*** Official THERE WILL BE BLOOD Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Couldn't find a discussion thread on this.

Another fantastic performance from Daniell Day-Lewis.

A relentlessly brutal film.

Loved it!

I'm dying to see this film, but it's still in limited release. I live in the Chicago burbs, but it's only showing on 3 screens downtown. I was close to pulling the trigger yesterday, but by the end of the day, it was cost $75+ for two of us to drive downtown, pay for parking, two tickets, & refreshments. I decided to wait and hopefully it expands next weekend.

I agree.

I want to see this one to. It looks very very intriguing, and for some reason very brutal. Not just brutal violence but brutal for the time period. Does that make sense?

It is on my list of films to see very soon.

I agree. I had not known there were two characters, and for me during the screening, I thought that perhaps Eli had simply given the false name of Paul when he first met Plainview (and hence the look between Daniel and HW later when Eli introduces himself). It wasn't until later in the movie that I realized they were two separate guys.

Steve

Great comments. Hard to imagine the Paul / Eli thing was an error. It;'s set me thinking and I'd love to heard PTA's point of view

It certainly is an intimate epic that we are kept at arms length from by the character of Daniel Plainview.

Great to see another agree on the score. i simply can't believe anyone thinking it was nayhting other than amazing. The use of Brahms and I think, Arvo Part was very clever

By the way, when you were an hour or so into the film did you have this sense of dread that there will in deed be ... blood?

Rob

PTA's Punch Drunk Love also featured an aggressive film score, and I recall hearing several people voicing their displeasure about it. The score is not dissimilar here, with a lot of it being deliberately unpleasant or ominous. I expect many viewers to actively dislike it. After Punch Drunk Love, I suspect PTA is okay with that.

For those who have yet to see it, the ending of the credits also has a dedication.

Oh yeah....

The Baptism scene rules all.

One of the most entertaining ( ) scenes of the decade.

One thing about the title and how it relates to the film as a whole: Bloodlines.

Daniel Plainview was dealing with fake blood relatives for most of the film (H.W. was his fake son, no true relation, and his "brother" turned out to be a faker as well). But neither betrayed him in the truest sense, though Daniel couldn't quite reconcile their lack of the Plainville DNA to ever fully embrace them as family in spite of their own ambitions, they just weren't of his blood relation and that was that. Now contrast that with Eli and Paul Sunday where Paul willingly betrays his family - his blood, for money and ambition, and no appreciable remorse of the impact it would have on his family's future.

Is blood thicker than oil?

Just something to ponder.

I thought Dano was playing the same character throughout the whole movie? We never see Paul and Eli together, especially when they should be together during the family dinner. Or, did Paul leave his family with the money he received from Daniel?

~T

There are 2 distinct brothers. Paul took off after getting his blood money from Daniel. Daniel alluded to this during the final scene.

Originally 2 actors were to play 2 Sunday brothers, but the actor who was to play Paul didn't work out, so PT Anderson decided to just make them twins, and Dano stepped up to the plate to play both roles.

Dying to see this.

Yes. If nothing else, the final scene absolutely confirms there are 2 distinct brothers as Daniel taunts Eli with news of his brother Paul's success.

For a while, I admit, I thought they were the same - that Eli had 'played' Paul and had a grand plan. But, this is simply not the case.

I finally got to see this film on Saturday and it's still settling in. DDL's performance is certainly noteworthy, but I also thought that his turn as "Bill the Butcher" was an Oscar lock and that turned out to be untrue.

For a 2-1/2+ hour film, it moved along fairly rapidly and several shots were breathtaking including some of the early footage in the diamond mines, the early oil wells, the oil fire, & the baptism scene. During the baptism scene there were many people laughing - GREAT STUFF.

My problem with the film is similar to many others that I've read and is not specifically the ending, but the final 30 minutes or so. The tone changes dramatically when the plot fast forwards to 1927 and it feels like a completely different movie. I'm not sure what PTA could have done to improve this, but as it currently is, I found it jarring.

This is still one of the very best films of the year, and I cannot wait to see it again, but I'm not sure if I'll spend the money at the theater again or wait for DVD.

Interesting thoughts Patrick!

I don't think we know enough about Paul to be sure of that. His family was messed up. The father was a brutal weakling (he let Plainview walk all over him, but he'd beat Mary for not praying), his twin brother was a con artist posing as a evangelist, plus he lived in Little Boston, which looked to be one of the most boring places in the universe, until Plainview showed up. My take is that Paul, a religious and decent person, just wanted OUT and AWAY, to live his own life somewhere else. He couldn't do that without money, and selling information to Plainview was an easy way to make money. He had no idea that Plainview would cheat his family. He probably thought that they'd make a lot of money and be set for life. His only asking for $500 was pretty selfless, compared to what his family would make.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Plainview was telling Eli the truth when he said that Paul had himself a well making $5000 a week, I think he just said that to screw with Eli's head (in one of the funniest scenes in any movie I've seen, along with the "Baptism" scene).

Oh god, I love this movie. I've seen it 3 times so far, and I plan to see it again, several times. I believe it's an instant American classic, and besides loving the movie, it's a thrill to be able to see a brand new classic in the theater, on the big screen.

I don't believe Eli was initially a con artist...I think he was an evangelist. Only after years of success did he succumb to temptation and become a con artist. That's speculation, but I believed that he believed in 1902 everything he said.

Though certainly Plainview was lying to Eli about Paul. He never saw him again. He was doing that to destroy Eli mentally. I do disagree that Paul didn't know what Plainview would do. The kid sold his family for $500.

Location Goof
Lots of Texas and California locations, beautifully shot etc.
There were some sequences however when the camera had one POV you'd be near Marfa TX and the the angle would change and suddenly there were the smooth hills of California. Probably not the sort of thing many viewers would even notice.
Now, as to the goof.
Preacher boy is headed for his first showdown (where he's about to get slapped silly) and he walks along purposefully past an oil pipe and sludge basin.
The camera angle changes and suddenly the background is...a DAM! Or perhaps it's a LEVEE buts it's NOT around in ANY other shots we see of the derrick area.
It's huge, it fills up the whole background and it's construction is obvious due to the distinctive large slabs of concrete.
Anyone else notice?

I saw it yesterday and was completely blown away. I'm glad I knew very little about it going in. What happens to H.W., the brother, when and where there is blood, etc. were plot points that caught me completely off guard. And that last line!! Brilliant. Just brilliant. I'm wanting to see this probably at least two more times on the big screen and I want to drag along as many friends as possible. It's rare that a film lives up to the hype, especially after being SO dissapointed by No Country For Old Men-(loved the first two hours but was very let down from the pool scene to the credits).

I am shocked this moving is garnering so much praise. It started well and went nowhere. Relentlessly pointless. Meandering. Daniel Day-Lewis is phenomenal but the without him, this movie would crumble under it's own girth.

A 2 hour and 38 minute movie where nothing happens. Disappointed doesn't even touch how I feel right now.

I'm finished.