After Gangs of New York, I fell in love with Daniel Day Lewis' acting. I thought he was superb in that movie, and am eagerly looking forward to his new movie. There Will be Blood.

It's an 89 on www.rottentomatoes.com thus far, and the reviews look good.

Discuss...

I haven't seen it yet, but at least 1 other 2p2er says it's excellent.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ad.php?t=92790

Looks great

Went and saw this last night at the Landmark Theater in Uptown, MPLS. It was fantastic. Some vague scenes, but nonetheless superb in every way.

I saw this last night. Thought it was a bit slow at times, but overall a great movie. The acting was incredible and there were some pretty funny scenes that I won't recount b/c of spoilers.

I totally agree. Some slow parts. But the acting, and quality of the movie made up for it.

Did you guys find this to be comic?

I finally saw this last evening after finding a theatre that showed it after a three week wait.

I saw a lot in the film, but comedy was not one the things I got out of it. You laughed, sure, but I thought it from the deeply ironic elements present.

There were a great many other levels to the story going on. It could be described as a study of the entrepreneur's relationship to his community, for example. It could be a study on economics, or the history of the oil industry, a character study, the interplay of religion in a community, the story of one man's struggle against his world and what he becomes as a result of the "competition in me."

Let's not just laud the acting or the film-making. This a profound film. Content rich, gentlemen. Let's step up, here.

I forgot how sick I am. I laughed at some of the more gruesome subtly funny moments in the movie at least to me, but still appreciated the other dynamics going on in the film.

Daniel Day Lewis is a great actor he was also great in "The Crucible."

I cannot wait to see this movie.

Unfortunately I am currently in the UK so I will have to wait until February 15th.

I thought his performance was as stunning as anything Brando or Bogart ever gave. Simply remarkable. If he doesn't win the Oscar, they ought todiscontinue the award.

I just got back from seeing this film. For all the hype I expected to be disappointed, but it didn't disappoint. There was one area though; I had heard that the beginning was similar to Space Odyssey in that it has no dialogue for the first 20 minutes or so. While the beginning was well done I wished the director had gone even longer with this style. I'm sure it would've been boring for some but it would've set up an even eerier feel than it already did. The scenes where Daniel and Eli match wits and banter are very well done. I think that Paul Dano holds his own in some scenes which is a feat when he is on screen with Daniel Day Lewis, but in other scenes he becomes overpowered (possibly intentionally?) The cinematography is crisp and reminds me of No Country For Old Men. The score was chilling, you could probably deduce that simply from watching the trailer which is just a sample of the eerie music throughout the movie. The final scene is one of the best acting displays I've ever seen. I don't think anything can take away the best actor award from Daniel Day Lewis other than Hollywood politics and studio greed, which would be ironic given the films subject matter and underlying themes.

"One night, I'm gonna come inside your house, wherever you're sleeping, and I'm gonna cut your throat"

Sik sik movie best of 2007 imo, ending was a little gay imo but I haven't really had time to really think about it.

I thought the ending was the most poignant part of the whole movie.


In some respects this notion of ruin is clichéd but it is presented in such a unique way that I loved it. I've read a lot of reviews stating their distaste for the ending and I can understand that since it is different from convention, but that's what I think makes it good.

I agree with almost everything you wrote Dan. Just an amazing movie, and I really liked the opening sequence as well.

"Just give me the blood Eli, give me the blood and let me get out of here!"

Hi Dan,
I think Eli is far more sociopathic than Daniel. I'm not so sure of Daniel's sociopathic side. You certainly don't see the manipulation that Eli engages in, with the possible exception of the one scene with his son on the train. Eli, on the other hand, tries to manipulate everyone around him.

Daniel has a view of death, however, that seems sociopathic. From very early on, he was engaged in very dangerous work. Multiple instances occur where his workers die or he is in direct danger. I think he develops a view of death in which people die because he is who he is. He doesn't actively kill anyone, however, until his "brother" shows up. I don't believe he views life as cheap, though. He only kills those who seek to do him harm. He doesn't seek to kill the standard oil reps, just embarrass them. In the case of Eli, it's more difficult to handle because Eli is so intertwined with those around him. When Eli shows up and says he is ruined, it's an opportunity. Daniel didn't seek him out or design any elaborate scheme, as one would expect from a sociopath.

On the contrary. I see Daniel as a benefit to his community. The money he brings from drilling oil brings commerce and prosperity to the town. In the end, there is a very nice restaurant where there was a shack before. This is all because of Daniel. Eli, in contrast, exists to leach from the community. Only to take, and in return give nothing except a performance and superstition.

This is the character study of a man who makes sacrifices in order to pursue his ambition. He deals with the consequences of his choices. I don't see any diabolical evil in that. Although, I do see Eli as evil.

I can't wait to see this - too bad it doesn't come out where I live. I've heard the cinematography and music are superb, and PTA rocks.

There are three major flaws in this film: 1) the twins thing was obscure 2) the change of semi-sociopath to full sociopath in the Day-Lewis character was not adequately shown 3) it was overlong.

The Day Lewis character went from caring about his adopted son to hating him, without exposition in between. It dislocated us from the character, and despite the film being overlong, I felt like 20 minutes was cut out from the story. This is unfortunate as the film had many great elements. The acting was outstanding.

I agree with you on all three. Supposedly another actor was going to play the other brother, but he pulled out or was let go, and Dano then played "both" brothers. Mrs. Fox thought there was no other brother, bu rather one psychopath. Where was the other brother at the dinner table? All the reviews I read, however, assumed there were indeed two brothers.

The last two scenes indeed seemed apart from the rest of the movie.

I think DD-L's performance ranks as one of the ten greatest in American movie history.

Agree with you on 1 and 2.

That actor playing both brothers was obscenely stupid. It had me confused for quite a bit, because I assumed there weren't any brothers, and that he was just going back on his word and wanted more money for the oil-site knowledge. And then I realized there were two of them at the end, and I was like wtf, why did they look exactly the same. And yes, there were two, look at the credits and it says the same actor played both. That really ticked me off.

And 2, again, agree. It was sorta like "wow, wtf happened inbetween?"

3, I don't know what "overlong" means.

very well made film, I was thinking "Film of the Year" the whole time, highly recommended.

Just because the credits listed Dano as playing two brothers doesn't mean there were two. But I think there were. In the scene where Day-Lewis's character first meets the second brother, in the field, he introduces himself; he would'nt do that had he already met the man.

But where was the other brother during the dinner scene when Dano attacks his "stupid" father?

i was under the impression that the other brother left home, found DDL, got the money, and never returned home.

he prolly realized how ****ing crazy his family was and split.

also, i have never seen a better performance then DDL gave.

I thought when DDL met the second brother, it was actually the first one, and they were both pretending to not know each other in order to conspire against the father. When DDL made the original offer to the father, the son got very upset and demanded more money, as if he knew about the great value of the property.

the fact that both brothers knew that the property was valuable doesnt speak to the existence of both brothers.

i agree that the brother situation was handled a bit ambigously, however i think it was pretty much all cleared up in the final scene when DDL talks about how the other brother was the smart one.