Oh yes . . . There Will Be Boredom.

Rating: 6/10 (10 January 2009)

If you find a single cliché-ridden scene in this entire movie even mildly unpredictable, it must surprise you every single time the crap in your toilet magically disappears when you flush it. People like to ironically throw around the mindless phrase that whatever movie was "and insult to" their "intelligence". I have never once stooped so low in a review to say that, but I'm going to go even further here. There Will Be Blood is a downright insult to the intelligence of anyone who has so much as graduated kindergarten. And here is why:
First and foremost, every single scene in There Will Be Blood is an unabashed cliché, copy/pasted from other "epic" (major emphasis on the quotes) movies just like it. From opening to close, there isn't a single thing you wouldn't expect. Calling There Will Be Blood unoriginal is an understatement. Calling it so unoriginal it's a blatant waste of time is a better way to put it. While people say something doesn't have to be original to be goodand there may be some truth thereit's almost impossible to be fully engaged with something you've seen before. It's like repeating a joke a second time: sure, you may laugh, but it's not nearly as funny as it was the first time. Taking the metaphor further, with There Will Be Blood, the joke is "Why did the chicken cross the road?" It's been said so many times people don't even know why it's funny. The only people who could even remotely find any entertainment value, or, much less, intellectual value, in There Will Be Blood are the fine-wine-sipping, fine-cinema-whores. The kind of people who are so brainwashed into believing every word the critics say is correct, they'd believe the critics no matter how bad a film is. And There Will Be Blood is pretty bad. I mean, seriously, folks, when a movie has to even copy its title (from Saw II's tagline), you really think the directors have enough imagination to even think of a single creative, much less original, idea? Excuse me as I laugh.
The second condemning flaw is that the film has no story. It's just the everyday life of an oilman. While I can sometimes appreciate movies about everyday life, the problem here is there is nothing whatsoever remarkable about it. The man's life portrayed is just as dull as my own. It's as dull as your own. It's completely, utterly unremarkable. I'm pretty sure the movie was trying to "haunt" the viewer with its negativity, as the back cover says. However, as I pointed out above, every problem that goes wrong and is intended to "disturb" the viewer is 100% cliché and predictable, as well as downplayed without any overt emotion until the very ending. Someone can say it is character driven, but the main character and his son are both, again, cardboard clichés who add nothing to the movie whatsoever. Because of this, the movie just goes on and on without any focus or anything at all worth watching. It takes 1 hour and 3 minutesyes, I timed itbefore anything even remotely, mildly interesting happens, and after that, the movie remains deadpan until the end. This review is actually very hard to write because of the simple fact that the movie is like that old politician phrase: it runs on and on for hours, but never really says anything or does anything. It's a lot like trying to review a 2hr, 30min session of staring at the wall.
Other complaints:

The cinematography is stunning at the opening. It has an old-fashion look. After the first 20 minutes, however, it completely becomes average. Almost as if it was just a way to hook the viewer, then died off.

Giving this film an R-rating is completely ludicrous. Despite the title that it directly stole from Saw II, it literally could have been G-ratedthere was no blood, language, or nudity whatsoeverand certainly no worse than PG.

The acting was nothing special. It's solid, sure. It's average. It's run-of-the-mill. Oscar-worthy? Again, that's a joke. I saw nothing special about any of the performances, and some of them (such as Ailman) were downright cheesy.

It's always easier for movies like this to portray cliché Christian extremists instead of accurately portraying what 95% of real Christians actually act like. I actually find it rather humorous. I've seen hundreds of films portray Christian extremists, but I can literally count the realistic portrayals of a Christian in a movie on one hand. It's a paradox that There Will Be Blood tries so hard to be realistic, while it uses every over-the-top Hollywood cliché ever used.

The ending is an absolute safe, self-parody. It's where the entire bland joke-of-a-movie finally gets a punch line. The ending, without spoiling anything, has to be one of the absolute cheesiest endings of all time, not to mention the way it's played out is, who would have guessed, another cliché. I've seen the exact same ending in countless other movies (for example: Hannibal Rising, Hostel: Part 2, etc.).

Overall: There is no point of viewing this movie. It's just a rehash of everything you've seen before, with no redeeming value whatsoever. It's bitingly predictable and unoriginal, and you'll see every turn in the first fifteen minutes, like I did. The story is simply nonexistent, and the characters all have about as much personality as a tree stump. This movie is a whitewashed grave: nice cinematography, but once you look past the pretty movie pictures, you see it's dead inside.
0/10