I bought this dvd like 10 years ago, and I did not watch it completely.
The reason was that I found it too long, two and half hours, with not much interesting scenes and dialogues.
But somehow, Daniel character clung on my head.
And in recent years my interest in Psychology grow huge.
Then I wanted to re-watch it.
And that was a perfect judgement.

The reason for that is that Daniel character represents the modern personality sickness in a so subtle form.
- He wants to be rich more than anyone around him, and he does not want to deal with anybody.
- He does not give a damn about people. They are just tools, means for him to reach his own goals.
- He hates everyone.
- He is angry inside.
- He is envious inside.
- He believes everyone can be manipulated.
- He does not have a faith, but he can be Christian, can be Muslim, or a Jew at a finger snap, no problem.
- Same goes in politics, he can be leftist, rightist, feminist, environmentalist, communist, BLMist, racist.. you name it..
Bottom line is that whatever he choose to be should be serving his grandiosity among others.
- But in the mean time he wants to love people, and to be loved. Deep inside he is empty, longing for all those feelings.

He wants to fill his emptiness with a normal human being, but that is something he can not do it.
That is not his nature, so he is in a continues suffering state.

Another great sphere of the movie is that you hardly notice these personality traits on Daniel for the first half of the movie.
And this is exactly about these psychos in reality; deception.

In the first half of the movie, Daniel appears like a poor countryman man striving to be a self made millionaire.
But his dialogues, his facial gestures, his body language are so subtle in presenting the modern psychopath I described above.
Daniel starts his own oil drilling adventures in late 19th century in New Mexico.
One of his workers dies in an accident. And he adapts his son, H. W.
Daniel is also single.
Viewer feels the oddness of this adaptation because Daniel is not type of man who has empathy, care for anyone.
I think this is one of the best part of the story, because viewer is always kept in a suspicion on true character of Daniel.
And answer to this adaptation comes at the end of the movie, may be in the best scene, and dialogue of the movie.
It is the best articulation of the Daniel's psychopath.

Movie goes on with Daniels rising about his Oil business together H. W. by buying some poor and religious farmers' land in California.
Although movie concentrated on Daniel, in my view, it takes a twist after half of it concentrating on preacher of the village church, Eli.
Eli is the son of the farmer from whom Daniel bought the land.
Eli asks for money for the church, he wants to have a bigger, better church.
Though Daniel hates Eli's money ripping of him for Church, he still does all those payments.
Even in in his dealings with Christian farmers, he comes to a point he gets baptised and confesses his sins.
Deception is his normal part of life.

But movie, portrays the Eli no less deceptive and sick than Daniel.
This Paradoxical appearance of sick minds of Daniel, and the Preacher is so captivating..
It is a social paradox between "good" and "evil".
And both are suffering inside themselves, their paradoxical sick personalities.

Both characters of Daniel, and Eli dominates the movie.
Daniel Day-Lewis, and Paul Dano casting these characters are magnificent.

The film has well earned its prizes, awards and other distinctions. But beyond these labels on the sleeve of the DVD or the poster of the film, the film will remain a milestone in the cinema that tries to show the real world and the ruthlessness of its survival instinct.

The first element I will point out is that it gives the lie to Hubbard and his survival in scientology. In the real world there is no survival without development and development is first: no development then extinction. Ask Neanderthals when he was to share Europe with Cro-Magnon. The poor Neanderthals could not even fish and ran like mammoths. The real survival is in the power of man, as a species and as an individual, to develop. Survival that does not bring and presuppose development is just a fake, a false prophecy. I say that for two reasons.

The first reason is that without the oil industry, there would have been no car industry (and other inner combustion engine industry), no gas station networks, no highway networks, no suburban development. That's the most clear and brutal side of the film. The oil industry brings a new phase in the industrial revolution of its own on which we are still living and polluting. Millions of people got jobs, millions of people got income, millions of people got a present and a future. Survival in development. But this development is also violent and it is the fitter who can develop most and fastest. So on the starting line there might be many people but on the arrival line there will only be a few if not only one. It is easier to make a camel get through the eye of a needle than to bring many winners on the winning line of industrial competition.

