It has been a while since I watched a film where the acting and casting is so damn convincing - I have to start this review by saying that.

The plot is definitely off the beaten track anf the writing very very much a breath of fresh air.

Unfortunately this is a film that can come down to tastes quite a bit when the reviews come round, and although I can't necessarily critique it specifically, there is something about it that I just couldn't get gripped by, and the ending didn't truly satisfy me (though the end scene itself is probably the high point of the movie. Confusing review, I know)

This is not a negative review by any means, but 8-10 are reserved for films that truly get you talking, or have a huge emotional impact in my opinion

As a recommendation, this film is a definite yes. I believe that I am on the side of people who this genre doesn't appeal to much at all, but as a piece of film and a showcase of acting, it is utterly utterly great.

This is a compelling family drama charting one man's rise and fall as he ruthless exploits oil in the American west. It has everything you could want from a great Hollywood movie: subtlety, excellent acting, a thoughtful and intelligent script and quite wonderful cinematography.

It's a film in which the oil is a supporting character in itself, and the series of unfortunate deaths and accidents that beleaguer our leading man reminded me of Emile Zola's excellent novel, Germinal. Daniel Day-Lewis gives another assured performance here, living and breathing rather than merely acting his role, and watching his growing feud with the slimy preacher is the stuff of great cinema. All in all a wonderful, epic film, old fashioned in the best possible sense.

There's a prospector by the name of Daniel Plainview, a weathered type of soul, after all the things he's been through, now he's come across some oil, underneath Californian soil, and he's planning to extract, withdraw, accrue. He has a son that he acquired after a blow, now where he goes, young H. B. will also go, as he supports his father's hand, acquiring most of the scrub land, with the knowledge of the flow that sits below. But a preacher seeks to meddle, interfere, and Daniel Plainview's disinclined to be so dear, H. B's deafened by a boom, a long lost brother finds a tomb, there's no salvation, when your life's so insincere.

Two of the finest cinematic characters you'll encounter.

People did not like this movie for a simple reason: too negative. I can understand that this movie is so depressing in so may ways.

What it shows that Big Fish eats Litte Fish and none of us want to think about that anymore than most of us experience it in our daily life. It shows the battle between the evangelicals and the corporate business man. Or maybe even the battle between evangelicals of today and the non-religious people or atheists of today. Even worse is that this movie shows that religious people, priests are or can be as bad as a corrupt oil man. Maybe why people did not like this movie is because it might have offended them. Especially Paul Dano playing the priest. Both Daniel Day Lewis and Paul Dano are wrong and too extreme on their opinions. People are able to accept this. What people cannot accept is though that these same extremities and same misguided opinions from both characters are very much true in that they are heavily believed still today. Not all Christains are like Paul Dano's character and not all business man are like Daniel Day Lewis's character but many are like them. That is the world we live in.

Now is their any alternative or positive side? The answer is yes and that is H.W. the son of Daniel Plainview(Daniel Day Lewis). He epitomizes hope. He shows that despite being deaf and having a father who uses him as a ploy for better business he can still break free of the chains that he is being tied down by. What separates H.W. from the residents and evangelists of Little Boston? The difference is that he and his father are educated and they are not. That is how Daniel Plainview is able to manipulate and cheat them the Sunday family, even Eli Sunday(Paul Dano) the priest and preacher of Little Boston. From what H.W. sees and experiences he sees that much of what is around him is just wrong. He uses his experience that he had gained as a kid to break free of the corruption and chaos that could have taken over him. That is one aspect of the education I'am talking about: our experiences and understanding of what is happening around us.

Now to get to the technical aspects of There Will Be Blood. It is just truly spectacular in every way. First off the acting was amazing. Daniel Day Lewis gave arguably the best performance of his career playing Daniel Plaiview or ever since movies began to be made. He freaked me out and probably shocked many people. His thirst for power and money was at such a high level that it made me wonder about what people are really capable of. The deceiving, the greed, the thirst for power and the every man for himself attitude actually looked more real than ever to me. Without Daniel Day Lewis I don't think this movie could have achieved what it has. Paul Dano gave a great performance as Eli Sunday though people tend to disagree. I think he gave a great portrayal of an extremist evangelical priest of how he himself had his own thirst for power and how he was more blasphemous then respectful and gracious to god then how you would expect a priest to be. How could people not be shocked by these two characters, I was myself.

