Director: Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Hard Eight, Punch Drunk Love)
Producers: Daniel Lupi, Joanne Sellar
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Kevin J. O’Connor, Ciarán Hinds, Dillon Freasier
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 158 min.
There are few films released this year that had me more anticipatory than the newest effort from PT Anderson. His lengthy pieces on the drama that is human interaction only come about once every two to three years. In this case, we’ve waited over five years for his newest epic. With Boogie Nights and Magnolia sitting comfortably within the “best films of the 90s” category, expectations and my inquisitive nature puts There Will Be Blood near the top of the list for most sought out films of 2007. Does it measure up to my hopes and dreams? Well, yes and no.
Here is an example of a film that is both good and bad at the same time. It’s so good and so bad that it’s difficult to assign a star rating. Certain aspects of the picture are unbelievably well crafted, deserve huge accolades and will undoubtedly receive several Oscar nominations. At the same time, the story itself is flawed and disjointed.
We open the film on a desert plain where we see a prospector, Daniel (Daniel Day-Lewis), mining for gold/silver. The following 20 minutes or so focus on Daniel’s trials and tribulations as he rises in the “ranks” of a struggling miner working by himself, to slowly developing a team of helping hands, conceiving a business and working with more and more complex tools and machinery. Completely devoid of any dialogue or score and simply letting the visuals tell the story, this is one of the best sequences within the entire film.
Flashing forward a few years, we see Daniel, along with his son, travelling from town to town, convincing the good people in each town to let him buy up their land so that he can build oil wells; promising wealth and a flourishing community should they accept. While Daniel’s only concern is money and power, he must appear to be a real family man: honest, hardworking (he is that), polite and in touch with his spiritual side. In one such town, he is encountered by a religious fundamentalist named Eli (Paul Dano) and his congregation. Eli is not as stupid or as naieve as Daniel thinks he is and makes it much more difficult for Daniel to trample over people in his endeavor to conquer the oil industry.
This is the gist. Of course there is more to it than that, with several inconsequential plot threads within an atypical running length of over 2 1/2 hours. The timeline shoots ahead several years at various points throughout the picture which can make for a little bit of a jarring experience. The audience is left without some closure at various points and maybe left wondering what happened to so-and-so and why?
Daniel Day-Lewis will see huge praise for his performance as a greedy, heartless man who must appear like a caring and compassionate individual. Without him, I think the movie would largely become a critical failure as he is able to capture our attention with his piercing stares and his natural ability to manipulate people. While it is a riveting performance, I couldn’t help but constantly be reminded of Hugo Weaving’s performance in the Matrix trilogy. Day-Lewis and Weaving have the exact same vocal range and intonations for their respective roles and I couldn’t shake the feeling that at any moment, Daniel would start referring to people as “Mis. ter. An. derson.” However, his slowly degrading mental health is very evident throughout the picture and is captivating.
No one else in the movie really has much screen time. Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine), who plays Eli, has a few moments that might be interesting to some, but other than that, this is all Day-Lewis’ movie. Basically, the film treats all of its characters the same way Daniel does; using them like Kleenex before discarding them when they’re no longer of use.
The true character of the film is it’s technical side. First and foremost, the score. The opening shot has one of the more attention grabbing, ambience scores you’re likely to hear. Jonny Greenwood of the band, “Radiohead,” has put together something truly unique that immediately grabs the viewer and makes them a listener as well. I talk alot about a film’s score and its importance; when it’s needed and when it becomes a nuisance. In this case, it may not be needed, but it adds so much flavor to the screen that if it weren’t so damn cool with intense, emotional impact, it would be distracting in its volume and heavy, rhythmic complexities.
For those who found greatness in the look and style of films such as No Country for Old Men or The Assassination of Jesse James, you’ll find yourself seeing more of the same wondrous style here. Anderson, using his usual cinematographer (Robert Elswit – Good Night and Good Luck), showcases gorgeaous landscapes and lighting technique that is very aesthetically pleasing to the eye. From dark mine shafts, to desert vistas, to silhouette shots against a raging oil fire, nearly every shot is something to behold. At times, along with the unique music track, the style is very reminiscent of the later works of Stanley Kubrick.
The ultimate goal of the film, it seems, is to cover one man’s journey and convince the audience that the consequences for lusting after wealth and power with no regard to others is a shallow endeavor and will leave you soulless and barely a shell of a man. The problem is with the way the story is written. We get all the details throughout the film pointing to the fact that greed is bad, but there’s no overlying story arch. Upon closer examination, it’s just a slow moving, series of events that shape a man’s life.
