Visual Epic. Needs more Beef.

Rating: 8/10 (3 March 2008)

There will be Spoilers.
It certainly clicks the right buttons: a world dominated by gangster capitalism and exploitation shown in the image of one man? Check. A world where the most holy men are little more than charlatans and frauds? Check. A world where family is a little more than a token for genuineness, to be disposed of whenever it becomes useless or a hindrance (usually for economic reasons)? Check. A world where one must be a psychopath to make it 'to the top'? Check. And the funny thing is, was how goddamn predictable all that was. These hoary old clichés seem to come around in cycles  this film is after all based loosely on a novel by Lewis Sinclair, perhaps every time there is an unpopular and blatantly corrupt Republican in the white house?
That is not to say the film is bad - far from it actually and yes, Daniel Day Lewis is not as good as you have heard he is. He is far better than that, in a multifaceted role which demands both bluster and subtlety. But the really impressive thing from my Point of View was the dialogue  not so much the words spoken but how they were spoken. Every conversation was delivered with awkwardness, or with stuttering silence, or was clearly performed within the movie like Plainview's "I'm an oil man" speech at the beginning. Talk ebbs and flows penetrated by the occasional silence with none of the characters except Eli or Plainview at their most hysteric or determined, speaking with great conviction or believe. There is though very little dialogue in the film as a whole.
This gives off a strong sense of realism there as opposed to "Movie acting". Imagine the scene where at the end where Eli and Plainview confront each other, lesser actors with lesser scripts would have either gone the typical indie route by exaggerating each characters mannerisms to show emotions and/or individuality or would have gone the Hollywood way and minimized subtlety in favor of the obviously dramatic. Here is there none of that, Eli's character, facial expression and yes, way of speech during his "confession" do not feel like performances at all but looking into  what? His soul, maybe? But that does sound pretentious.  That is not to say that this in itself is much new but the quality at which achieves it puts it above most recent releases. Add to that your cinematography and your long dialogue less scenes which have an almost Leone-like quality in showing so much by silence you have something of a classic of realism. Pure visual cinema.
Recently in his review Mark Kermode, the critic for BBC, said that the film was like watching a new grammar of cinema being made in front of him. I wouldn't go that far, it is more an evolution of what already exists done by the best around (Surely if the Oscars were a serious event, P.T Anderson would have won best director). It is just a pity the storyline is nothing new under the sun. Its psychology being limited, dated and incomplete going into "dollar book Freud" territory. Its politics are similar as already mentioned. In the end it is a film to enjoy for 2 and a half hours and admire; but it just can't inspire passion in you. Perhaps that is where too, the comparison to Kane come in.