There will be blood: Overdone by indulgence or moments of brilliance?

Paul Thomas Anderson should have his final cut card...Revoked.

This is the end result: Directorial overindulgence.

TWBB has it's legions of serious movie fans, who workship it's maker. It's a film to admire more than enjoy. I dunno what the big deal was.

I love Paul Thomas Anderson, admire his talent, admire his films. TWBB is uncompromising, but not in a good way. This is a film that does not earn it's running time. The running time for Magnolia is justified, given how much ground and characters that film covered. I think TWBB has flawed structural problems, all are apparent upon first viewing. This is not a great film, a film that is stylistically well made is not the same as a film that earns it's stripes. It's been hailed as a masterpiece by mainstream critics who overpraise his work, and that becomes the widely accepted merit. The fact that the other film won the awards doesn't lessen it's achievement, instead it invites critical analysis of it's themes.

It's universally agreed that DDL and the technical craft makes this film what it is, it's also worth considering how PTA's decision to focus on such an unredeemable character resulted in a disbalanced, and ultimately unrewarding story. The set up, and execution of the story gives the promise that the conclusion falls short delivering on. It should've been worth the sum of it's parts, instead the last act just flies off the handle, and loses it's focus. Scenes play out too long, with music setting up emotions that don't come. As if the audience is supposed to catch the drift of molasses slow pacing, nothing emotional is earned in slow motion if what is happening doesn't have a sense of momentum. And don't get me started on that ridiculous ending. That whole third act feels like a DVD deleted scene, pulling the movie into an awkward, over the top direction that negates the pact it made with the viewer.

If this was the intention, it didn't work for me. We have no one to pull to, it's themes are vague instead of satisfying because the story has 0 involvement with the audience. It's art alright, but hollow art.

It's okay that Daniel Plainview is a bastard, but his universe and the secondary characters in the story feel so lifeless the emotional pull is one of coldness Paul Dano is fine in his early scenes, once he goes toe to toe with DDL during the last act it becomes a screaming match, the scene in the bowling alley is awkwardly staged and edited. I don't think it's supposed to be funny, yet it was hilarious. The acting is pretty bad, reducing DDL's performance to over the top hysterics. It negates the careful subtleties that preceeded it.

It's problems like these that make me wonder what's so great about the movie. NCFOM had tighter direction and involved the viewer in ways this does not with a plot that moved forward. Here it's just indulgent direction redeemedd by a spectacular central performance and period details.

I'll wrap it up saying that with tighter focus on it's themes the film could have been more rewarding.
I can image it's maker intended it for himself, because he refused to cut a frame from it. Mind that i'm not saying the film should've adhered to hollywood conventions (happy ending, predictability) to be any satisfying, but the hallmark of a great film is to take the whole of it's parts to a satisfying conclution.

If you ask so much from the audience why do give it so little? some will like the journey some will not.
I can't recall a movie with so much going for it yet offers so little. A new american classic it is not.

Overdone by indulgence.