Since it's both raining and the end of the week, I decided to treat myself to an afternoon viewing of the film that many critics are happily plopping on their Top Ten lists like a bucketful of sweet, sweet crude oil. I am, of course, talking about There Will Be Blood, the latest epic feature from acclaimed director Paul Thomas Anderson. Starring Daniel Day-Lewis in an excellent performance that will surely net him an Oscar nomination (let alone a win), the film focuses on an oil man's rise to power at the turn of the twentieth century and all the dangerous, turbulent drama that comes with it. I won't get into the plot too much, but suffice it to say, at a running time of over two and a half hours, there's plenty of story to go around.
On paper, everything about There Will Be Blood works: the acting is fantastic, the direction is artistic, and the script is full of those academic conceits that get critics going: parallelism, paradoxes, allegories, social commentary, historic reflection, etc. etc. There's no arguing that this is definitely a movie of substance with lots to discuss and debate. The problem, however, is that at the end of the day, it failed to be that most elusive quality in storytelling: engaging. The film's emotional component seemed to be nearly absent, despite several well-drawn and thought-provoking characters. "Thought-provoking," perhaps though, is the central issue. Too often I found myself in a cerebral state: frequently thinking about the director's artistic vision and choices rather than merely being swept away in this fascinating — but ultimately cold and distant — world. I never was bored, per se, by the film, but I didn't always find myself caring too greatly about the outcome either. And no, it's not that I suffer from some sort of anti-intellectualism that mandates movies be ninety minutes long and clearly spelled out for me. Heck, I loved Magnolia, even with its controversial, amphibious climax. The point is that despite all the hype the nations top critics have been stirring up, There Will Be Blood falls just short of its accolades. It's worth seeing, no doubt, and several hours later, I'm still thinking about it, but would I bestow this film with a Best Picture honor? Sadly, no.
Agree? Disagree? What do you think? (And please remember to warn of spoilers if you're going to talk about, well, spoilers).
I hadn't heard about this film yet. I justed wanted to say that I thought the picture was of Tom Sellick. :)
I realize this post is a few weeks old but I just saw this movie last night and you pretty much hit the nail on the head. It was beautifully filmed and the acting was impressive, but the story? Not doing it for me. I really had a problem with the ending and how they jumped ahead 20 yrs with no explanation. Lewis's character seemed to be above the way he ended up. Overall a good flick but I liked "No Country for Old Men" a lot better, although I wasn't satisified with the ending of that either. Maybe its just me?
100% TRUE.
But I think this is the case with nearly all of Paul Anderson's films.
Especially Magnolia, which was beautiful, but utterly forgettable.
Paul Anderson is a top-notch cinematographer, but he always falls short in terms of creating engaging stories.
He shouldn’t be allowed to write.
He bores me to death every time.