There will be blood

Thoughts on this movie?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4CF2PbJsaW8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Was there blood?

There was a lot less blood than I was led to believe.

>There will be blood
>There isn't much blood
>It's mostly oil

There was loads of blood. at the end

>a bowling alley in the 19th century

youtube.com/watch?v=4CF2PbJsaW8

There wasn't blood until the end

what about the 2 times the people in the well got nailed in the head?

Has anyone actually watched this movie?

Good film, great soundtrack, rather flat script and dialogues sacrificed for kinda hammy performance

Serious question.
How is this guy a villain or even a bad guy for that matter,yes he had anger issues but how the fuck is he a bad guy. I would have done the exact same things he did.

It's a solid epic, but not really that deep or structurally complex, yet it's become super popular movie for plebs to throw out as their favorite film of all time.

It's There Will be Blood not There is currently Blood from the Beginning to End.

He drank my milkshake. He drank it up :_(

It never specified the amount of blood

The movie never really tried to imply he was a villain. There is no statement being made in this movie as far as good guys and bad guys. It's just an entertaining story of a guy with huge ambitions.

there will be overacting

It's literally a real house a very rich guy, like Daniel, built in that period you dumb fuck

Unironically a better movie than Master & Commander

Daniel Day-Lewis hammed it up at times, but Paul Dano was fine desu.

technically very good but I didn't think any of the actors were on DDL's level which made it feel disjointed

Classic Dano's 2 roles were fucking confusing as well

But everyone everywhere ever talks about him as if he is a bad guy.

t. cuck contrarian

It's just liberals, ignore them.

>1927
>19th century

>t's just an entertaining story of a guy with huge ambitions
it goes deeper than that my famiglia. also, if anyone in real life would tell you that they don't relate to Daniel Plainview in any way, it is basically enough information to think of them as subhuman and to treat them as such without any care or regret.

I guess it's better to be a monster and let everybody know about it, than to be a spineless hypocrite.

At least you are being truthful.

Daniel is quite admirable at the beginning. Hard worker. Almost kills himself trying to get his first well up and running.

At most you can say TWBB kind of explores some basic human desires, but it's really not a film that requires a lot of thinking.

No Country For Old Men which came out in the same year for example was a far more complicated movie.

DDL was only clearly in the wrong on two occasions. He didn't hold up his end of the bargain with Dano and he needlessly berated and disowned his son.

I don't blame him for killing Dano at the end though. He was a slimy hypocritical worm with weak convictions.

best movie of the decade, not even memeing.


50 years in the future it will be considered god.

Never made it more than 30 mins in, always fell asleep. Not because it sucks, I think, just always watched it when very tired.

kek looser fag

>oil is blood
Realy makes u thing

He's not a villain, he's just extremely misanthropic.

...

what did he mean by that movement?

Please leave plebbit. TWBB is a like a minor step above Pulp Fiction and Fight Club in terms movies that get overrated by plebs because they're the most complicated movies they're still able to understand.

it wasn't his son

I fully agree with you my famiglia.

I like this movie because it has the effect of making other movies feel insignificant while being watched. No Country came out the same year and I absolutely love it. I've watched both it and TWBB multiple times. With Country (and other movies), there's still the sense of being able to place the movie in context; what to compare it, studying its narrative techniques against other movies/novels, etc.

There Will Be Blood has always felt surreal in this regard. Any time I watch it, the shots, the silences, the speeches--everything just sort of congeals into something that feels far larger than the sum of its parts. Like Moby-Dick, but in movie form.

It's one of my favorite movies for this reason. It feels like a force of nature contained within itself that pushes all outside influences aside.

lol pleb

He's not a theatrical villain. He's just a greedy man with a ruthless competitive nature who's willing to fuck other people over to get ahead.

I don't know famalam, the religious theme, for instance, was very neat

for instance, he killed two people... you might argue that the first one was just his temper (you'd be wrong but ok) but the second one was pure hatred

one of the best films ever.

also wish people would stop calling it a movie. its degrading. its FILM.

