There has been plenty of critical pants-wetting about Paul Thomas Anderson's latest film, and I am an Anderson admirer to be sure, but beyond an acting nomination for Daniel Day Lewis, I just can't get on that train. We are presented with some fascinating information on the trials and tribulations of a prospector in the late 19th and early 20th century, the dangers and triumphs, the frustratingly backwards technology. We have an interesting cinematic experiment with the first 14 minutes of the film having no dialogue. As Lewis' character Daniel Plainview draws the blood of the earth up from his wells, Paul Dano's character Eli Sunday tries to wash Plainview in the blood of Christ. Their antagonism seems to have no foundation. Well, let me put that differently. Plainview has no reason to be antagonistic to Sunday beyond pure orneriness, and Sunday has no reason to seek Plainview's salvation beyond pure, sinful spite.
Plainview is an unpleasant man, an awful man, and surely a juice role to tackle. He is a difficult hero to follow, however. I don't need my protagonists to all be likable, but I do need some reason to care about what they are doing. Perhaps the novel upon which this is based, Upton Sinclair's Oil, would be of some assistance in seeing inside the man who Lewis portrays with such prickliness. Lewis has a tremendous accent and (as he always does) embodies the rangy sinew of his character with a disturbing naturalness. He does a terrific job but even his elegant speech patterns couldn't keep me from being vaguely repelled. As one of my companions said about his volcanic temper, "He should start counting to 10." Dano (Little Miss Sunshine) has the fire of evangelism burning bright in his young, narrow chest, as well as a legitimate beef with Plainview.
I blame the music a bit. Scored by Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood, the score by itself plays as rich and interesting. I had occasion to listen to it before seeing the film, and thought it sounded moody and portentous. However, when placed on top of the movie, it felt misaligned with the action or the emotion of a scene, and was loud and distracting. Despite the sensual loss of visual and aural details, such as the creaking monster of an active well or the desolate hillsides of desperate prairie towns, I'd rather just listen to the score while I read the book than see it so misapplied as here.
It is frustrating in general to see such exquisite elements thrown together into such an off-putting stew. In films past, writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson has created sublime beauty from weirdness and off-kilter anti-heroes. I don't know if this film misfires for me because the original story belongs to someone else or if the scope of a period film filled with antique emotions and happenstances were too remote for such modern directorial vision, but something happened in the final mix that left me cold. I think it is worthy of seeing but I hope you save your extra pennies for something more cohesive.
I think we can relate best to internal struggles.
to me. Killing Eli in a bowling alley 
Seemed dumb. I did not really get the final line either I am finished. What did that mean?