With plenty of character development (for only Daniel) and impressive acting (again, only for Day-Lewis); as well as a wonderful technical achievement, There Will be Blood scores high marks. But on pacing and story development, there’s really not much here. With the film’s final act (guess what it contains), there’s very little emotional impact, sympathy or empathy for any of the characters involved, since we only spent time with Daniel and his greedy business practices. Although a bunch of “stuff” happens, nothing actually happens to complete a relevant or interesting storyline. Sure to receive loads of critical acclaim for its technical mastery, for me, There Will Be Blood is one of the mediocre pictures of the year. Although admittedly, this seems to me to be a film worth giving a second try. My guess is it will acquire a richer flavor with subsequent viewings.
Click “play” to see the trailer:
Links:
IMDb profile – full cast and crew
Official Site
Flixster Profile for THERE WILL BE BLOOD
I just looked at some of the tidbits at RT regarding this film. Although generally positive thus far (actually, 100% with 8 reviews so far), they go along way in backing up my assertion in the above review. It’s both good and bad. Take a look at some of the statements:
“Defies Fresh/Rotten designation by being SO good and SO bad all in one very confused act of inspiration.”
“…an extremely talented director. But it is also a flawed, and at times distasteful, piece that will turn off as many viewers as it turns on.”
“Too real to keep popcorn audiences interested, but for more patient moviegoers Daniel Day-Lewis’s hypnotic performance makes it a must see.”
“For those who found greatness in the look and style of films such as No Country for Old Men or The Assassination of Jesse James, you’ll find yourself seeing more of the same wondrous style here.”
Well, those are my two favorite films of the year by FAR, so looks like I’m in for a treat here. Honestly, I’m a bit surprised by your score here, even though I haven’t seen the film. It’s just that everything that I’ve read about it and seen from footage and pictures just really makes me feel like I’m going to have an experience at the movies that I’ll never forget. Of course, how can I really say that without seeing it? I can’t really – and somehow I’m not deterred. My expectations are just as ridiculously high as before.
I’m in love with the damn film and I’ve not even seen it yet. You have no idea how jealous I am sitting here. This is certainly the film that I want to see most for the remainder of the year.
I don’t compare TWBB with No Country or Jesse James in any way except from a sort of western, cinematographic aspect.
Otherwise, the story in this one is not even in the same league as the other two. But you’re right. It’s receiveing pretty critical acclaim, though I’v stumbled across a couple of critics who hated it.
I met with the critic from the Minneapolis Star Tribune briefly after the screening. He was definitely on the fence about this one as well.
I’ll admit this looks like a powerhouse, a point of departure for PT. But, depending on your opinion of course, Anderson has still only made one truly great film (Boogie Nights) and three misfires.
I was worried this would come down to an incredible performance by Day-Lewis and an effective marketing campaign that would sell the film as Malick-esque.
No doubt mixed reviews like this will be the consensus.
Considering Anderson’s body of work up until this point, don’t you think it’s definitely worth giving the film a second try? Anyone who is able to pick up on all of a films themes and nuances in one viewing is pretty amazing.
Tony,
Absolutely! I have a feeling that this film will gain more favor with me upon a second viewing.
And for the record, I LOVE Boogie Nights and Magnolia. I remember being quite fond of Punch Drunk Love as well; though I’ve only seen it once at the theater. I recently purchased the DVD and plan to watch in the upcoming days.
PS – Kurt’s gonna love it.
Another overly long piece of wankery from “Mr. And. er. son” I’m not shocked. I was surprised to hear you say Magnolia is a great film of the 90′s. You couldn’t pay me enough to sit through that piece of garbage again.
Wow. You’re not going to get much love around here with remarks like that. Boogie Nights is probably my third favorite film of all time and Magnolia is not far behind. What a tremendously acted film with an interesting storyline of several characters that all interact with one another at some point. “It happens.” What a great way to sum up your entire film in two words. Everyone mentions the frog sequence. I actually think that’s one of the lesser parts opf the film that only serves to underscore what the rest of the film is trying to tell us. What a great movie. I might have to go watch it right now, you turd.
~ For Your Consideration ~
~ Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood) ~
BEST DIRECTOR
Now. Now. No name calling.
It’s okay. We used to throw up together in college. He’s a turd burglar.
~ For Your Consideration ~
~ Phillip S. Hoffman (Charlie Wilson’s War) ~
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Andrew? Have you seen Charlie Wilson’s War? Are those for Your consideration things automated or something?
