's twin brother sells Plainview the location of an oil rich area of California, and Eli convinces the town and church to allow Plainview to dig on the condition that he donates a portion to the church. (But are his motives truly that honorable? You'll have to watch and see.) The two continue to fight as Plainview refuses to pay, and it leads to one of the best confrontations between two characters I've seen in quite a while.
The last third of the movie does struggle at times, but in my mind the ending portion is much, much better than what No Country left us with. Some will say There Will be Blood has no real ending and cops out, and to them I say: watch the movie again. Buy it on DVD, pay attention to the characters and their body language, and pay special attention to Plainview through the course of the movie. The end may not be the greatest end ever, but it is there, and the slow breakdown of Plainview from a giant among men to an emotionally crippled, instable, lonely man is brilliant to watch.
CONTENT: 5/5
There Will Be Blood was my choice for the best (American) movie of 2007, and after my fourth time watching it it still is. Daniel Day-Lewis gives the performance of the decade as Daniel Plainview, and even if the rest of the film hadn't been this fantastic, it would still be a movie worth watching and owning just to see him do his thing. Amazingly, we get a movie that supports Day-Lewis in his larger than life role, and which was completely robbed by the Coens at the Oscars.
VIDEO: 4/5
You get the widescreen presentation of the film enhanced for 16:9 TVs, and there's almost no color loss from the theater. While it would have been awesome to have in HD, it looks great for a standard DVD. Blacks are dark, and there's no real issues with darker scenes on tube TVs.
AUDIO: 3.5/5
The surround presentation could have been used to a greater extent, but it still sounds good. With English, French and Spanish 5.1 support, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who can't appreciate the movie. Of course, hearing Daniel Plainview in French isn't quite the same, but still.
REPLAY: 4/5
Is it long? You bet. Can you watch it again? Definitely. The sign of a truly great picture is that you can view it repeatedly, and There Will Be Blood passes that test. The little interactions and often unseen things which pass between characters are picked up upon in succeeding viewings, and Daniel Plainview is amazing every time.
EXTRAS: 3/5
Sadly, the second disc doesn't offer that much with There Will Be Blood. I was hoping for more given the nature of the film--and what we get is solid--but there's just not enough. There's a short historical documentary, "The Story of Petroleum," which is the meat and potatoes of the extras, but aside from that nice little view into America's past, the disc is lacking. There's no commentary from Paul Thomas Anderson--or anything including him in the special features--and that strikes me as incredibly odd. There is a nice bit which shows (briefly) how Day-Lewis created the Plainview persona over time, but again, too little for the epic they're supposed to supplement.
OVERALL: 4.5/5
Is the special edition a little weak? Yup. Is the case a little odd? Yup. (It's a cardboard sleeve case, in case you were wondering.) Still, There Will Be Blood is one of the best movies of the century, and easily the best of 2007. Daniel Day-Lewis gives one of the most memorable performances in movie history, and the rest of the movie is much better than you initially think. If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and pick it up so you don't miss out. If you have seen it and thought it was overrated, rent the DVD, give it a re-watch, and then make your conclusion. There Will Be Blood is an American epic in every sense of the word, and Paul Thomas Anderson seemingly did the impossible by outdoing himself.
Movie Review: The bottomless pit of greed
Summary: 5 Stars
What is director Paul Thomas Anderson saying with this film? "There Will Be Blood" has been likened to "Citizen Kane" often enough that I initially wondered if the parodying of publishing magnate, Wm Randolph Hearst, in Kane had been revisited here in the form of TWBB's main character, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis), as an oil tycoon. Already fierecely debated in this forum, I can only add that what I took away from this film are no more than (a) the battle to death of two men--a misanthrope obsessed with oil who clings to the maxim "trust no one," and an equally ambitious and crafty bogus preacher, and (b) the corrosive effects and systemic rot of extreme ambition above all else, both in capitalistic and evangelical pursuits.
(The story has been synopsized many times already so I'll just limit my post to my opinions of the film.)
(1) Actors - Great performances by Daniel Day Lewis as lead and Paul Dano as Eli Sunday. Lewis' portrayal of the megalomaniacal Plainview is outstanding--the avarice, the obsession, the greed all come across with ferociousness. Dano is not to be upstaged as he portrays the histrionics of a bible-thumper, at times lucidly cunning and other times insanely possessed of the same evils he purports to banish. The best scenes in this film are those with both as they humiliate each other at turns.
(2) Screenplay - Its story is mistakenly attributed to Upton Sinclair's "Oil!." TWBB was only inspired by it. At first depicting the entrepreneurial spirit and guts of the early 1900s, it then focuses its lenses on the price that is inevitably paid along the way to a success that's measured in money and power. Plainview wants to build an oil empire; Sunday wants to build an evangelical empire. Someone has to pay for all this empire-building. Both destroy each other and themselves in the end.
Of particular note is the screenwriter's (Anderson) ability to tell an incredible story within a believable context. Plainview and Sunday are both bigger than life (they're meant to be), but at no time did I find it a stretch to believe that such characters would behave in the manner that they do.
Much has been made of the ending when Plainview uses the analogy of a milkshake in taunting his foe, Sunday, with the fact that he already owns the underground riches (oil drainage, he says) of a tract Sunday is proposing to broker on Plainview's behalf, with monetary compensation of course: "I drink your milkshake. I drink your water. Everyday I drink the blood of the Lamb..." Many thought it ridiculous and it has actually turned into a joke associated with the film. Fact is, Anderson got the idea from a 1924 congressional hearing transcript (from the Teapot Dome Scandal, the contextual basis of Upton Sinclair's novel) where a senator describes oil drainage as: "Sir, if you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and my straw reaches across the room, I'll end up drinking your milkshake." It's meant simply to illustrate that Plainview's finger is in every oil pot and he knows it, and Sunday's religious fervor has, and always has been, useless in impeding Plainview.
