Such as? I have searched in vain for someone to explain waht these “interesting ideas” and “thematic statements” are. PT Anderson’s fans all claim he has so many profound things to say, but they never get around to explaining what he actually HAS to say.

This is the hallmark of all “emperor’s new clothes” movies. Detractors are accused of not being smart or perceptive enough to see what is there, yet the defenders fail to explain what is there. If they can’t articulate what is there, it’s because there’s nothing there. It’s been a long time since Boogie Nights and Magnolia, and I’m still waiting for someone to point out these supposed incredible depths. But nobody ever has, and likely, nobody ever will, because those movies were overrated from the start. Those of us who saw those movies as empty stylistic exercises have no reason to change our minds until somebody, somewhere demonstrates something to the contrary.

Nobody has to take it on faith that Shakespeare, for example, is a great artist, because essays and books written about his work are often brimful of fascinating ideas and themes inspired by the plays. Shakespeare’s ideas set off chain reactions inside the minds of his commentators. (He’s not only witty in himself, he is the cause that wit is in other men.)

With Anderson (and other overrated pseudo-geniuses), EVERYTHING has to be taken on faith, because his admirers cannot or will not go beyond dogmatic assertion. That just ain’t good enough. As of now, I’m sticking with the Emperor’s New Clothes theory.

I think the last scene is Biblical with Daniel representing “our elder brother” the Jews, Paul representing the apostle Paul, who started a false religion, Eli representing the modern Christians who are seduced by show business lifestyles, and thelast family with oil representing the Arabs/Muslims. Eli wants Daniel to help him steal “the Arabs” oil, but Daniel/Israel has already stolen it. Daniel exhibits the everday Israeli/Jewish viewpoint towards group competition. “I’m older than you, I’m smarter than you, and I can kill and laugh about it.”

if you didn’t like the film, that’s fine, but you really should explain why. the same applies if your going to make a sweeping statement about about all of anderson’s work.

i agree that scorsese tends to be overrated, but find it hard to sympathize with your opinion when you don’t elaborate and just attatch cliches such as ‘emperors new clothes’(everyone knows what it means, and it doesn’t really apply if you going to say anderson was never good).

it just makes you seem arrogant and a little bit thick, which i’m sure you aren’t, but would like to see proof of this.

the oscars are relatively easy to discredit as ridiculous (forrest gump won best film, in the same year pulp fiction and fargo were nominated), but it’s off topic relating to the merits (or lack of) in There Will Be Blood.

Hope to see a more focused post in the future!

Prove your point instead of telling us what to think.

I think the achilles of your argument is that you actually “agree” that it was a well made film, but look, something doesn’t have to be art to be great. You can call N’Sync and Backstreet Boys what you will, but they still sold way more records than real, artful musicians that made quality records.

In being a critic I feel like it’s quite all right to just say, “look, I didn’t get it.” But you can’t say something isn’t art because you don’t think it’s art. Opinions aren’t facts, and there are a whole lot of films that have been released recently that deserve a hell of a lot less praise than they ended up getting. There is on the flipside a film like Michael Clayton, that critics loved and nobody watched – twice.