Yeah Andrew what’s with this “For Your Consideration” schtick? Are you under the impression that any of us are members of the academy.
I am personally, but I’m no help to you because I just write in Lyndon LaRuche every year.
Hee hee. My favorite acting in Magnolia has to be by that gold standard of actors, Tom Cruise. I just want to tear my eyes out when he’s sitting bedside of his old man as he lay dying. If that’s great acting, I’m Morgan Freeman. Boogie Nights is good though. I’ll give you that one.
Tom Cruise is to movies as Billy Ocean is to music.
I liked Magnolia when it was Short Cuts.
Magnolia seems to really divide people. i think it’s brilliant, and better than Short Cuts (in my opinion) because it took a broad observation of life and gave it a depth that revealed the souls of the characters, rather than just their actions. i know that Short Cuts has its place as influential cinema, but i felt that Magnolia added a profoundness to what Short Cuts only hinted at.
Dykstra comes through in the clutch with words that are correct. Also, hate Cruise all you want (I’m not going to defend him), but his role in Magnolia is fantastic and one of my favorite againts type-cast, “villainous” roles of all time. Nominated for an Oscar if I’m not mistaken.
Oh yeah, and I’m doing the for your consideration thing…
because I want to. I love Oscar season (not so much the Oscars themselves) and I get carried away.
~ Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead) ~
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Drew, Is this “Oscars” you speak of the same ones that gave Shakespeare in Love best film over Saving Private Ryan? Yeah, they always know what they’re talking about.
*Finally* had a chance to catch up with this and WOW. I love these big sweeping sagas and though this one is much less of a saga and more of a character study, it’s one I found consistently fascinating. The changes in character – especially with the entire religious aspects of the story – had me completely engrossed and thankfully, the husband too (I say thankfully otherwise I’d never hear the bloody end of it – especially after the Sweeney Todd debacle).
And that opening scene…I got a shiver when the music kicked into the opening shot. I can’t wait to see this again.
Also – at some point down the line, I’d love to see/hear a more expensive discussion on this, particularly the ending.
One of my first reviews here at RowThree and I finally got around to a rewatch. I stand by pretty much everything I wrote above. This was my third viewing and I still find myself just staring blankly at the screen marveling at the technical aspects of the film and the acting prowess of Lewis. But still completely unmoved by anything that happens within the story. I simply don’t care about anyone in the movie – either because A) they’re only in the film for three minutes or B) they’re unlikable people.
What a waste of Ciaran Hinds who just wallows in the shadows and mutters something every now and then.
I am with you, Andrew. A lot of great individual parts in this case do not make a great whole.
This criticism (of the waster of Ciarnan Hinds) was similarly leveled at how Michael Mann used many actors in PUBLIC ENEMIES or how Terence Malick has bizarre wasted cameos in The Thin Red Line and The New World. I don’t get it so much, they edit in service of the tone of the film (And yes, I realize this goes against my criticisms of Barbara Hershy and Vince Cassel in Black Swan, but those characters actually were characters, and not background folks, as Hinds is in TWBB).
I think there’s a difference between a cameo and a waste. Having George Clooney show up for a quick five minute speech in TRL is fine. Hinds is in TWBB for a good chunk of the film and he actually has a hand in certain things (like saving H.W. at the oil derrick and going with him on the train and advising on land ownership deals and so forth). So he probably has the most actual screen time of any actor in the film (after Lewis), but has very little dialogue or actual interaction. He just kind of sits in the background for the most part. What can I say? I like the actor and it’s frustrating that he’s there but not there.
But really this is a very minor criticism of the movie. My main beef is that it simply is unemotional but feels like it’s trying to be emotional.
Actually, Paul Dano, and Kevin J. O’Connor (and probably H.W. as a boy, Dillon Freasier) all have significantly more screen time than Hinds. I actually like his ‘business partner’ character, in the film, and that Plainview has so arbitrarily replaced him in the ’1929′ closing scene shows just how he is in terms of employees/partners and is a great commentary on ‘big business’ and ‘ownership’ and how it is talked about in the film.
Watch again. Possibly Paul Dano has more screen time, but if so, not much. Ciaran Hinds is in this movie quite a lot. On an actual minute by minute basis, who knows. But Hinds is in this movie a lot more than appears at first glance – which is what is frustrating because he’s there, he’s just not doing anything.
I will say I began to Like Dano’s performance much better this time. He was praised an awful lot at the time and I always thought he was overrated in the role; but looking back it’s a pretty nice performance.