American History X.

Rating: 8/10 (3 February 2008)

So many reviews, so little time. I read many of the reviews here, and there are many dumb comments such as nihilism. I love nihilistic films. I don't have a problem with them. I don't find them shocking or surprising. "There Will Be Blood" is being categorized as nihilistic, but how can that be? What was the movie about? Really, what was the story driving at? Were we supposed to think that Plainview was justified, mentally ill or scum? He worked hard to get what he wanted and was extremely competitive, but isn't that TRULY American? Is that the American WAY? What about Eli's character? Were we supposed to think religion is a hoax and that if you are religious you get what you deserve? Are any of these characters likable? What are you supposed to think and feel when the film is over? I think it's a cop-out for Anderson to leave it up to you to decide. Why make a movie if you don't have a clear vision or something you want to say? I agree with all other reviewers who noted the slow pace, long scenes, irritating/incongruent soundtrack noise and underdevelopment of characters and plot. It makes me want to read Upton Sinclair's book "Oil!" to see if the book is equally as bad. I liked "The Jungle" and find it hard to believe that "Oil!" is bad, but the book isn't on a long list of classic literature, so maybe the story was doomed from the start.
I disagree with the reviewers who felt Daniel Day-Lewis over-acted. I felt he embodied the character but both the script and Paul Thomas Anderson were not able to give his character a direction. Paul Dano, who I've seen in several films, has yet to prove himself as a strong actor. I agree that he seemed weak in this film and even stilted, but I see that he only had a week to prepare for the role which was a shame for him.
I don't care what anyone says, Paul Thomas Anderson's best works remain "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia". He does not surpass them with "There Will Be Blood". I can only estimate the high praise for "There Will Be Blood" is due to a poor year in film. 2007 had to be one of the worst years yet for film. I invite debate from fellow IMDb reviewers to argue what films were so great? I'm an avid film buff and there were far too few great films in 2007. "Atonement"? Crap. "Juno"? Garbage. "There Will Be Blood"? Boring. "Michael Clayton"? Okay. So maybe only "No Country For Old Men" should be in the best picture category.
I like Paul Thomas Anderson the way I like Stanley Kubrick--both directors have made amazing films, and both have made absolute junk--need I mention 1975's "Barry Lyndon"?? Then again, I hope Paul Thomas Anderson doesn't become Robert Altman where his career is filled with a ton of average arty films punctuated by a handful of great films. Or maybe William Friedkin who blew his wad with "The French Connection" and "The Exorcist" and hasn't even come close since. Or maybe Francis Ford Coppola who only managed "The Godfather", "The Conversation", "The Godfather II" and "Apocalypse Now" before withering away.
Some recent nihilistic films that worked extremely well for me in terms of plot and character development were "Seven", "Heat", "American History X", "American Psycho", "The Departed", "The Prestige", "American Beauty", "The Road To Perdition", and yes, even "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia". "The Hours" and what the heck, I'll even add "High Tension" and "Wolf Creek" for good nihilistic measure.
Next time, Anderson, next time we better get a more original story in which we can get into the characters, no matter how nihilistic or depraved.