Il petroliere

This is a compelling family drama charting one man's rise and fall as he ruthless exploits oil in the American west. It has everything you could want from a great Hollywood movie: subtlety, excellent acting, a thoughtful and intelligent script and quite wonderful cinematography.

It's a film in which the oil is a supporting character in itself, and the series of unfortunate deaths and accidents that beleaguer our leading man reminded me of Emile Zola's excellent novel, Germinal. Daniel Day-Lewis gives another assured performance here, living and breathing rather than merely acting his role, and watching his growing feud with the slimy preacher is the stuff of great cinema. All in all a wonderful, epic film, old fashioned in the best possible sense.

The year I was born was the same year Predator and Robocop came out. When I was finally old enough to appreciate films, Little Nicky was in theaters. I know, believe me, I know; rocky start. And often I would watch older films, or specials on older films, and be dazzled. You know the ones. Remember when they made Spartacus? Remember sitting in the movies and watching Gregory Peck play Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird? Remember the first time you heard "I could've been a contender" through theater speakers? Well I sure as hell don't. But I'll tell you what, now I feel somewhat caught up. Let's begin with the obvious. Daniel Day Lewis. No one's arguing about this. The man is a veritable God among ants on the screen. He takes his role by the reigns and I don't doubt him for a second. In fact, at times, I was downright afraid of the man. Lewis gives what is easily, EASILY the best performance of the past five years. But let's get serious about it. Lewis' Daniel Plainview is the most convincing, awe-inspiring, and downright mortifying character to take the big screen that I can remember. Here, perfectly in his element and at his best, Lewis could go toe to toe with Brando and Kinski, playing a part that oozes enough skill and pathos to earn him a place among Hollywood's, and perhaps the world's, greatest performances of all time. He gives those of us who missed out on the craft, depth of character, and technique of classic cinema a chance to admire a tour de force portrayal of a memorable, identifiable, and completely despicable character, and it's so damned refreshing that I can't stop singing the man's praises. Paul Dano has been taking a lot of fire for this whole thing. People continue to spout their disapproval of the film's casting, saying that Dano has no business rivaling the seasoned Lewis on the screen. Listen, lay down your swords a minute and consider the obvious. The guy was cast opposite the performance of the decade, he's not going to outshine Lewis and you'd be crazy to expect him to. In fact, I think that he and Lewis' back-and-forths are the films highlights, as we see the juxtaposition not only in the characters themselves, but also in their acting techniques. And the cinematography? Welcome to the old days of film. The glory days of Hollywood. Anderson gives us one of the most beautifully shot and directed films in recent memory, truly at the top of his craft on this one. Every moment feels more epic than the last, until the film becomes such a towering cinematic spectacle that the end leaves the viewer exhausted. It's truly an experience not to be missed. Yeah, we missed out on A Street Car Named Desire. And Casablanca isn't gonna be in theaters again any time soon. But in the meantime, There Will Be Blood is just about as good, and will likely haunt our generation as much as the Hollywood studio epics of the past...

It's about expansion, it's about capitalism, and whatever that caused the demise of the Wild West myth. "There Will be Blood" looks, smell, feels like a Western but this is an Anti-Western more than anything …

There's so much to say about this movie but it left me speechless at the end, Daniel Day-Lewis was hypnotic, giving a performance that reminded me of Orson Welles in "Citizen Kane", and Humphrey Bogart in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" ... He's definitely one of the greatest actors of his generation, especially in this performance that probably best defines the alienating effect of materialism. The 40's had Charles Foster Kane, the 80's had Gordon Gekko and the 2000's have Daniel Planview.

Indeed, "There Will be Blood" is not your typical 'soul corrupted by money and/or power' drama, as I said, it's all about materialism, ending with a pocket filled by gold and a heart made of the same stone you've been working on all your life, it's trusting anything that has a specific color, a specific smell, working on a land to find a greasy black liquid gushing from its womb, and never, never trusting or giving any credit to "nothingness" or "abstraction".

Daniel Plainview considers these abstractions with the most profound disdain. Nothing is free, nothing comes from nothing, nothing is unsubstantial. If one claims to be your brother, he has to prove it, if one should make a deal with you, he should talk business and not about education ... not because it's personal, not because it has nothing to do with business, BUT because it is NOTHING and nothingness irritates Plainview as if the only thing he could believe on had to be material. The rest is nothing, feelings are nothing, believing is nothing, these so strong and noble words for us, well, Plainview doesn't give a damn about them...

