There Will Be Blood Review by Zara (5 Stars) | MatchFlick
Left Header Right Header
Header 3a   Header Right End A Header Right End B Space
Header Left 3b
Movie Reviews Columns Now on DVD Now Playing News
FREE Membership Member Login About MatchFlick  FAQ's MatchFlick Friday
Steal of the Day
Transformers Bring Home A Hero Promo - Optimus Prime Mask DVD
$19.99
$12.99
The Steal of the Day is offered by MatchFlick's DVD partner, FamilyVideo.com.


 

Member Login  [help]
 
 
 
 
 
Membership
 Join for FREE
 FAQs
 About MatchFlick
 Privacy Policy
Popular Movies  [more]
 Fight Club
 Pulp Fiction
 Eternal Sunshine
Popular People  [more]
 Johnny Depp
 Tom Hanks
 Natalie Portman
Member Trends
 Horror Club
 Reviewer Stats
Movie News
 Current News
 News Archives
Message Board
 Go To The Forum
Columns   [more]
 Movies Of South...
 Rendered Useless...
 The Horror, The ...
 Reflections On A...
 COLUMNS ARCHIVES
Contests
 GUESS THAT SCENE
Syndication
 RSS FEEDS
  
MatchFlick Member Reviews
There Will Be Blood
13 reviews

review this movie

read all reviews

Movie Details

All Movie Info

Starring:
Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Kevin J. O'Connor, Ciaran Hinds, Kevin Breznahan, Brad Carr, Hans Howes, Erica Jones, John Kerry, Jim Meskimen, Paul F. Tompkins, Coco Leigh, Russell Harvard, Mary Elizabeth Barrett, Mark Flanagan, Colleen Foy, Vince Froio, Coco Leigh, Hope Elizabeth Reeves, Rhonda Reeves, Erica Sullivan, January Welsh, David Willis

Directed By:
Paul Thomas Anderson

Written By:
Paul Thomas Anderson, Upton Sinclair


 
There Will Be Blood (2007)
email this review to a friend

Movie Review by Zara
May 12th, 2008

Favorite Movie Quote: "I am a false prophet and god is a superstition."

Let me start off by explaining that I love frontier stories. I grew up reading about them and watching old westerns with my grandfather. I like when stories of this nature don't try to modernize and I especially like it if they take their time developing the characters into something other than one dimensional illusions of what a real person might have done. (Casting young actors and then giving them roles that SEEM fitting but ultimately go nowhere, like with what was done in THE CLAIM, is my biggest beef.)

I want to point out that in one of the forum posts, I asked people which actors/actresses that they feel might have been overlooked at the Oscars. And I agree with Bobby that Paul Dano was a horrible oversight. Playing twins (albeit briefly as the first of the two and sporadically as the second, disillusioned and treacherous as a *ahem* false prophet), Dano infuses the preacher Eli with a simple and pretty face, fills him full of anger and vengeance at something that he doesn't understand the depth of or where it's coming from, and makes you both hate him and question if your hatred is really pity or sheer despise for what he represents.

What I've heard in feedback about this film is that people believed it was slow. In a sense, yes, it was slow. It took 2 1/2 hours to fully develop the evil, the shadows and the depth of the story being told. This wasn't a pizza that was promised delivery in under 30 minutes. This was an epic about the goodness and maliciousness in mankind, not just the oilman played so adeptly by Daniel Day Lewis.

What ARE people willing to do for money? What are people willing to do for power? And most importantly, how far does one work at ensuring that they're always "right"? Think about it. Are you one of those people who can't sit still, can't function or operate clearly until you get your definitive message across? It makes me think of a cartoon I once saw where there is a stick figure at the computer typing away, brushing off their loved one's question of when they're coming to bed. They respond by saying that they can't just yet because someone on the internet is "wrong." Are you that person?

This is the meticulously laid out story of a man who was that figure at the computer, told during the last years of the 1800's and the first 27 into the 1900's. A man who knew no bonds to family, no desire than what it took to get him what he wanted. And even more interestingly, a man who ultimately had NO CLUE what exactly it was that he specifically desired. Other than his unspoken need to always be "right."

Part of me loved this for the performances of Lewis and Dano. Part of me loved this because it was a frontier story. Part of me loved this because while it took its time, it never came off boring to me. Perhaps because I'm from California and have heard the stories of what life was like, passed down through the generations. Knowing about how California was raped for its oil, its land, its accessibility to the Pacific Ocean, its weather and prosperous nature. From the devious landowners who sent out fliers to the Okies to get them to come and pick fruit so that they could force the cost of labor to stay down in the state to the far reaching atrocities of the priests coming through and nearly decimating the Chumash tribe in an attempt to force Christianity on them, passing along viruses that they'd never been exposed to and subsequently died in record numbers from. California's history will never be boring to me.

I'm pleased to say that I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I did and instead turned out to love it.

email this review to a friend

Comment on this Review:

Sorry, you must be a member to add comments to reviews.

Join or Login.



Bobby B
May 12, 2008 12:01 PM
also wrote a review of There Will Be Blood
 
Fantastic review. Really nice writing and a lovely perspective.

Jamie
May 19, 2008 5:36 AM
 
Great review (as per usual) and I particularly appreciated your personal perspective. I have a question for you, which I'll preface with the following: when I saw the film, I thought that Daniel Day Lewis was putting on an acting clinic, let alone Paul Dano and the rest of the cast. The cinematography was almost distracting in its brilliance. I would definitely rate it as high as you did based on its technical and performance merits, and everyone should see it for those reasons alone. But what can we take away from this film that we can learn from (and specifically, the D.D. Lewis character) or that we can identify with? And whether there's an answer or not in this case, should movies necessarily, and intentionally, have to teach us something about the world or about ourselves?
Zara
May 19, 2008 9:51 AM
 
It's a question of which evil people are willing to accept in mankind. (Without giving too much away about the movie...) Is it better to have a person be evil and horrible and be honest about it? Or would you prefer to know that the person you trusted the most turn out to be a treacherous liar? Which is worse? I think that's what the movie hinges on and the fact that there is no happy ending, that the purest of them all is the son who is a figure that most would have condemned because of his station in life (the part that can't be said here without giving it away) is a sad thing that makes people not like themselves. It's a lesson in tolerance, really.



Subscribe to MatchFlick Movie Reviews through RSS



  RSS | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | About MatchFlick® | Press | Contact Us | FAQs
Partnership and Advertising Opportunities | Movie Database | Merchandise

©2004-2008 MatchFlick®. All rights reserved.
©MOVIE IMAGES ARE COPYRIGHT PROTECTED AND THE PROPERTY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS