If it is not biographical, who would believe in such a character?

Rating: 1/10 (20 January 2011)

I have only just finished watching this tiresome movie over an extended period that began just after an early curfew last night here in Tunisia, which has just had civil unrest and unseated its greedy president (they didn't need the Americans to come in to do it for them, and so won't have them here to introduce 'democracy' by force of arms).
It is just awful. If it had been a biopic of some deranged, murderous, amoral, witless, purposeless man who had really existed then we could have watched the movie in awe that nature, society and the culture of greed could create such a beast, but no. The guy never existed and is not really based on anyone who lived, so what is the point? There is no tension in the movie, no real storyline, we don't care about the central character, or what happens to him.
How this was thought to be Oscar material tells you a lot about the Oscar process. Daniel Day-Lewis was a big name so perhaps that's why. But he is not a big name anymore; probably something to do with this worthless movie.