Really? Did I watch the same "#44 best" movie that others did?

Rating: 1/10 (12 January 2008)

For once I have to ask myself - did I watch the same movie as the others on this page did? With overblown reviews and 10-star ratings I walked into the theater expecting nothing short of a masterpiece. And what I got was a two hour long saga of nothingness on the screen which I got through with a valiant effort to keep my eyelids open.
The good aspects first: The turn of the century period has been captured in its authenticity and grit very well on the screen. And as we all know by now - Daniel Day-Lewis has given a masterful performance. He manages to come across as authentic, despicable and scary at the same time. Quite an achievement. But his performance is towards the flawed enterprise called this movie. Paul Thomas Anderson has come up with very clever movies in the past - in Boogie Nights and Magnolia. But the important difference between those relatively better products of cinema and this aberration is quite clear: Narrative.
Mr.Anderson, I know that you're supposed to be a genius and all, but at the risk of making a fool of myself I'm going to give you a quick "Narrative-101" lesson: The protagonist's character/sensibilities are established. And then life experiences throughout the story make him/her richer. There are changes - some good, some bad - which makes for an interesting (and possibly visually enthralling) story. "There will be blood" fails miserably in this aspect.
Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is ruthless oilman back in the early days of the black gold business. From buying up land by tricking simple village folks to showing religious fervor to further his business ends - he does this and more. The value of human life is little in his quest for wealth. But therein lies the problem, this aspect of his character has been established in the scene two of the movie - there is NOTHING to add to character development in the two hours that follow. There are some interesting scenes juxtaposed with a plot of angst against the local priest-boy Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). The enmity is flawed in every way - it is a battle of unequals and the climactic sequence does not help change the inequality in their status one bit.
I walked out of the hall asking: "What the hell was all that about?" Maybe I don't have the evolved sensibility to appreciate the intricacies of the message that this movie wants to convey. But I'll tell ya this much: Movies are meant to entertain. Movies are meant to make us think. The best ones entertain while making us think. "There will be blood" neither entertains, nor made me think.
1 star out of 10.