Why was the music for this movie not liked. I thought this was among the top five musical scores I have ever heard. The music perfectly gave you the feeling of the corruption and deception setting into the movie. It perfectly intertwined with the rest of the movie as the movie itself was ever growingly becoming more and more chaotic and surreal. Probably too shocking though.

Paul Thomas Anderson I believe gave the best directing job of the year. He was able to show the oil fields and its processes, the rise of an oil man, the way everyone can be bought even a priest and the hope that H.W. represented. This movie was never boring and it was as stunning of a directing job as Daniel Day Lewis gave as a performance for his role in this movie. The intensity of this movie was as high as a movie could possibly be and some of the credit for this has to go to the director. The cinematography and the music seemed to intertwine perfectly like the rest of the movie. It gave the sense of the time period and as said before the greed, deception, etc. The cinematography did not just give you a negative feeling but a feeling as if what you are watching is real.

You should not like this movie just because of the great technical achievements as you should not for any movie but for what it says and how it says it. I'm not even sure if you should enjoy this movie in general but you should not be blinded by your opinions. I applaud you whoever out there who can somewhat understand this movie and get past the lying and deceiving we do to ourselves. This movie really shows the humanity of human beings. Why is this rated-R?It has so many intense scenes that if you get inside this movie it is truly haunting. Now maybe this movie was too powerful for many people, it was probably even shocking for realists. Maybe though its not that surprising that so many people don't like this movie because the truth hurts. Not the truth about corruption or about people but the truth about ourselves.

This film is masterpiece on all levels. The acting from everyone, but especially Daniel Day Lewis, is amazing. The writing, is superb and fits the time period. The on location shooting, phenomenal. The script and direction from Paul Thomas Anderson has never been better. Yes, this is a slow burn, but on multiple rewatches, it doesn't feel long. In fact the slow burn feels more nuanced every time I watch this picture. Oh and we can't forget about Robert Elswit's gorgeous cinematography of California in the late 1800's. It's one of the best movies shot on film of all time, and he deservedly won the Academy Award for this. I love "There Will Be Blood" and it's reflection of capitalism and religion that can be seen even to this day. Thank you PTA and the rest of the cast and crew for creating a truly cinematic experience that will last forever in my head, and one that I will continue to revisit for a long time.

It's about expansion, it's about capitalism, and whatever that caused the demise of the Wild West myth. "There Will be Blood" looks, smell, feels like a Western but this is an Anti-Western more than anything …

There's so much to say about this movie but it left me speechless at the end, Daniel Day-Lewis was hypnotic, giving a performance that reminded me of Orson Welles in "Citizen Kane", and Humphrey Bogart in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" ... He's definitely one of the greatest actors of his generation, especially in this performance that probably best defines the alienating effect of materialism. The 40's had Charles Foster Kane, the 80's had Gordon Gekko and the 2000's have Daniel Planview.

Indeed, "There Will be Blood" is not your typical 'soul corrupted by money and/or power' drama, as I said, it's all about materialism, ending with a pocket filled by gold and a heart made of the same stone you've been working on all your life, it's trusting anything that has a specific color, a specific smell, working on a land to find a greasy black liquid gushing from its womb, and never, never trusting or giving any credit to "nothingness" or "abstraction".

Daniel Plainview considers these abstractions with the most profound disdain. Nothing is free, nothing comes from nothing, nothing is unsubstantial. If one claims to be your brother, he has to prove it, if one should make a deal with you, he should talk business and not about education ... not because it's personal, not because it has nothing to do with business, BUT because it is NOTHING and nothingness irritates Plainview as if the only thing he could believe on had to be material. The rest is nothing, feelings are nothing, believing is nothing, these so strong and noble words for us, well, Plainview doesn't give a damn about them...

And more than anything, above all these abstractions, there is religion, God is Daniel Plainview's archenemy … this is the ultimate masquerade for him, the cancer that gangrenes the progress, an evil that transforms people into sheep, almost like animals, the biggest hypocrisy of all … Plainview, the capitalist, almost shares the same opinion than Marx who thought religion was people's opium. And because Plainview despises this hypocrisy, he tries to exorcise his hatred by using religion to achieve his plans, exploiting it, like he exploited his adopted son. No feelings, no sentiments, everything should serve a palpable purpose. The end justifies the means.

