http://filmeyeballsbrain.com/2008/09/08/paul-thomas-anderson-there-will-be-blood-2007/

There’s no question that Daniel Day Lewis is an amazing actor . . . and the kid from “Little Miss Sunshine” was comical (probably unintentionally) in his role as the minister . . . but this was an odd, long movie that left us wondering “WTF?”.

There Will Be Blood kind of took me by surprise. I’d heard about it since it won some awards, and my roommate couldn’t stop going on about the “milkshake” line, but other than that I hadn’t really given it any attention until I actually sat down to watch it. And boy, was the surprise ever so pleasant.

As many people have already pointed out, the film’s essentially a vehicle for Daniel Day-Lewis, whose acting is superb. The supporting roles are well-acted, though I still found trouble taking Paul Dano seriously. The look and feel of the film are other big positives; the cinematography is beautiful, with plenty of wide, sweeping landscapes reminiscent of some of the best western films. Heck, There Will Be Blood feels essentially like it should be up there with those very films, given its historical ties with late 1890s/early 1900s California.

Despite its lengthy running time of over two and a half hours the film doesn’t present a whole lot of plot, which was my only real gripe. Although the narrative jumps around different points in time, the majority of the film takes place during a specific point in time in the life of its protagonist (Lewis), and aside from a few things happening here and there not much really occurs. Certainly nothing as epic as you’d expect from a film like this. People with short attention spans will probably hate this movie for that fact alone, aside from its length.

Still, there’s a reason why There Will Be Blood has been nominated for so many awards. In an era where a large chunk of Hollywood movies turn out to be less than stellar, it’s good to come across a film like this.

There Will Be Blood is one of the best current movies I’ve seen. I was drawn into it from the beginning and didn’t move from my seat through the entire movie. It’s based on Upton Sinclair’s novel, Oil! Not sure how true it stayed to the novel but the screenplay was fantastic. I LOVE Paul Thomas Anderson.

Powerful storytelling. There is something in the way that DDL acts, wonderfully and powerfully so – that I have to pause the movie every so often to get a breath of fresh air. His character, Daniel Plainview, is a driven, ruthless, awful, hateful man. An animal, verily. There are some scenes that are so effectively acted that one forgets it is a movie, and is fooled into thinking that this is clear insight into the challenges that Plainview has overcome using all the tools at his disposal. Watch this movie. Then watch it again.

I had the hardest time staying awake through this movie… and in the end, I just kind of stared at the TV and said “THAT took TWOAND A HALFHOURS?!?!?”

The acting was phenomenal, the music was fantastic, I think it was just a little slow for my taste. And I wasn’t terribly interested in the story. Not sure. But it made me sleepy.

Wow. Good one. It reminded me soooo much of Stanley Kubrick at times. Was it the way it was filmed? The pacing? The often odd music? D.D. Lewis… what is there to say? Brilliant acting. Deserving of his Oscar. It’s a dark film, so don’t get too excited to see it. Slow going in places. Just savor the artistry, which is there in abundance.

This film disappointed me. Daniel Day Lewis owns this film, by supreme acting. The cinematography was excellent, as was the dialogue, not to mention the great original score by Johnny Greenwood; direction was great as was the epic storytelling. Thing is, this film isn’t my cup of tea. I think bits of it was lost in the process, at least for me. It’s like the kind of jazz I don’t like; while I appreciate the fact that others may enjoy it, it’s definitely not for me. Didn’t help that members of the church congregation all looked like they played in The Arcade Fire, either! All in all, the film was good, but if I would have reigned over it, I’d have cut it a lot tighter.

I adored it: in fact, it blew my mind! I found it utterly original, a tad bonkers, and completely mesmerising … my head was spinning afterwards!! As soon as I watched it, I wanted to see it again. The structure, and the approach, the depth, the score, the photography, the mood — and of course Day-Lewis; he’s on-screen pretty much for the full 2 hours 45 minutes, and while the performance occasionally became baroque, I just didn’t care: you simply could not take your eyes off him. Spellbinding stuff.

The movie explores a national loss of innocence: the black heart of capitalism – here perfectly represented by the oil industry – rotting the soul of America. The secondary target was that religion, as opium-of-the-people sham – and in its own way as greedy as the oilmen. Needless to say, I could hardly be happier: both capitalistic greed and religion taken to task, perfect! :-)

In fact, I reckon that it’s this deliberate debunking of certain American fundamentals, and America’s founding myth, as opposed to its self-consciously cinéastic approach that scuppered its Oscar bid. I’m a big fan of the Coen Brothers, and I loved No Country… but There Will Be Blood is a true original, and head-and-shoulders the best movie I’ve seen in years.