← Back to Reviews
in
There will be blood
This movie chronicles the rise of a ruthless oil tycoon and at the same time it dissects him to show the invincible drive it took to claim what's his in the land of opportunities.
People call Daniel Day Lewis one of if not the greatest actor ever.One of the key things people forget about acting is that however great a performance is, it should land in a great movie for it to receive the universal acclaim. A performance will never be good enough to make a bad movie great.It might make it watchable at parts when the actor is on screen but it cannot lift the whole movie.Actors that are considered to always knock it out of the park are often times in movies by auteurs.Jared Leto is an example for the opposite case. He is one of those actors who dreams big, he isn't afraid to follow heath ledger as joker or gain obscene amount of weight to play a murderer in a movie by a first time director. I think that is one his biggest mistakes. An actor can be talented enough to play a role but if the filmmakers are not talented enough to surround the performance with a great movie then it's all a waste.To me one of the main differences between actors like DDL and others who are equally talented and much more versatile is that DDL is the chosen one by hollywood. His public persona is what Hollywood highlights as what every actor should aspire to be - should not be a fodder for tabloid culture , should not make movies for pay check and should commit yourself to your character. This is one of the most important aspects of his legendary status.
Paul Thomas Anderson(PTA) is one of those directors that I hate and respect at the same time. He is what is wrong with auteur culture. He has a cult following who will embrace his movies no matter what but his cult is not large enough to make 100 million at box office but its large enough to get his movies awards recognition. Since people who vote him into nominations for awards are filmmakers themselves he must be talented. That sort of forces film buffs to like his movies because film community says so and not because you think his movies are great.
Having said all that,this movie is a masterpiece. The performance of DDL is little over hyped but the movie is so fresh and epic and actually deep that the character at the center of it shines brighter than it actually is.This is the story of a winner that feels most relatable to winners in real life. A movie like Wolf of wall street feels relatable as a success story if you are a 15 yr old. But if you are CEO of a company, then this movie will feel like a relatable success story. Meanness, lack of empathy, drive, focus are all essential parts of being a leader.The movie was made at the lower end of mid-level budget but it has the feel of an epic.The antagonist does what he is intended to do. The antagonist in this movie is not on the same level as protagonist but he is significant part of the power the protagonist gains in the movie. The antagonist is a metaphor for small reporters who can take down a president or CEO of a company with a news article. No matter how powerful a CEO of a company is, the moment a no name reporter exposes his dark secrets of sexual abuse, he/she will be taken down. Relationships are everything and people take advantage of it for their own gain. That to me is the essence of characters in the movie.
So this movie is so unique and original in terms of the canvas used to study capitalism.It could have been set in field of marketing or wall street , but PTA choose to do in this era and it lend itself to epic film making. DDL despite overacting at times and camera lingering long enough to show us that he is "acting" still puts out an impressive performance for ages.
This movie chronicles the rise of a ruthless oil tycoon and at the same time it dissects him to show the invincible drive it took to claim what's his in the land of opportunities.
People call Daniel Day Lewis one of if not the greatest actor ever.One of the key things people forget about acting is that however great a performance is, it should land in a great movie for it to receive the universal acclaim. A performance will never be good enough to make a bad movie great.It might make it watchable at parts when the actor is on screen but it cannot lift the whole movie.Actors that are considered to always knock it out of the park are often times in movies by auteurs.Jared Leto is an example for the opposite case. He is one of those actors who dreams big, he isn't afraid to follow heath ledger as joker or gain obscene amount of weight to play a murderer in a movie by a first time director. I think that is one his biggest mistakes. An actor can be talented enough to play a role but if the filmmakers are not talented enough to surround the performance with a great movie then it's all a waste.To me one of the main differences between actors like DDL and others who are equally talented and much more versatile is that DDL is the chosen one by hollywood. His public persona is what Hollywood highlights as what every actor should aspire to be - should not be a fodder for tabloid culture , should not make movies for pay check and should commit yourself to your character. This is one of the most important aspects of his legendary status.
Paul Thomas Anderson(PTA) is one of those directors that I hate and respect at the same time. He is what is wrong with auteur culture. He has a cult following who will embrace his movies no matter what but his cult is not large enough to make 100 million at box office but its large enough to get his movies awards recognition. Since people who vote him into nominations for awards are filmmakers themselves he must be talented. That sort of forces film buffs to like his movies because film community says so and not because you think his movies are great.
Having said all that,this movie is a masterpiece. The performance of DDL is little over hyped but the movie is so fresh and epic and actually deep that the character at the center of it shines brighter than it actually is.This is the story of a winner that feels most relatable to winners in real life. A movie like Wolf of wall street feels relatable as a success story if you are a 15 yr old. But if you are CEO of a company, then this movie will feel like a relatable success story. Meanness, lack of empathy, drive, focus are all essential parts of being a leader.The movie was made at the lower end of mid-level budget but it has the feel of an epic.The antagonist does what he is intended to do. The antagonist in this movie is not on the same level as protagonist but he is significant part of the power the protagonist gains in the movie. The antagonist is a metaphor for small reporters who can take down a president or CEO of a company with a news article. No matter how powerful a CEO of a company is, the moment a no name reporter exposes his dark secrets of sexual abuse, he/she will be taken down. Relationships are everything and people take advantage of it for their own gain. That to me is the essence of characters in the movie.
So this movie is so unique and original in terms of the canvas used to study capitalism.It could have been set in field of marketing or wall street , but PTA choose to do in this era and it lend itself to epic film making. DDL despite overacting at times and camera lingering long enough to show us that he is "acting" still puts out an impressive performance for ages.