The film is absolutely ugly and gruesome about it and it makes so many people, in the film, completely sick and disturbed. A man is ready to assume the identity of another provided this new identity is that of the main character's brother for an obvious profit. Don't forget that prophet and profit are homonyms. A child is ready to set the hut in which he is sleeping with his father and fake uncle ablaze just to mark his territory and his resistance and his dissatisfaction. And there are so many other cases.

Then, my second reason, in any fast developing situation like this one there are some people who will take advantage of it to mentally control the change, that is to say to gather people behind them and then pressurize the industrialists so that the gurus can get what they want, which is worldly power and money. These are the second type of false prophets of the industrial age. They can be religious and affiliated to any church, most of them being purely opportunistic about the rich provided they give money to the various churches, temples, synagogues or mosques, and of course other good benefacting (I mean bringing a profit to the prophet) organizations. The religious organizations and their prophets, false most of them, are the typical form of that vampiristic money sucking leeches in the USA who can only survive if God blesses the child and America.

But there are other forms that are just as deadly and life-sucking. You can see Hitler and the Nazi party, and all other fascistic movements, as exactly the same ambition: take advantage of the developing industrial revolution to line your pockets with power and money. But on the other side you can have all the socialistic and communistic preaching that is exactly the same thing. And the military forces can decide to use their weapons to become the false prophets of this industrial development. The worst concoction is when one of these political movements takes the control of the armed forces, or vice versa, and then they establish a totally irreversible dictatorship.

Irreversible, well, maybe not.

The film suggests that you can always become deaf to these and run away and start your own development in some other country or state. It also suggests that the industrialists and the prophesizing profiteers may get into a fight to the death and then some others will come and pick up the pieces and recuperate the whole treasure chest. The film does not allude to the political mode of democratic management of this development. Just be the prophet that will win an election till a new prophet comes and wins it against you and gets you out. But be sure this intruder will not last long and will be out of the job when another one comes and claim victory. Democracy is a permanent rotation of false prophets.

Alleluia

Jacques COULARDEAU

Good acting but weak storyline

You should watch this film for Daniel Day Lewis's incredible performance as the terrifying main character if nothing else - as a study in human disintegration he is mesmerizing. Paul Dano is good to but Lewis defines the movie. It's strengths are many - beautifully shot and a convincing picture of the driven men behind the early roots of the oil business in America it offers a critique of Capitalism and how the single minded pursuit of money impoverishes the soul. Its weakness lies in self indulgent editing - could have been better if it had been shorter - and a lack of credibility about the characters motivations - what are the roots of his total isolation and inability to love - at one point he talks of how he hates people - this certainly helps him in his climb to financial success but its origins are not explored or hinted at so the film becomes a almost as one dimensional as its protagonist. Brilliant though.

There Will be Blood is an excellent film. Truly, I recognise that.
The sprawling tale of Daniel Plainview, an oil driller, as he falls deeper and deeper into madness as the film continues.

The direction is practically flawless, with Mr Anderson bringing the dusty fields and green acres of 20th Century America to the screen in a way that few have managed over the centuries of film. The grit, the dirt, the mud, the oil... All feel like they are able to be touched by the audience such is the excellence of the cinematography/direction.

Of course, beautiful scenery is just as easy to capture in a nature show, so a movie must have a compelling story to match the direction. As the minutes go by, the twists and turns come thick and fast and each packs as much of a punch as the previous one.

Now obviously it is easy to praise Mr Day-Lewis as he is the best actor working today. His transformation into Daniel Plainview occurs as soon as he is introduced. You do not see an actor you see a man who, despite his best efforts, becomes lost the more the film progresses.

However the one person who sticks out (and not in a positive way either) is Paul Dano. While there are moments he is excellent, there are just as many moments where his overacting is noticeable and that is a detriment to the film as a whole. His high pitched shrieks during his sermons are horrible to listen to. Thankfully he is not given too many speeches to perform otherwise he would have knocked another star off of this review.

I recommend you watch this film. It has complex characters, mature plot points and even some social commentary on power and money. Maybe, unlike myself, you won't get a headache from hearing Dano's voice.
Plus, what do I know, I'm just a reviewer on a website. My word means literally nothing!