And ultimately, he gets rich at the end, he's a respected and feared tycoon, as the purest and most implacable illustration of the American dream. But is he happy? no! because power, prosperity, those are still empty words ... he believes in material, in things, in stuff he drinks like the iconic 'milk-shake' metaphor that still resonates in my mind as one of the most memorable hymns to greed and pragmatism. Plainview is greedy, but not evil, evil is still too abstract a word; because it implies the use of one own conscience while Plainview's conscience was dedicated to one goal: getting bigger, possession, expansion, territoriality.

And are we to blame him? Let's not forget the bleak cinematography at the beginning of the film where we could feel, the stink of the oil, the hardness of the rocks and the land as an incontrollable enemy ... let's not forget that Plainview spent half of his life stuck alone into dark holes made of land, stone, metal, oil, and raw matter, so close he could almost feel them, so close it became a part of him ...

"There Will Be Blood" is the quintessential film about materialism and its alienating power, when all that matters is matter!

The year I was born was the same year Predator and Robocop came out. When I was finally old enough to appreciate films, Little Nicky was in theaters. I know, believe me, I know; rocky start. And often I would watch older films, or specials on older films, and be dazzled. You know the ones. Remember when they made Spartacus? Remember sitting in the movies and watching Gregory Peck play Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird? Remember the first time you heard "I could've been a contender" through theater speakers? Well I sure as hell don't. But I'll tell you what, now I feel somewhat caught up. Let's begin with the obvious. Daniel Day Lewis. No one's arguing about this. The man is a veritable God among ants on the screen. He takes his role by the reigns and I don't doubt him for a second. In fact, at times, I was downright afraid of the man. Lewis gives what is easily, EASILY the best performance of the past five years. But let's get serious about it. Lewis' Daniel Plainview is the most convincing, awe-inspiring, and downright mortifying character to take the big screen that I can remember. Here, perfectly in his element and at his best, Lewis could go toe to toe with Brando and Kinski, playing a part that oozes enough skill and pathos to earn him a place among Hollywood's, and perhaps the world's, greatest performances of all time. He gives those of us who missed out on the craft, depth of character, and technique of classic cinema a chance to admire a tour de force portrayal of a memorable, identifiable, and completely despicable character, and it's so damned refreshing that I can't stop singing the man's praises. Paul Dano has been taking a lot of fire for this whole thing. People continue to spout their disapproval of the film's casting, saying that Dano has no business rivaling the seasoned Lewis on the screen. Listen, lay down your swords a minute and consider the obvious. The guy was cast opposite the performance of the decade, he's not going to outshine Lewis and you'd be crazy to expect him to. In fact, I think that he and Lewis' back-and-forths are the films highlights, as we see the juxtaposition not only in the characters themselves, but also in their acting techniques. And the cinematography? Welcome to the old days of film. The glory days of Hollywood. Anderson gives us one of the most beautifully shot and directed films in recent memory, truly at the top of his craft on this one. Every moment feels more epic than the last, until the film becomes such a towering cinematic spectacle that the end leaves the viewer exhausted. It's truly an experience not to be missed. Yeah, we missed out on A Street Car Named Desire. And Casablanca isn't gonna be in theaters again any time soon. But in the meantime, There Will Be Blood is just about as good, and will likely haunt our generation as much as the Hollywood studio epics of the past...

There Will Be Blood. Chilling, Sublime, perfect.

First I must say the Soundtrack is amazingly disturbing and sets the tone of the film from the first scene. Many forget the amount of mood that sound sets.

The film held me enraptured from first to last second.

The story is perfectly displayed. Ever thing is laid out before the viewer in an intentional pace.

The film is for viewers with imagination and foresight who can see through the shams of modern movie plot and into the realm of literature.

The acting is simply stunning. Daniel Day Lewis can portray lines with a single expression and does in this film.

I'm sure many will not enjoy this movie and all I have to say to them is go watch Transformers 2 again.

PT Anderson's name already means something, or I should say something else. His self assuredness alone gives me shivers. A modern artist with such clear and severe vision of the world. Boogie Nights, Magnolia, even Punch Drunk Love have an Wellesian disregard for what's in or out. His films are landmarks that may infuriate some, confuse others and mesmerize the rest of us. Here, with the rigorous tale of an impervious oil man, PT Anderson outdoes himself. He has Daniel Day Lewis as his accomplice in a performance that would be as difficult to match as it is difficult to describe. There is a monstrous beauty here that not even a broken nose can disguise. The saga is filled with long silent moments of tension that take place in a cinematic canvas and an actor's head. PT Anderson must have known that this was going to be, not only not a mainstream opus but a hard pill to swallow. I for one stand up to applaud his daringness.

