I await a satisfying explanation for these overblown reviews

Rating: 6/10 (5 January 2008)

I haven't seen any convincing explanation for the accolades given this film. That is not to say that Day-Lewis' acting is not deserving of enthusiasm, but acting does not make a film.
The film is a character study of paranoid personality disorder and greed. I see little else beyond that. I sense PTA was trying to tell me something about men, their relationships to each other, brothers and sons, but what it is I defy you to tell me, let alone what is so profound about it. A man who is given no love has no love to give? I think Citizen Kane took that one and ran it to it's end. In fact, Plainview is pretty much the same as Kane, if slightly more violent (though, remember, Kane too releases his violence when he feels betrayed). They both pretend to be champions of the people, but are incapable of caring enough to deliver true love or caring, only the material scraps from their barreling capitalist enterprises.
The religious charlatanism angle is vapid and translucent from the start, not to mention trite. The lighting is above par and the burning oil derrick scene is visually stunning. It is an entertaining movie until the end, which appears as if it were written by some college student high on pot. There are definitely at least two clear 2001 homages, which is cool. But if a film is not stunning in every other regard than story, which this film is not, than it cannot be great. It lacks this critical redeeming quality.