DRAAAAAAAAAINAAAAGEEEEEE


Oil is also known as blood of the earth by the way

I really hope you and the others are memeing

The title is actually very good and clever, the blood is a reference to to human blood, oil and blood of Christ playing into the religious sub themes

>Boogie Nights is a top 3 movie of the 90s
>There Will Be Blood is a top 3 movie of the 2000s
>The Master and Inherent Vice aren't quite as good

PTA is due another masterpiece in this decade

>Anderson is currently working on a drama about the London fashion industry in the 1950s, which will star Daniel Day-Lewis.
get hype

Shut up fag.

I couldn't get through Inherent Vice--I'm in fact not a fan of Pynchon despite multiple attempts--but I thought The Master was phenomenal.

>that movie

Am hype.

Reddit: the movie

PTA is literally Kanye.

Sydney = TCD
Late Registration = Boogie Nights
Graduation = Magnolia
808s = Punch Drunk Love
There Will Be Blood = MBDTF
The Master = Yeezus
Inherent Vice = TLOP

Buzzwords: the post

The Master should have been a masterpiece but it somehow missed me.

Inherent Vice was a bit of a niche, like Punch Drunk Love -- very good but can't be top notch.

Threadly reminder that only the filmmakers who both write and direct their movies are truly patrician.

Deny it as much as you want but you would have done everything he did if you were in his position.
>be hard working dude.
>finally strike rich when you get awesome piece of land.
>religious crazies make your life a living hell there.
>man pretends to be your brother presumably to steal all your money.
>oil empire flourishes.
>grow old.
>son wants to leave you now that you are old, wants to leave you all alone in this world. Well fuck him.
>The dude who made your life a living hell shows up during the same time frame your only SENPAI member leaves you.

Shit I admire the dude. He had the drive for success more people would have.

>who is Howard Hawks
>who is Clint Eastwood

Because he's clearly sad and broken and depressed at the end.

The key to the movie is to ask, WHY is he like that?

Clint Eastwood is definitely not a patrician director.

Wtf so depressed people are bad people? I have a feeling you missed the point by a mile.

You don't know how to watch movies, it might come when you stop being underage.

>not liking American Sniper
Clint Eastwood is a master at fluidly imposing prospective. His lack of visual showiness leads to him often being dubbed as pedestrian or workmanlike behind the camera, but his outstanding auteurism rests in his narration abilities. His way at subtly showing a first person point of view is especially impressive when his classic spacial sensibility doesn't flaunt the eyes his camera sees through. American Sniper inherits the best of these traits; it's ambivalent, it's incredibly challenging, and it's brilliant.

The film doesn't just follow the foremost lethal American sniper Chris Kyle, it explores events through his eyes, so intimately that it's like being there. Grueling decisions are made in flashes. Glory or harrowing internalized regret, or both, permeate the ground for them. The smooth jump cut to childhood after Eastwood unflinchingly sets the stage for Bradley Cooper's grizzled and genuine Kyle comes right away to usher in its stance towards its depicted events - a harmonious recollection of self, situation and surroundings; interrupting the war, the job, and the life through Kyle's own unsettled mind.

Kyle's constant struggle to rationalize a jaded sense of morality through the device of "just following orders" is often painful to watch. His dwindling nationalism is pressured under his stressed façade, as the ever morally gray war zone forces him to want to color-code by black and white. Only, the task is impossible. The events of this war simply happen. In one scene after Kyle makes the decision to gun down a woman and child, it's learned that they were in fact carrying a bomb. Another soldier tries to congratulate him, but there's no victory to this.

This film was "meh", at best.

I only watched it once, and have no desire to see it again.

reddit

Eastwood doesn't need to shout another war message; all is devastatingly shown through an actual experience of it. And not through the already decided eyes of a skeptic, but through a masculine, patriotic, conservative cowboy in the immediacy of his own complicated, dehumanizing, mathematics-reduced job of being a sniper. Eastwood's motif studies a quivering machismo without ever giving its viewers an easy way out - a banal explanation wrapped around abrasive heroes or villains, or of mental diseases, or a simple thesis (i.e. war is bad).