(3) Editing - Regarded as an epic by some (drivel by others), the film is over 2 hours in length. Its length does not bother me. Insatiable ambition, greed, oil, faith, industry, murder, revenge, fraud--many themes incorporated into one big picture so, if it takes 2 ˝ hours to effectively depict them, then that's what it takes. In reviewing the scenes while fresh in my mind, I cannot think of any one scene that should have been cut. Every single one, I believe, contributed to the understanding of the story and its main characters.
(4) Cinematography - The spectacle of oil rigs, derricks, gas explosions and such were unexpected. (I mean, really, how exciting can an oil rig be?). Shots of gushers, rigs aflame, mud, dirt, etc. were so artistically done that one can almost feel the slickness of the oil and the acrid smell as it burns, and heighten the dangers that surround such enterprises. Wide panoramic shots of the rugged, dry land of Southern California were dazzling, its landscape broken by silhouettes of derricks and oil rigs, and once in a great while, swaths of brilliant blue water amidst the greys and black. If there is an inconographic representation of California's oil boom, I'd have to say it would be this sort of shot. Close-ups of the actors, filthy most times, unkempt, faces and limbs bronzed by outdoor labor, added to the realism. Dirty fingernails, sweat pouring from their bodies, drenched in the oil that would make them rich, dust and mud beneath their feet--all were astoundingly photographed, down to the grease that rings their collars. Technically, it's inarguably a superior film.
It's a rough, rugged, hardscabble world here with characters that cannot or will not exorcise the malignancy that has taken root in themseleves. It's a bold and visceral film that's well worth the lengthy view.
Movie Review: Epic Movie about an Epic Era
Summary: 5 Stars
This movie is as good as it gets in modern moviemaking. Daniel Day-Lewis, our greatest living actor, adds his greatest character portrayal yet to a seemingly unlimited range of characters past. He plays Daniel Plainview an oil wildcatter during the age of the post-Reconstruction "Robber Barons."
Not all of the Robber Barons were financial wizards like Jay Gould or conniving accounting monopolists like John D. Rockefeller, unethically stealing the profits of the hard working entrepreneurs who made the great oil and mineral discoveries of the time. Daniel represents the driven, rugged individualist who resisted and defeated Rockefeller and the railroads' attempts to reap the fortune of his almost literally back-breaking efforts.
But in his quest, struggle and ultimate financial success Plainview pays a heavy price. The brutal, ruthless life he leads to attain his ambition for wealth leaves him resembling more a denizen of nature than a resident of the human race. Whether he lost his soul in his childhood, in his quest, or never had one in the first place, is for the viewer to decide.
The scene with his "brother", Henry, is truly chilling when Daniel first reveals his brutal, misanthropic nature. Only Daniel Day-Lewis could deliver such blood curdling dialogue in that scene; slowly, in a philosophical manner explaining to Henry his hateful feelings toward all others with a fatalistic smile on his face. He is a man comfortable in a skin in which many others would not be. Kevin J. O'Connor's portrayal of Henry is outstanding as a desperate soul who never betrays Daniel, and is as loyal as a brother, but dies at Daniel's hand.
Daniel, as is shown throughout the movie, has a very perverse view of family and loyalty. The development of his relationship with his adoptive son, H.W., is the clearest view into Daniel's character and ultimately renders the final verdict on Daniel's lifelong quest for wealth. Daniel's hardened and embittered nature is never shown more pointedly, and brutally, than in his final scene with H.W. ("a [...]in a basket!"). It is the savagely destructive psychological counterpart to the physical destruction Daniel wreaks in the final scene with Eli Sunday, the "false prophet".
Paul Dano as Eli Sunday, the greedy charismatic preacher, has received many accolades for his performance. It is good, though not as good as O'Connor's "Henry" or the young H.W. (Dillon Freasier).
The main problem is not so much Dano's performance as his character's physical appearance. Day-Lewis ages slowly but markedly through the thirty-five year period of the movie. Dano, however, looks exactly the same age in the final confrontation in the bowling alley as he does when he first encounters Daniel at Eli's family dinner table.
There is also a scene later in the movie, some time after the scene at the family dinner table, in which Daniel beats and humiliates Eli in front of others. It is almost a cinematic non-sequitur since the tension and rivalry between the two has not built to the point to justify the scene.
Regardless, those two items of criticism are slight in the context of a truly great movie. The cinematography and the musical score lend greatly to its dark atmospherics. It is encouraging to see that it was written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson whose previous undistinguished work includes the voyeuristically juvenile "Boogie Nights" and the embarrassing attempt at romantic comedy, "Punch Drunk Love".
It does shows that an artist can grow beyond the exploitative and immature sides of Hollywood cinema as he matures. It undoubtedly helped Thomas to have Daniel Day-Lewis as the star, rather than an Adam Sandler. This is Day-Lewis's movie and he is the best.
I have used the word "brutal" on a number of occasions in this review. The era of the Robber Barons was just that. This movie effectively conveys the history you may read about the era and the unforgiving state of nature that produced men like Daniel Plainview.
As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the Plainview character is "loosely" based on a character named Vern Roscoe in the novel "Oil," written by Upton Sinclair. Sinclair's fictional character, in turn, was "loosely" based on a real person, named Edward L. Doheny. He is profiled in Wikipedia if you would like more information about him.
All such "loose" associations are irrelevant in a great movie. Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis have produced a cinematic masterpiece. It will be considered a classic in due time because of the timelessness of its theme and the greatness of its performances.
I'm finished.