Comments on: Review: There Will Be Blood

By: Joohwan

Joohwan — Mon, 23 May 2011 06:53:36 +0000

If you don’t have the patience to watch a film, if you are going to assume that a film is no good before you even watch it because of a grudge you have against the director, all I have to say is that you’re an ignorant and impatient idiot.

By: admin

admin — Fri, 06 May 2011 22:54:09 +0000

Yes. Boring. Very boring. Could be used as a cure for insomnia.

By: Anastasia Chavez

Anastasia Chavez — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:54:12 +0000

The duration of films today I’d say is what has killed most of this industry off, like tons of other things I can mention. If these studios are so bent on saving cash, why are these movies so long? I watched this movie from beginning to end. I enjoyed Daniel Day-Lewis, the rest is a blur. I liked Boogie Nights, I like his style and direction but then again, I dig the shit out of Scorsese so it’s natural I enjoy PTA. But I still agree. This movie was boring.

By: grapplermodel

grapplermodel — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:47:24 +0000

i completely disagree with your review. i believe he has found his style with his last 2 movies. i love the confrontations he does in his characters that dont move the story at all. (PSHoffman vs adam sandler/ Daniel vs eli)he has a great writing ability even though his first films’ styles (i think) were copied from other filmmakers. but the guy’s improving. he’s finding something there. i love improvements with filmmakers- not all are born wong kar wais and kieslowskis. i hate filmmakers being refered to as geniuses- some have talent some dont but everyone can improve. PTA has found his stlye and his next film will be the best

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:09:42 +0000

Just watched the movie. Stunning! everything about it from the pacing to Daniel Day Lewis’ performance. The only part I can understand about your review is the musical score, where for some people it may not be their ‘cup of tea’. However, I loved it. I respect other peoples opinions but for this review I have to completely disagree with your points.

By: TWBB is so mature

TWBB is *so* mature — Thu, 22 May 2008 23:19:38 +0000

“I’m your brother… from another mother.”

PTA must be laughing his rich ass off at the fact that all you fucking dimwits so easily drink his Kool-aid.

By: Fan

Fan — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:36:10 +0000

Next time you watch a movie, try WATCHING the movie. I bet you sit down with the latest “indie” sensation from sundance and do nothing but analyze every second of the film until you feel like you’re better than it, like you could do a better job. Paul thomas anderson is a genius that just speaks a different cinematic language than you, and because you can’t wrap you narrow mind around the purpose of this film you hate it. There are movies that I watch that I think I’m going to hate, but I go into them with an OPEN mind and actually enjoy some of them. Try looking at a film not just for plot and dialogue, but consider the cinematography as a sort of storytelling and the score not as overpowering, but a plot point itself. Artistic people have the ability to tell a story without using words and blatant in-your-face dialogue. How do you think classical music has survived for so long. Learn to look deeper at things and maybe you’ll suprise yourself.

By: There Will Be Fanboys

There Will Be Fanboys — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:47:50 +0000

“Because it is so much of a departure of the typical “non-acting” we see from Brad Pitt,Tom Hanks, or most other film actors, it seems unnaturalistic.”

Give me a break. Non-naturalistic, stylized, in-your-face acting gets feted at awards ceremonies all the time. Every year some grand, big, stylized performance wins an Oscar. Oscar voters like nothing better than rewarding big, huge, theatrical gestures: from Vivien Leigh in Gone With the Wind to Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada, stylized, non-naturalistic, putting-on-a-show type acting has always been amply rewarded and admired. This claim that “non-acting” and understatement is favored is a myth. There is absolutely nothing unique or groundbreaking about what Day-Lewis has done here.

By: Simbarashe

Simbarashe — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:58:57 +0000

I completely disagree with your conclusion. Your arguments are okay, but to be fair, films are like music, and directors are like recording artists; just because you don’t like country doesn’t inherently mean that country “sucks”. The ant/protagonist is quite monotonous, most of the shots are long tracking, but who says every film should be paced and arced like “The Departed”? There are tons of music styles that we hear and simply don’t get, but our inability to connect doesn’t mean that real music doesn’t exist. I use this analogy with PTA films in general. He is pretentious — but that’s his ‘style’. His films are always about the inner demons of its main characters. It doesn’t make for bubble-gum entertainment, and that’s the point. The flipside is a movie like Juno; those of us who saw it before it blew up were thoroughly entertained, and then when all the skeptics and fair-weathers went to see it once it became mainstream, started a backlash on the presumption that it tried too hard. Hogwash if you ask me… that was a fine film and this is too, albeit for entirely different reasons.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:05:56 +0000

Your right about two things: PTA is overly pretentious and the movie could be a half hour shorter.

However, your analysis of Daniel Day Lewis’ acting I couldn’t disagree with more. Because it is so much of a departure of the typical “non-acting” we see from Brad Pitt,Tom Hanks, or most other film actors, it seems unnaturalistic. At no point does he phone it in and everything is a truthful choice.

If there is anything to criticize him about is that he sucks up the energy around him, but that could very well be a directorial issue.

Stick to your complaints about Paul Thomas Anderson, but don’t disparage Daniel Day Lewis’s colossal performance because it is abnormal to see such outstanding, unreal acting on the screen.