That's not to say that Cooper's brilliantly understated Kyle doesn't try this for himself on screen. When home from his drastically different battle ground he tries give answers at his family's expense, and during the war scenes he tries to justify his line of work by painting the other side as an evil array of enemies. However, he's too smart to be able to actually convince himself of his simplistic answers; the mirror is shown perfectly in his rival enemy sniper, even though we never get to actually meet him as anyone else.

American Sniper exhibits Kyle's view as hardly an uncommon one - his initially unsettling enthusiasm to later somber clarity into the terror, the loss and the tragedy he's faced feels too real to be anything else. The tensity carries over and consumes huge portions of his life after and between his missions to Iraq. A graveyard lingers in his mind, making the simple encounters with family, his fellow soldiers, and the innocents he sees in his children as painful as an ever-forced smile. Kyle may not explicitly have a change in opinion on his country, but he's certainly changed. The towering showcase of actors embody all of this without a single weak-link.

Eastwood's film is unnerving, but purposefully so - the sheer volume of the debate and controversy it's stirred, mostly all pertaining to politics through its natural ambivalence but singular-person viewpoint, only illustrates its challenging nature. Unlike Kathryn Bigelow's equally deft but clear cut PTSD war film The Hurt Locker, American Sniper has no easy out. It can be dubbed as *about* something, only its documentarian paradigm is far more skin-crawling and nervous. Eastwood has managed a slice of life through his classical genre-film edge; a superbly calibrated study through a common prospective of just how war happens.

>he doesn't know about "hmm really makes you think"

>The Master and Inherent Vice aren't quite as good
The Master is fucking amazing. Inherent Vice was too incoherent, but I think that was the point.

Fuck off Sup Forums.

The Master = Boogie Nights > PDL > the rest
/facts

then tell them to shut the fuck up.

Plainview and Eli are both pretty villainous.

Maybe not, but Million Dollar Baby will always hold a special place in my heart.

Grand Torino is shit.

no joke that movie is perfect in everything it aims to do. every audiovisual and narrative resource is used to its fullest potential. that much cannot be argued.

though it's okay to not like it if you didn't enjoy the message or whatever.

This isn't Reddit, no one wants to read your shit blog

There Will be Blood is basically perfectly designed to appeal to plebians who want to feel like they have enlightened taste in film.

It's not at all hard to understand, has lots of action to keep the plebs entertained, progresses in a way that feels like it's jumping more artfully from scene to scene than it really is, it preys hard on the audiences desire to feel emotion with the characters, the audio and camera work is admittedly pretty good, and you got DDL and Paul Dano going really over the top in a lot of scenes.

It's good but so so overrated because film critics have acknowledged it's well done, and the unwashed masses immediately have to overrate anything movie where their opinions actually align with the critics.

y did the boy set their house on fire?

Overrated as art cinema

Endlessly quotable, memorable (if shallow) characters, deserves its position as a pop culture staple

He's not. He was just an extremely ambitious man who finally stroke rich. He realized that there was a lot of money to be made from the land and decided to get it at any price. At the same time he tried to improve the community and the lives of the people, but they were not keen on change. I mean the man adopted his son, built a school and infrastructure and made sure that the people had decent food put on the table. Still the community was more willing to cherish a young methodical priest than a man who was actually willing to help them. Sure he did most of that for his own monetary gain, but it did not make him a bad person.

Pretty accurate; one of DDL's better roles.

Yeah I agree it a great movie with an unexplained atmosphere.

A central theme of the film is confused and mistaken identity among male relatives. There Will Be Blood was expressly intended to evoke the atmosphere of Bible stories in that it's men in the desert, struggling with one another, and with God. Women are almost totally silent in the film.

Blood can refer to oil (the life blood of industry and Daniel's wealth), the literal blood shed in the course of Daniel growing his business and avenging himself on others, the metaphorical blood of Eli's religion (transubstantiation), and blood relations themselves, as between family members, where many such relations are suspect.