There Will be Blood! What a fine film! In fact I would go as far to say it is one of the best of the last decade. Visually, it is stunning, I loved the skillful cinematography and shots and the scenery was amazing. Jonny Greenwood's music is atmospheric and haunting as well, the script is lyrical, hysterical and sometimes even baffling, the story is excellent and thematically rich and the pace is fine, quite slow but deliberately so.

There Will be Blood is brilliantly directed by Paul Thomas Anderson and the characters are intriguing. In fact to me the character of Daniel Plainview makes the movie. Magnificently portrayed by Daniel Day Lewis, he is quite complex- while monstrous and cold-hearted, because of his love for his adopted son I wouldn't necessarily call him completely evil either. Paul Dano also does a fine job as Eli Sunday.

Overall, a truly fine film and one of the best of the last decade in my view. 10/10 Bethany Cox

This is a most difficult movie to comment on, and I find it hard to put into words as to the reason. I think I enjoyed the movie, but how, why? Did I enjoy Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal as the leading antagonist? Most defiantly. DDL has provided us with many memorable performances and his role as Daniel Plainview is no less in intensity as was Butcher Bob, nor any less authentic as Nathaniel Poe. Did I enjoy other aspects of the film? Sure! The period piece was of considerable interest; how oil can transform your life, for better, worse or otherwise. The cinematography was beautiful and telling. I fully appreciate the hard, dirty, bone weary work that this occupation would entail. The rag tag day-to-day existence for those working the oil fields, and the land from whence it came. The score too was beautifully blended, adding to the epic scope of the experience. Paul Dano was very convincing too as the prophet/preacher of the small community where Plainview acquires vast tracks of land. His character was equally complex, and I felt he complimented DDL quite adequately. Even the story had many merits, as we came to understand the type of people who produced oil, and how the product of its labor and influence can impact those who were associated with its extraction. So one would think that the buzz and hype around it in February 2008 are worthwhile, yet I cannot seem to agree. There is something missing, something that falls short of the expectations. Too many people are of opposite opinion regarding this movie; it is either a masterpiece or drivel. I find it is neither, although I am much more likely to lean towards the former. For that reason alone I should be what, somewhere five or seven on a scale of 1-10? Perhaps it does, I just wish I could feel it. So should I give it a 7 and stop wasting time lamenting over it? Yes, a 7, for reasons I can explain but not feel confident about. It pains me to do so, therefore I can only conclude that my expectations for this movie were not met.

Totally confused, but never fear, I got it.

Performances, cinematography, actors, Daniel Day Lewis, blah blah blah - all great.....BUT.......

......I simply didn't like it.

I won't say any more than that.

This film raises the game for everyone out there. I have loved all of Paul Thomas Anderson's work, including his greatly underrated Punch-Drunk Love, but this is a huge leap from any of the previous movies into a realm, as others have said, inhabited by classics such as Treasure of the Sierra Madre - and then some. Every element of this film is astonishing, from the opening twenty minutes, which feature virtually no dialog, to Jonny Greenwood's score, which I have heard criticized as too imposing but which seems just about perfect to me (and brings to mind the non-Blue Danube elements of 2001 at its most experimental). Daniel Day-Lewis' performance is in a league of its own: his voice, his mannerisms, his physical movement, his stunted emotions, are flesh and blood, and hauntingly so, in a way that even Tommy Lee Jones in In The Valley of Elah (which I thought was a pretty staggering performance) can't quite attain. I will watch this film again and again simply to see something so raw and so moving and so gut-wrenching. This is why I love movies; this is what made me want to make movies when I was fourteen years old.

Who is Paul Thomas Anderson? There is something about him that does't belong to this earth. That could be a compliment or not, it's all up to us. That's what make his cinema so damn unique. At the end of the day it's all up to us. But the abrasive way in which he visits universes and throws his views to us is so powerful, so arrogant, so enthralling, so infuriating that the experience leaves you baffled and suspicious. but also enchanted, transformed. Here, Daniel's saga could very well be the saga of a Hollywood maverick. So little time for sentimentality. Daniel Day Lewis seems to understand it all and he adds his unmistakable humanity to another monster, after his butcher in Gangs Of New York. His performance goes beyond anything we've seen recently anywhere. From Upton Sinclair to Paul Thomas Anderson via Daniel Day Lewis an unmissable work of art.

