Paul Thomas Anderson’s films usually evoke simple emotions: people either love them or hate them. This polarizing style belongs to Anderson’s amazing skill of crafting complex films. Much could be, and has been, written about Anderson’s previous four films: Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch-Drunk Love. Each film featured indelible images, distinct soundtracks, and great performances. An underlining thread in each film is the impact and idea of family. It should be no surprise then that this is so with his latest film, There Will Be Blood, which is probably the director’s most-polarizing work.
Everything else about the film, though, is a complete departure from his previous works. There Will Be Blood is a tense, acerbic epic that has lingered in my subconscious for over a week now. Seeing the film for the first time left me with a familiar sense of awe that’s inherent in the works of another brilliant film-auteur, Stanley Kubrick. There Will Be Blood spans the first three decades of the 20th century, focusing on an oilman’s greed and misanthropy, and his son.
The film’s story begins to gather steam when Daniel Plainview and his young son, H.W., are given a tip about a town named Little Boston, where oil literally seeps to the top of the earth. Plainview’s ambition and greed are piqued by the information, sending all of his instruments to the area to capture the oil. Once they reach the town, they are confronted by a charismatic, slippery young preacher, Eli Sunday.
It becomes apparent that Plainview is one to say and do whatever it takes to get what he wants. He works maniacally to reap the fruits of his labor, letting no distractions come in his way between himself and his quest for wealth. His response to the surprises and plot twists of the film’s second act expose the truth of his character, and forces the audience to confront the reality of this man.
Article comments
1 - Patrick Joseph
There will be blood, a plot-less, character driven mess that has no point or purpose except to expose the degredation of our society and humantiy. Three hours of pointless meanderings into the life of an "oil-man". What do we pull from this movie, a metaphor for the American greed machine, who will stop at nothing to get what he wants? Or maybe a psychopathic entrepreneur that has no idea of what life is really about? Or maybe the director is thumbing his nose at the American cinematic viewer, trying desperately to antagonize us into believing that we can have sympathy with a man with such merit because we all have a little bit of Daniel Plainview in us...my favorite part of the movie though is the end..."God is a superstition" Amen to that...a hefty Amen to that...can we all just realize that God is not real...and if he does exist, that he does not care about us!!!
2 - robert
i understand all except...... what happened to Paul .....???
3 - Zack Williams
Are you asking what happened to Paul Dano, or his character...
Sorry, but I'm a little lost by your question. If you've seen the movie, you know exactly what happens to his character and why.
Or you asking what happened to Paul Thomas Anderson...?
4 - Keren
i ask too: what happned to paul, or is he really a side of ilay?
5 - Zack Williams
Oh, Paul... the other Sunday.
He was smart, like Plainview said. He took his money and didn't go back to Little Boston. I don't think P.T. Anderson was trying to trick the audience or anything with Dano playing both actors. I read that someone else was supposed to play Paul Sunday, but Anderson didn't like this performance, or something of that nature