Three Variety writers have posted early reviews (in apparent defiance of Paramount’s review embargo, which was to extend until Monday) of There Will Be Blood. All three reviews are, essentially, positive, but they fall on three distinct points in terms of confidence in the film’s ability to reach an audience.

still from There Will Be Blood originally posted by Jeff Wells

Kristopher Tapley’s review is the most, for lack of a better word, forgiving. “So it goes that Paul Thomas Anderson remains one of the cinema’s greatest living treasures,” he writes. “There Will Be Blood is a horrific work of mastery that I don’t imagine any other filmmaker would have ever been capable of accomplishing.” The review itself only comes close to negative criticism with the contention (no pun intended) that Paul Dano’s performance isn’t quite as good as the”tour de force” committed to celluloid by Daniel Day-Lewis. But in another post on a different blog, Tapley acknowledges that he thinks the film is virtually out of the Oscar running. “I can’t stress enough that I don’t figure in personal opinion of a film when assessing Oscar potential and only consider how I think the Academy is going to react. Sometimes I’m wrong, but never for the wrong reasons.”

One step further down the trail of agonized pessimism, the basic tone of Todd McCarthy’s review, the first of the three to see the light of day, is “This is a masterpiece that no one will pay to see.” Keeping in line with Variety custom, he prefaces careful, meticulous praise of virtually every aspect of the production with a peek into his box office crystal ball:

There’s no getting around the fact that this Paramount Vantage/Miramax co-venture reps yet another 2½–hour-plus indie-flavored, male-centric American art film, a species that has recently proven difficult to market to more than rarefied audiences. Distribs will have to roll the dice and use hoped-for kudos for the film and its superb star Daniel Day-Lewis to create the impression of a must-see.

Finally, Anne Thompson’s take is measured in its praise, and precise in its realism. “It is brilliantly written, acted, directed, mounted and scored.,” she writes. Buuuut,

[T]he movie’s dark, grim, assaultive nature, and the finale that does not offer any light in the darkness, will drive many viewers away, especially women. It’s an art-house movie for smart people with strong stomachs. Cinephiles will revel in this. As a writer-director, PTA will earn the respect of critics and peers. But a wide-audience spectacle this is not.

PTA lacks that warm touch that can open a movie up to a broader swath of viewers–compare this to the Coens’ No Country for Old Men. That movie in its way also reveals the darkness in mens’ souls. But there are many people–like Tommy Lee Jones’ sheriff–fighting the good fight. Even if they lose, they are still fighting.

It’s an interesting juxtaposition, one that I won’t be able to properly assess until I’ve seen Blood, but I will say that I found No Country to be profoundly nihilistic. That’s not necessarily a pejorative–I don’t think its the masterpiece that some people are saying it is, but I’m certainly more of a fan than, say, Andrew Sarris–but I don’t know how you can get any less warm than encouraging that kind of laughter in tandem with that kind of violence. But more on that next week.