there will be blood

[aramism]

ok first of all, daniel day lewis is the greatest actor in the world now. no one even comes close. i'll go out on a limb and say that his performance in there will be blood is the best acting in a film since tom hanks in forrest gump, at least for me. i think it's probably even better anyway. hell it could be one of the best performances of all time.


the movie upsets me more because it just misses being perfect and it had so much more potential. the first half of the movie is great, but some of the plot development started to suffer towards the end, a lot of things were unexplained, like i didn't realize until talking to someone later that eli and paul were different people, and there was no reason given about why his son all of a sudden decided to open his own company, and that he was a partner in the first place. they should of taken another 30-40 minutes and made the movie super long(er) and developed some plots and characters a little more. i feel like any given scene from that movie is a true masterpiece but as a whole you can sense that the movie has a pseudo-intellectual "charm" to it. by that i mean, the writer/director tried to really bend it into a bigger thing than it was and the plot and story development suffered.


that being said, it is still a great movie. i cannot stress how good it is, it just hurts me that it came so close to being a heavy hitter masterpiece in american film. it came close to being a "benchmark" movie that will be talked about for the next 40 years like how we talk about taxi driver, or citizen kane, or chinatown, or whatever.

 

[Remy_5150]

I personally think everything was pretty much explained, its very clear why the son wanted to start his own company. Also, I think ADDING time to that movie would have been the LAST thing you'd want to do. The few complaints I've heard about the movie had to do with the length of the movie. And I think it is definitely a benchmark movie, I could see it 10-15 more times and get something out of it each time.

 

[illegalfireworks]

The only thing I liked about it was the camera shots and the eerie music .. other than that I really did not enjoy this movie. Nothing really happened .. or maybe something did and I just missed it??

 

[aramism]

I personally think everything was pretty much explained, its very clear why the son wanted to start his own company. Also, I think ADDING time to that movie would have been the LAST thing you'd want to do. The few complaints I've heard about the movie had to do with the length of the movie. And I think it is definitely a benchmark movie, I could see it 10-15 more times and get something out of it each time.

it was definetly a good movie. but this article makes some valid points. http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/getting_reel/01509_the_ponzi-schemes_there_blood.html


it was like one or two things away from being a "timeless classic" it still is in my eyes the best movie in a LOOOOOOOONG long time. i'm not even going to talk more about the acting which you would hard pressed to find a better performance from any movie EVER.

 

[Remy_5150]

one other thing...I just read that article you posted the link to, and I'm sorry, that guy is an idiot. I can see why he doesn't like the acting, that paragraph was ok. But that huge paragraph where he asks like 20 questions, trying to show that there are plot holes and such, is SO DUMB. I'm not a film student or anything, but so many of the questions have pretty obvious answers. He acts like all those things have to be spelled out in the movie. If you do a little thinking yourself (which he clearly didn't do), the answers are very very clear.

The dead giveaway that the guy is an idiot is when he asks about the son trying to burn the house down...what the fuck? I feel like a 6th grader would know the answer to that question.

 

[Grave Desire]

just saw the movie last night. Like you guys...thought it was an awesome movie. I think all the actors did a great job...the best being Daniel and the guy who played Eli and Paul(took me about halfway through the movie to realize they were two different people...i thought twin brothers but i guess they were just brothers).

The length of the movie didn't bother me too much...although about towards the end I started to check my watch. I've seen movies alot shorter that seemed longer for sure.

Alot of the best scenes to me were at Eli's Church...creepy shit man. haha. The best is when Daniels like "that was one hell of a show eli"

 

[aramism]

one other thing...I just read that article you posted the link to, and I'm sorry, that guy is an idiot. I can see why he doesn't like the acting, that paragraph was ok. But that huge paragraph where he asks like 20 questions, trying to show that there are plot holes and such, is SO DUMB. I'm not a film student or anything, but so many of the questions have pretty obvious answers. He acts like all those things have to be spelled out in the movie. If you do a little thinking yourself (which he clearly didn't do), the answers are very very clear.

The dead giveaway that the guy is an idiot is when he asks about the son trying to burn the house down...what the fuck? I feel like a 6th grader would know the answer to that question.

yea i agree with you

 

[KeithRT99]

ok first of all, daniel day lewis is the greatest actor in the world now. no one even comes close. i'll go out on a limb and say that his performance in there will be blood is the best acting in a film since tom hanks in forrest gump, at least for me. i think it's probably even better anyway. hell it could be one of the best performances of all time.


the movie upsets me more because it just misses being perfect and it had so much more potential. the first half of the movie is great, but some of the plot development started to suffer towards the end, a lot of things were unexplained, like i didn't realize until talking to someone later that eli and paul were different people, and there was no reason given about why his son all of a sudden decided to open his own company, and that he was a partner in the first place. they should of taken another 30-40 minutes and made the movie super long(er) and developed some plots and characters a little more. i feel like any given scene from that movie is a true masterpiece but as a whole you can sense that the movie has a pseudo-intellectual "charm" to it. by that i mean, the writer/director tried to really bend it into a bigger thing than it was and the plot and story development suffered.


.

I loved it, but this I think everyone is misusing the term plot. Plot refers to obstacles or problems that drive the story. There will be blood is more of a narrative - it's a story about daniel day-lewis's character. The only thing that confused me (and others i know) is wether eli and paul were the same person.
Also the music distracted me at points, i heard a rumor that it was written for a different movie, but they decided to use it for this one.

 

[Remy_5150]

the soundtrack was done by Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead, and one reason it didn't get nominated for best original score is because some of the music he had written not specifically for the movie,and there are one or two classical piece that are used in the score as well.

 

[Grave Desire]

Was it the case that Paul and Eli were different people? I thought that because when Eli goes after his dad when they were eating dinner Eli says that Paul probably told Daniel to come to the Ranch for oil. And Even Daniel at the end tells Eli that Paul came to him. Anything else I'm missing here?