There Will Be Blood is one of those uniquely modern breed of films that, despite excelling in all the technical aspects of movie production, falls flat in terms of storytelling.

It starts out strongly enough, with a largely wordless, 10-minute prelude depicting the slow rise of Day-Lewis' character, Daniel Plainview, into scheming oil magnate. It's an excellent, absorbing opening, taking its cues from silent films given the relative lack of dialogue, also benefiting from crisp cinematography and a driving, intense soundtrack. These last two elements continue throughout the length of the film, with the bizarre yet strangely fitting score especially standing out. Would that the story could measure up.

It certainly tries; you can feel director Paul Thomas Anderson straining to create some big, bilious, Kubrickian epic about America, but the mostly restricted scope falters. Part of it is just how bizarre the two main characters Plainview and Sunday really are. Plainview, as portrayed by Day-Lewis, barely shows any sign of humanity; he's more of a 1900s Terminator with an accent almost as outlandish as Arnold's. Dano's Sunday is a slimy wimp, who, despite his energetic, over-the-top religious theatrics, can't even escape a drunken Plainview lurching about a bowling alley.

Is this a drama? There's not much terribly dramatic about the cash grabs of a preacher and a capitalist, and they both barely change over the 2.5-hour film. Is it a tragedy? No, I felt little to no emotion at the death of Sunday and the ultimate fate of Plainview; both got what they wanted in a way and that was that. Maybe it qualifies as a farce, but then it's a farce with delusions of grandeur, and quite an overrated one anyway.

Infamously, the film No Country for Old Men beat out There Will Be Blood at the Oscars, leading to the laughable assumption in some people that 2007 was one of the best years for movies EVER. Simply because this purported masterpiece was released the same year as a better film.

No Country for Old Men did present a similar nihilistic theme, but the Coens presented nihilism itself as more of an abnormality, something unnatural like a foreign infection. Anderson, on the other hand, seems to be presenting it as normality; there's nothing he cares more about showing other than the greed and manipulation of the two main buffoons. It's only until around two hours have passed that he creates a figure of hope in Plainview's deaf 'son' H. W. (the only person in whom business and religion can exist in a rational form) but by then it's too late. Had the son been the main character the story might have had more appeal as a type of American Dickens, but all Anderson does is revel in the worst of humanity, which is hardly the profound perspective many seem to think it is. It doesn't take some great genius to know that people are generally selfish and greedy, and it certainly isn't interesting when that's all a story really has going for it.

Some words must be said about Paul Thomas Anderson at this point. Apparently, many people have gotten it into their heads that he's some great visionary, a modern auteur. Fair to some degree, since he displays an apt technical prowess, but I'm not sure what personal perspective he brings to There Will Be Blood as well as his other films. What can you tell of his personality or character through his films? What ideas does he develop across his filmography? What are his trademarks; what does he do well or poorly? (Things like 'ensemble cast', 'family drama' and 'California' are all rather typical). Ultimately I think he's just another guy who, having been born into the movie-making business, makes movies. He doesn't seem so terribly interesting beyond that.