Where does it go from here?

Rating: 8/10 (29 February 2008)

Powerful, Authentic, Gripping.
This is undoubtedly a masterful effort from Mr Anderson, here tapping into a rich seam of acting talent, with Mr. Day-Lewis rightly lauded for his performance.
However I found it to be unsatisfying. I could have quite easily sat through a 5 hour cut of this film - it was that good. But when the final reel ended and I gathered my thoughts I could not accept that the film had not met my expectations. Perhaps they were too high or perhaps they were misplaced. I was expecting genius.
It struck me that there were just a few too many conceits. The much fabled opening sequence was neither silent (as I had been told to expect) nor satisfying because it felt as if they were trying too hard to create a dialogue-free sequence. It felt fake. When characters are interacting, the easiest thing for them to do is talk and sometimes (take a breath, film puritans) it's the most realistic thing for them to do. The nodding and knowing looks somehow lacked fidelity. I'm not going to question the production team's artistic vision - not my place! - but I can see the screen writing guides being written now (show don't tell, watch the first X minutes of 'There Will Be Blood' for example).
Plainview, as a man of anger, malcontent and visceral hatred, is the hook the film hangs on and it's difficult to see how anybody but Daniel Day Lewis could have portrayed him as effectively. He glowers gloriously throughout the duration and, perhaps a little unfortunately, towers over the performances of those around him. He will become one of the most reputed characters in film history.
After watching the demise of Eli and the listening to the cry of 'I'm finished', I couldn't help but ask myself "Where does it go from here". For Paul Thomas Anderson (reputation further enhanced), what will (and can) he do next? More importantly, what will the audience do next? You see, this is an intelligent film, a good film. What, if it wasn't for the exposure and perhaps sheer quality, would be called an 'arthouse' film. The vast number of people who see this should make a pact and refuse to ever pay again to view the Hollywood detritus that fills the very same cinemas 95% of the time. They should say "We've been to the multiplex and bought our Pepsi and popcorn as the advertisers want us to, but instead of leaving the same building 120 minutes later after a cerebral assault of derivative sounds and images, we have exercised our emotions and intelligence in such a way that will prevent us paying to watch corporate-commercial nonsense ever again. We shall persuade the producers that we are on an evolutionary path where cinema as art continues and strives to improve over time and shall vote with our admission costs for the good and the crafted films."
How ironic that we get the news within a week of this film winning at the Academy Awards that McG will be directing Terminator 4.