Timeless Classic

Rating: 10/10 (12 January 2008)

There are SPOILERS all over this interpretation. So please don't read any further if you don't want to spoil it for yourself. You have been warned.
-----------------------SPOILERS BEGIN-------------------------
Not a very religious man, this Daniel Plainview, one of the first things I noticed, and also which I think is KEY to better understand this movie. It seemed like he was actually very spiteful of religion, that it had somewhat betrayed him because he didn't have any loved ones, blood related. You also don't know his past, maybe he was abandoned when he was a child, why didn't he keep in touch with his parents? Was he not loved? So yeah he's a very 'This is a ruthless world, everyone for himself, no one's here to help' kinda guy.
The part of the movie where you see him angriest is when his 'brother' tells him he's not his brother. Right after this moment his character becomes more and more sinister as the movie progresses, and takes a sharp downturn as soon as he realizes his only family left had actually died from tuberculosis. After that, his greed for success overtakes him, to the point where he starts using his 'son' to buy more property.
Now of course he can't fully shake off the human in him, so I still think he struggles with his love for his 'son', but it's a SUPER close second to his addiction to greed, which I think explains the scene where his 'son' tells him that he will become his competitor and build his own business. In that moment, he is compelled to choose between the empire he dedicated his entire life building, from scratch, or his 'son'. You can see in his eyes, he's overwhelmed by an intense internal conflict there; should he keep his empire, or endorse his son's prospects...love for son, or greed? Wait! I don't have to choose, yay!... he's not my son! (which becomes very convenient for his internal battle) At which point he goes on a ruthless diatribe and tells him the truth. It's really not much different from him shooting his 'brother', metaphorically speaking. Connection by blood is very important for this guy, he ditches his long-time business partner immediately after his 'brother' contacts him and becomes his new partner.
Finally, at the end, him killing the 'fake priest' could be taken many ways. One interesting way to take it would be the score he needed to settle with what represented a super being. He was never religious, and perhaps this was out of spite for God not blessing him with blood-related 'loved ones'. He kills the priest, and this is actually a pretty clever (maybe not Hollywood-esquire, or satisfying) ending for the movie, since he finally attains closure and gets his revenge by killing a messenger of God, to which he follows it by "I'm done." Perhaps this is why he never decided to marry and have children. I don't see Plainview as someone who would say, well, I did get screwed for not having any close relatives, oh well, I'll give this another shot and try to raise a family of my own, and perhaps they'll love me. Plainview does not compromise! No way. this guy has a "Oh yeah?! Well, !@#$ you!!!' attitude to everything and everyone he comes across. You have to really look at it from his persona, really become this guy to understand his motives, his demeanor. Plainview was out for revenge, and love, couple with unparalleled greed to achieve his objectives. Everything was a competition for him, he hated everybody.
"I don't want anyone else to succeed; I hate most people." So all in all, I think this movie is a story of greed, vengeance, and a sad search for love. It would be pretty interesting to see a prequel of this movie.
So why call it 'There Will Be Blood', It's definitely a clever way to quote Daniel's sub conscience, i.e. "there will be vengeance", "there will be greed", "there will be blood-related family". It's Daniel Plainview's harbinger, in a sense.
----------------SPOILERS END-----------------------
You can piece this movie in so many ways, which is why I truly enjoyed this movie.
Everything aside, I think everyone agrees that DDL's acting nothing short of timeless and legendary. He's only done 4 movies in the last 10 years, known to be one of the most selective actors in the world.