PT Anderson delivers perhaps his best work with "There Will Be Blood". Unlike "Magnolia", the film's daunting runtime is not very daunting whilst watching it. All acting in the film was solid, even the work of the child actors. Daniel Day-Lewis in particular delivered a truly phenomenal performance, capturing the power of greed, fear, insanity, and comedy simultaneously, at many points throughout the film. At no point does the time period distract from the power of the film. Sometimes period pieces cannot be appreciated because they delve too deep into historical details -- turning the experience into more of a documentary than a narrative set in the past. This is not the case for "There Will Be Blood", as human interactions are the focus of the film. Johnny Greenwood's chilling score is very strong, benefiting from the elegant minimalism that he show's in the band Radiohead. The cinematography is also spectacular. Robert Elswit beautifully captures the essence of the environment and the tension amongst the characters. All in all, this is truly a perfectly crafted film.

I had heard about what a great movie "There Will Be Blood" is. A friend of my family said that she didn't really like the movie, but described a certain sound in it.

Well, now that I've seen the movie, there are a few things that I can say about it. First, Daniel Day-Lewis does a great job playing the completely maniacal, amoral, self-aggrandizing oil magnate Daniel Plainview. Second, Plainview's speech about how he'll bring all the modern amenities to the small town; that brings to mind the fact that the whole American west now does have all those things...they put all these things in the middle of the desert, prompting everyone to use a lot of water, resulting in water shortages. Third, the subject of petroleum calls to mind present-day international politics. Finally, I would say that Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano each individually are better than the movie as a whole (not to diminish the film).

Probably the most intense scene is the final segment: there's what Plainview does to his son and then to Paul Sunday (or is it Eli?). All in all, it not only adds up to a very good movie, but Paul Thomas Anderson ("Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia") is showing himself to be a very good director.

What is evil? What is hate? How low can an individual go with one's actions and still be considered human....? These, quite possibly, are the biggest questions raised in There Will Be Blood.

Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis, the tycoons at the helm of this dig for moral oil, tell a story that takes the archetypal anti-heroes of 'Citizen Kane' and Travis Bickle of 'Taxi Driver' to a whole new, 21st-century level. The film, using Lewis's character Daniel Plainview, walks through incredibly dangerous cinematic territory that questions religion, plays with the nature of greed and hate and evil, and with it all, draws terrifying parallels to the world we live in today. The film and its main character claw so deep through the limits of humanity and the landscape of hell, that you'll be thanking the Good Lord for the silver screen that divides you from this horrible world Paul Thomas Anderson has portrayed. But despite how safe you may seem in your cushy seat, you will undoubtedly walk out of the theater with all kinds of new demons and ghosts buzzing in your head and ripping away at your subconscious. In this way, Anderson has abandoned his primary previous influence of Robert Altman to take more of a Stanley Kubrick direction, creating moral allegories that creep into your psyche and don't ever leave. You should be scared. Very Scared.

If Daniel Day-Lewis doesn't win an Oscar for this performance, there is something horribly wrong. His performance and this film were amazing. I don't give this kind of accolade out generously. I was at the screening at the Chelsea West. We waited outside in the cold and rain for a good two hours to get in there and get some good seats and I can honestly say, I would have waited double that amount of time. Enough of my rambling though. In regards to the film itself; it was very well done. The cinematography was amazing as well as the set design. As usual, PTA gives us a flawless script with terrifying, humorous, and compelling dialogue. All of the acting was spot on. Paul Dano played the role of a two-faced, maniacal, and power hungry preacher. The young man who plays H.W. Plainview was also very solid. As PTA stated during the Q&A last night, he seemed to know everything about the story and his character and seemed to be a natural. Daniel Day-Lewis. Need I say more? He was breathtaking in TWBB. Amazing is all i can say. You will need to see the film to see for yourself. Some may become bored with the film at times, which is what i gathered from the people sitting around me. I had no problem with the "slow" scenes, but the general public may have a problem grasping this film. If anything, this will be the reason if it gets snubbed at the Oscars.