Wait, aren't you going to tell us how much you hated the novel?

This review says it all.

why do you need your art spoon fed to you?

trust this reviewer at all.

Stephanie, I am very sorry to say it, but you truly are the worst reviewer working in any major publication (print or online) today. Your reviews demonstrate a profound ignorance of some of the most basic tenets of movie-making. This review of "There Will Be Blood" should make the editors of Salon finally stand up and take notice, as you have just savaged one of the finest films of the 21st century, and done it in a way that betrays your lack of knowledge or filmmaking and the history of movies. I am sure you are a fine and intelligent person, but your movie reviews have been terrible for years, and it's time for Salon to re-assign you to something more suited to the skills you do have.

- Erin R.

So wait...is the problem with SZ that she's a bad reviewer or that her opinion of a movie is not the same as yours?

I don't always agree with her, but she understands film history and is a good writer. Just because she doesn't like the same movies you do doesn't make her a moron. If Salon is actually using anonymous responses to their critics' reviews to make hiring/firing decision (and of course that's just silly), please count this as one vote in favor of keeping SZ reviewing films.

Here's Zacharek's essential problem with the film, it seems:

'There are no women in "There Will Be Blood" -- Plainview is apparently so fixated on oil he has zero interest in sex -- and that's fine. But their absence is never addressed; the understanding is that a world of power-hungry men is interesting by itself (which it isn't).'

A film with no women with a plot about power-hungry men can't be interesting. This is quite a bias, which she doesn't try to explain or support, as if it's self-evident. If the movie's plot can't be interesting to her, why doesn't she just say that up front? I haven't seen the movie, or read the book, but they sound interesting to me, with or without women, and I will go see the film (probably with a woman who is also interested in the movie).

At least in my opinion. I don't know if I agree with her assessment of the movie (since I haven't seen it) but this is one of her better reviews. I really got a sense of what she didn't like about the movie and she didn't resort to rehashing or spoiling the plot.

I think she watched the movie and really tried to figure out why she didn't like it. Sometimes, liking or disliking a movie ( or any work of art for that matter) can be an almost visceral reaction. Especially a movie by a director like Anderson; you know he has mad skillz, but that doesn't necessarily mean you like the finished product.

I think of the Zacharek haters need to chill out, though. I mean, come on defcahn1? I'm sure there isn't a universal consensus on There Will Be Blood. I bet there are other reviewers who don't like it.

The story and the characters _are_ the big ideas. Often, posing/prompting questions is more important than providing simplistic answers.

I also liked how the film is criticized for being both too subtle and not subtle enough.

And the `I wanted to like it, I really did' was particularly wonderful.

Time after time I discover, to my amazement, that Stephanie Zacharek is a near perfect inverse indicator. I can't wait to see "There Will be Blood" and I'm feeling very confident that I will find it powerful and engrossing.

Thanks Stephanie!

Very often I love movies that Stephanie Zacharek hates or vice versa, and her conclusions about movies very often are not those of most mainstream reviewers. For example, she was the only "cream of the crop" reviewer on rottentomatoes.com who panned Hairspray, and at this point she's the only one there panning There Will Be Blood.

But reducing a movie review to that final "thumbs up" or "thumbs down," Fresh Tomato or Splat, is woefully simpleminded. If I want to read only those reviewers who mirror my own sensibilities, I'll start writing my own reviews. Every time I read one of SZ's reviews, even if I disagree strenuously with her conclusions I'm drawn in by her insights, her beautiful writing, and the visceral way she experiences movies.

When I read one of SZ's reviews before seeing a movie, I generally have some idea of whether I'll like the movie or not, based not on her final conclusion but on her vivid descriptions, her insights into actors and roles, and the details she takes in and shares. Then when I do see the movie, my viewing is richer and more nuanced.

With regard to her point about There Will Be Blood's dearth of women, it is a perfectly legitimate point to make. Every character in that story erupted from a woman, and every father in that story impregnated a woman at least once. It is a fair question to ask why women weren't part of Anderson's story. He may have a fair answer. Some people may not notice, and some people may think it's perfectly legitimate to leave women out of an important film. The New York Times reviewer blithely noted that "Like most of the finest American directors working now, Mr. Anderson makes little on-screen time for women." But those of us who happen to be women may notice this, and wonder why.

The first time I saw the title on the Salon home page calling the movie a folly, I said "Uh oh, There will be blood on this one."

I have no opinion of the film, not having seen it. A lot of people on here are lucky. I live in a place where the film might, maybe, if we're lucky, show up for a week a month from now. I fully intend to see it for myself, in spite of this review.

I can see why some people are upset about this review. SZ's reviews can be baffling sometimes, but then, so is the huge opening weekend Box Office for crap like National Treasure. If it's like the first one, it is crap crap crappity crap, yet the people seem all in a panic to hand their money over. And next weekend, it will drop by 39 percent, and the following weekend by another 50 percent. and four weekends from now, If I see it at all, it will be very likely that I am the only person in the audience. It's surprising to me how many times I am the only person in the audience. The movie business is absurd and insane.

But back to SZ, her opinions can sometimes be baffling, but I do think they are honestly held, and she does at least try to explain her terms.