I actually think DD-L was not right for this part

Rating: 7/10 (28 January 2008)

Though I'll probably get flamed for saying this, I don't think Daniel Day-Lewis was right for this part. I should preface my remarks by saying that I see around 30 independent films a year, consider myself a film buff, have studied American Naturalism (of which Sinclair's book Oil! is a part), and unlike many here, actually liked Magnolia. I also have nothing against Daniel Day-Lewis. But I think he was too florid in this role, operatic almost to the point of silliness. Watching the great Ciarin Hinds playing Daniel Plainview's right hand man, you could almost see Hinds saying to himself, "For God's sake tone it down there, Dan." I realize PTA was trying to say something about how Daniel Plainview is larger than life, etc., and I also realize that many of the main characters in naturalistic novels come off this way on the page (i.e, McTeague), and that playing naturalistic characters in this over-the-top way has a Hollywood history (Burt Lancaster in Elmer Gantry), but in this movie I think it was very important for Daniel Plainview to be a bit more subtle. We have to see him not as some obsessed monster who eventually loses all his humanity, but as a human being we can all identify with who goes off the rails. I don't think Day-Lewis accomplishes this. Though we do believe he actually loves HW and Mary Sunday, Day-Lewis plays Plainview as damaged goods from the beginning. He is creepy, and I think it's a little unbelievable that he would be able to snow people so easily with his spiel about leasing or acquiring their land. Though I agree with most here that this movie has many excellent qualities, upon reflection I think I would rather have seen a more subtle actor like Russell Crowe or Christian Bale play this part--I think either one would have made the character more human.