Confusing male relationships are as follows:

Daniel presents himself as H.W.'s father following his employee's death; unknown to everyone except Daniel himself for most of the film, even unknown to H.W. Daniel is an imposter.

And yet at the same time, Daniel murders his imposter half-brother in a fit of rage, many years later. This is a hypocrisy on Daniel's part.

Both of the "Bandys", Grandfather and grandson, are apparently both named William. The ending credits are even careful to name one (the grandson IIRC!) William Bandy, while the later character (the grandfather) is simply "Bandy". Or vice verse. In the course of the film, we associate the name William Bandy most strongly with the holdout grandfather, but the old man is not the one with the first speaking line. Of course, checking IMDB sorts out which actor's which.

It can legitimately be argued that Paul and Eli Sunday are the same person. Eli Sunday presents signs of mental illness (homosexuality, manic depression), and so it is not unreasonable to suppose that he might have had a crazy episode of presenting himself as another person in order to draw Daniel towards his town. Even Daniel and H.W. do a very obvious, very conspicuous double-take with each otehr upon meeting "Eli" for the very first time. The rest of the Sunday family never speaks explicitly of Paul IIRC.

also, a recent re-watch brought up another hypocrisy of Daniel's to my attention:

In an early scene (1911), Daniel proudly proclaims to the meeting hall during his "sales pitch" that he is a good oilman, with a competent crew: "The men that work for me, WORK FOR ME. And they are MEN THAT I KNOW. I make it my BUSINESS to BE there, and to SEE about their work."

Later, just as soon as Daniel snubs Eli and subtly humiliates the whole Sunday family (father and son) by obliquely threatening the patriarch, and refusing to allow the well to be blessed while naming same after Mary Sunday, with whom he is cordial... well, I'm having a run-on sentence now but let me come to the point.

The well is NOT blessed, because Daniel has no patience for that and wants to assert dominance in the community, in order to get what he ultiately really wants (money. Oil is just a means to an end, it's what he knows how to do). The POINT is that when one "Joe Gundha" is the latest man killed in one of Daniel's wells, Daniel's first question is "Did I know him?", to which his assistant informs him in the negative. This puts the hypocrisy, again, to Daniel's whole original sales pitch. The very first substantial piece of dialogue in the film is a lie on every level:

Daniel's son is not really his son.
Daniel does not know the men who work for him.
Daniel routinely loses equipment and people down his wells, as we've already seen. But the operation keeps on turning.
The speech vaguely suggests that Daniel is concerned for safety, but this is clearly false as multiple bodies accumulate over the years (in wells and otherwise), and Daniel never gets a comeuppance. It might happen that even at the coda, Daniel really doesn't have a comeuppance coming to him, although the context suggests otherwise. None of those other bodies "stuck" to him in the end, even though there were multiple witnesses.

so why didn't he just let eli bless the well?

I was cringing pretty hard when he got triggered by those rich guys (they were his competitors right?) in the restaurant towards the end of the movie and using his son as a prop to make himself look happy and successful. I felt bad for him, he was being petty.

Because Fuck Eli, that's why.

Decent write up for the "straightforward with no depth" folk.

Some more points to consider off the top of my head:
>oil to religion parallels
>Eli's "false prophet" to Daniel's industrialisation of the town parallels
>Bandy's God-like appearance and mysterious presence
>the 2001 evolution parallels

eli did literally nothing wrong

Why are there these ridiculous pastas about PTA? I remember at least a few in the same vein posted about The Master when it first came out.

>It can legitimately be argued that Paul and Eli Sunday are the same person. Eli Sunday presents signs of mental illness (homosexuality, manic depression), and so it is not unreasonable to suppose that he might have had a crazy episode of presenting himself as another person in order to draw Daniel towards his town. Even Daniel and H.W. do a very obvious, very conspicuous double-take with each otehr upon meeting "Eli" for the very first time. The rest of the Sunday family never speaks explicitly of Paul IIRC.
No. Stop.

Brilliant soundtrack; those violins; like fingernails on a blackboard.