And more than anything, above all these abstractions, there is religion, God is Daniel Plainview's archenemy … this is the ultimate masquerade for him, the cancer that gangrenes the progress, an evil that transforms people into sheep, almost like animals, the biggest hypocrisy of all … Plainview, the capitalist, almost shares the same opinion than Marx who thought religion was people's opium. And because Plainview despises this hypocrisy, he tries to exorcise his hatred by using religion to achieve his plans, exploiting it, like he exploited his adopted son. No feelings, no sentiments, everything should serve a palpable purpose. The end justifies the means.

And ultimately, he gets rich at the end, he's a respected and feared tycoon, as the purest and most implacable illustration of the American dream. But is he happy? no! because power, prosperity, those are still empty words ... he believes in material, in things, in stuff he drinks like the iconic 'milk-shake' metaphor that still resonates in my mind as one of the most memorable hymns to greed and pragmatism. Plainview is greedy, but not evil, evil is still too abstract a word; because it implies the use of one own conscience while Plainview's conscience was dedicated to one goal: getting bigger, possession, expansion, territoriality.

And are we to blame him? Let's not forget the bleak cinematography at the beginning of the film where we could feel, the stink of the oil, the hardness of the rocks and the land as an incontrollable enemy ... let's not forget that Plainview spent half of his life stuck alone into dark holes made of land, stone, metal, oil, and raw matter, so close he could almost feel them, so close it became a part of him ...

"There Will Be Blood" is the quintessential film about materialism and its alienating power, when all that matters is matter!

"I'm an oil man!" Asserts Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) to a colony of naïve citizens of which he is astutely slipping into his trouser pocket one by one. However (in this case) the man speaks no lie for his veins do indeed run rich with plutonium oil. A crude, black substance embedded deep in the merciless heart of director Paul Thomas Anderson's gargantuan North American epic- There Will Be Blood. A perpetually steady, emotionally-draining and dark character study of an oil guzzling tycoon that vigorously chews on the themes of gluttony and deception, faith and ambition, death and revulsion. Do not be mislead by its title, though. This is not some balls-to-the-wall slasher-flick (as the "chavs" sat behind me seemed to think at the outset). It is a gruelling, drawn-out dissection of a loathsome yet sinisterly-comical individual consumed and maddened by his own persona. And it's absolutely formidable- visual and melodramatic arrestment at its bona fide best that exudes cinematic precision and awe with satire to spare. But it's also a long-winded affair. So thrill seeking, gore-craving moviegoers walk away, now. I'm afraid there will be no blood for you. Sorry. Add to that list- chic-flick, rom-com and sci-fi enthusiasts. You guys may be better off buying another ticket. Taking another ride. Those left, steady yourself for, perhaps, this year's most thought-provoking feature driven by a leading character performance fit to rival the very best.

Ushering in a near dialogue-free opening 15 minutes with a distinct fade-in, Anderson wastes no time in introducing us to the protagonist. Daniel Day-Lewis plays…no scratch that…Daniel Day-Lewis is Daniel Plainview. An ambitious, moustached miner who, while thrashing away at the crust of his motherland- at the turn of the twentieth century- strikes oil. A profitable discovery that fortuitously leads him to H.W (Dillon Freasier), a new-born infant of whom he slots forcefully under his oil sodden wing only to drag about the entire continent in search of large segments of land in which crude oil is stirring directly beneath. Soon enough, Plainview forges a blossoming "family" oil drilling corporation that soon establishes itself as a force in the industry and prospects appear even brighter when, in 1911, Plainview receives a generously eerie, yet pricey tip-off as to where there may be a sturdy supply of his beloved oil. A tip-off in which he pursues like a unwavering moth to an oil fuelled flame as he meanders ominously into Little Boston, California where the true colours of the indomitable oil baron edge disturbingly into light.

Daniel Plainview is an angry, vengeful man whose promises and loyalties to those around him are as false and as futile as his love and respect for God. He "guarantees" the people of the Little Boston ranch; food, water, schools and, to the town's radically odd preacher Eli Sunday (an inspired Paul Dano), a newly renovated church of the Third Revelation. But he cares little for the reserving of his pledges and spends little time guilt-tripping over his numerous acts of iniquity. "I look at people," he says "and I see nothing worth liking." "I have a competition in me," he continues "and I want no one else to succeed". Self-centred sociopath?…Yep, for Plainview is as putrid and as predatory as any character to ever grace the big screen. He putrefies slowly, though. The end product appearing more entity than man. Better yet: an egocentric emblem of evil that governs the screen in an implausible manner in which only an actor of Day-Lewis' calibre can. The sheer potency of his flawless portrayal actually carries the relatively toothless narrative in areas which could be further criticised for chugging along at a near crawling pace at times.