More than an epic tale of an early 20th Century oilman, this is a fascinating study of the greed for power and what it does to a man.
We meet Daniel Plainview down the bottom of a mine, exerting himself in mind-numbingly monotonous and backbreaking work, looking for gold or silver. He is a man willing to endure pain and humiliation to grasp more money, or more power. As he quickly moves from gold to black gold, he becomes more powerful, and his ruthlessness and underhandedness become more and more apparent, combined with the charisma required to persuade landowners to part with the mineral rights of their property. We learn about how he sees other people when he adopts a boy who he finds useful to put a kind face on his activities, and how he treats a man appears claiming to be his half brother. The movie kicks into gear though when he meets an equally power hungry man in the unlikely form of the young faith healer and preacher, to whom he takes a seemingly instant dislike. With the relationships with these three characters, we see his dilemna- his power is only something if he can pass it on, but when he sees only the worst in other people, how can he? Who will be worthy of the three to take on his mantle..?
The style of the movie has some stunning direction which tells us much of the story through scenes and images, rather than words, yet this is married with an intelligent, absorbing and uncompromising script. The music is daringly inventive, although with me the jury is out whether it is a success or a distraction.
Daniel Day-Lewis turns in yet another 100% authentic and believable performance, creating a chilling and yet at times charismatic character, and Paul Dano is remarkable as the young preacher.
Sure, women are given little to no role in the story, and it is unremitting in its bleakness, at times feeling like it has been designed to within an inch of its cinematic life. It's not going to be to everyone's taste.. However the authenticity, stunning performances and script that demands the viewer engage in some thought, have created what might just be a bona fide masterpiece, even with its flaws.

Amazon and other reviewers have provided extended summaries of the storyline, so I'd just like to add my opinion that as as second disc of 'Extras', that inclusion is very disappointing and consists mostly of re-reun extracts from the film in association with historical resource material. The best element is probably the 'silent' movie made by the American Ministry of the Interior over 60 years ago to explain the story of petroleum. If you hope to see anything about how the film was actually made - there's absolutely nothing.

As everyone seems to agree, Daniel Day Lewis's performance is superb - there aren't really any adjectives strong enough to describe it. The final, brutally violent scene in the bowling alley - although weirdly unreal - is a triumph of acting. The final shot and line of dialogue, however, is oddly dissatisfying, but its very ambiguity does leave you considering its true meaning.

As for ambiguity - the title of the film is extremely clever and can be interpretted in very many ways ---- the blood of Christ and baptism - the blood of family ties - the blood of violence - the life-blood of oil in society etc.

The one thing that is very important to understand is that 'There will be blood' is essentially an extended character study and although there are highspots of activity and violence, these are infrequent and short. The film is the story of one man and the consequences of his over-arching self-belief in the face of a world and other people who don't agree with his methods, ethics and ambitions. In this respect, Daniel Plainview has certain similarities with that of Charles Foster Kane and the film as a whole is often reminiscent of the darkest work by the Coen Brothers.

Have just watched this as escapism from incessant sport on TV! Didn't quite know how I felt so read some reviews from opposite ends of the spectrum. I am amazed at the level of nastiness in some of the comments but it has has helped me put my thoughts together.
I found the silence of the opening scenes really effective in showing the solitary nature of the protagonist and the loneliness of his quest. Even when he was joined by others there was no communication. On the other hand I found them confusing in that they were dark and all the characters looked very similar.
The sounds/music I thought were really effective, underlining the harshness of day to day existence. Yes it grated in places but I think that was the point,and it worked.
The cinematography was terrific; it really emphasized the vastness of the landscape and prefigured the futility of Daniel's efforts to"tame" it.
While I cannot agree with some of the reviews which suggest that this is the pinnacle of Daniel Day Lewis' acting career, I found his performance absolutely riveting as usual.
On the negative side I must agree that there were times when my attention waned! It's not a film which is strong on plot and if you want action this is not the place to be! The"plot" is the development/deterioration of the central characters, each corrupted by a different form of obsession. Personally I found this interesting but it's a matter of taste!
So, I can't give a "rave" rating but I think it is far from the load of rubbish that some people are saying it is. I will be watching it again!