Visually and acoustically, though, TWBB is outstanding- every nuance of every aural and cinematic component work so well with one another to help give the film such power and impact. It's just a shame that no real direction or purpose bled into the screenplay for which Anderson adapted from Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel- Oil. As far as storytelling goes, Anderson has underperformed here. His narrative lacks any legitimate path or hooks and, to be honest, the lack of defining moments- bar the infamous confession and milkshake scenes- within 158 minute running length is a little disappointing. But the manner in which Day-Lewis dictates the audiences' attention more or less vanquishes any negative thoughts regarding the muscle of the plot. Which is why it comes as no surprise that everybody and their brother have duly commended the London-born method actor's impeccable, Oscar winning performance: the epitome of everything grand about Anderson's fifth but not quite finest feature yet; profound, provoking, intense, immense.

In spite of its flaws, TWBB is still an exceptionally powerful piece of cinema that'll remain etched in the minds of those who take to it for quite some time. Even if it's quality is not there for all to see, in plain view.

People did not like this movie for a simple reason: too negative. I can understand that this movie is so depressing in so may ways.

What it shows that Big Fish eats Litte Fish and none of us want to think about that anymore than most of us experience it in our daily life. It shows the battle between the evangelicals and the corporate business man. Or maybe even the battle between evangelicals of today and the non-religious people or atheists of today. Even worse is that this movie shows that religious people, priests are or can be as bad as a corrupt oil man. Maybe why people did not like this movie is because it might have offended them. Especially Paul Dano playing the priest. Both Daniel Day Lewis and Paul Dano are wrong and too extreme on their opinions. People are able to accept this. What people cannot accept is though that these same extremities and same misguided opinions from both characters are very much true in that they are heavily believed still today. Not all Christains are like Paul Dano's character and not all business man are like Daniel Day Lewis's character but many are like them. That is the world we live in.

Now is their any alternative or positive side? The answer is yes and that is H.W. the son of Daniel Plainview(Daniel Day Lewis). He epitomizes hope. He shows that despite being deaf and having a father who uses him as a ploy for better business he can still break free of the chains that he is being tied down by. What separates H.W. from the residents and evangelists of Little Boston? The difference is that he and his father are educated and they are not. That is how Daniel Plainview is able to manipulate and cheat them the Sunday family, even Eli Sunday(Paul Dano) the priest and preacher of Little Boston. From what H.W. sees and experiences he sees that much of what is around him is just wrong. He uses his experience that he had gained as a kid to break free of the corruption and chaos that could have taken over him. That is one aspect of the education I'am talking about: our experiences and understanding of what is happening around us.

Now to get to the technical aspects of There Will Be Blood. It is just truly spectacular in every way. First off the acting was amazing. Daniel Day Lewis gave arguably the best performance of his career playing Daniel Plaiview or ever since movies began to be made. He freaked me out and probably shocked many people. His thirst for power and money was at such a high level that it made me wonder about what people are really capable of. The deceiving, the greed, the thirst for power and the every man for himself attitude actually looked more real than ever to me. Without Daniel Day Lewis I don't think this movie could have achieved what it has. Paul Dano gave a great performance as Eli Sunday though people tend to disagree. I think he gave a great portrayal of an extremist evangelical priest of how he himself had his own thirst for power and how he was more blasphemous then respectful and gracious to god then how you would expect a priest to be. How could people not be shocked by these two characters, I was myself.

Why was the music for this movie not liked. I thought this was among the top five musical scores I have ever heard. The music perfectly gave you the feeling of the corruption and deception setting into the movie. It perfectly intertwined with the rest of the movie as the movie itself was ever growingly becoming more and more chaotic and surreal. Probably too shocking though.

Paul Thomas Anderson I believe gave the best directing job of the year. He was able to show the oil fields and its processes, the rise of an oil man, the way everyone can be bought even a priest and the hope that H.W. represented. This movie was never boring and it was as stunning of a directing job as Daniel Day Lewis gave as a performance for his role in this movie. The intensity of this movie was as high as a movie could possibly be and some of the credit for this has to go to the director. The cinematography and the music seemed to intertwine perfectly like the rest of the movie. It gave the sense of the time period and as said before the greed, deception, etc. The cinematography did not just give you a negative feeling but a feeling as if what you are watching is real.

You should not like this movie just because of the great technical achievements as you should not for any movie but for what it says and how it says it. I'm not even sure if you should enjoy this movie in general but you should not be blinded by your opinions. I applaud you whoever out there who can somewhat understand this movie and get past the lying and deceiving we do to ourselves. This movie really shows the humanity of human beings. Why is this rated-R?It has so many intense scenes that if you get inside this movie it is truly haunting. Now maybe this movie was too powerful for many people, it was probably even shocking for realists. Maybe though its not that surprising that so many people don't like this movie because the truth hurts. Not the truth about corruption or about people but the truth about ourselves.