Thank you, Mr Knowles

Ah, what an earnest fanboy you are. I think Ain't It Cool News is looking for freelancers - you should go look them up. You apparently checked your capacity for critical thought at the door of your last Rush concert, because you don't seem to be able to think sensibly about anything you admire. That may explain your inability to see Buffalo 66 for the pile of dried feces that it truly is.

I'll say it again - There Will Be Blood is a very good movie, just not a particularly pleasant one to watch. I was mostly discussing the score, since this is ostensibly a music blog, but it's clear we can't dance around the movie itself. So, I'll get my last few thoughts in here and then we can move on to something culturally relevant like Mariah Carey.

Regarding your final thought - that this was a bold, risky move - fuck that. There is nothing particularly risky in casting Daniel Day-Lewis as a scene-chewing madman. The gentleman comes with his own critical seal of approval. Casting Pauly Shore as Plainview would have been risky and bold. Todd Haynes makes bold, risky movies; Anderson mitigates his limited risk with big stars (Tom Cruise, anyone?) and pop star-penned scores (we can thank him for the resurgence of Aimee Mann, for whatever that's worth).

I think Anderson is an excellent filmmaker, and he may be one of the few true auteurs of his generation, in the sense that his movies are more reflective of his own sensibilities and (sometimes) cohesive vision than of the particular story he is telling. I do not disagree that he is able to extract good performances, though I found that blasted frog movie to be irritating and strident.

As to your previous (now deleted) assertion that he is the only one from that generation who's made anything worth shit, I might present to you Wes Anderson (another auteur, with perhaps an even more cohesive vision); Christopher Nolan (capable of making popular and interesting fare, a lá Spielberg); Hal Hartley (irritating as fuck, but a unique sensibility); the aforementioned Todd Haynes; I could go on. Tarantino may not be a convincing auteur, but you have to admit he is one hell of a cinematic DJ....

What I think PT Anderson in particular is lacking is the sort of subtlety and rhythm that a master filmmaker like Altman or Scorsese brings to any material. I wouldn't expect that from him at this point in his career, but it is important to distinguish between his "work of art" and other films, since your fanboy mindset seems to only be able to judge most movies as either "KICKASS" or "REALLY FUCKIN' KICKASS". I maintain that Anderson is almost constitutionally incapable of true subtlety, as this bit of "Guernica" shows.

The analogy to Picasso's horrific masterpiece is a good one, but it illustrates my point more directly than you might wish. If Picasso had painted nothing but Guernicas, he would have been a fringe artist like Munch or a niche painter like Bosch. Picasso's masterwork was so effective in large part because, within the body of his work, it was such a brutal departure. And even in this departure he showed nuance and abstraction.

Anderson's problem is that he wants every film he's made since Boogie Nights to take you up by the shoulders and shake you and convince you that he really means something here - he keeps making Guernicas. I think he's overcompensating, that's all. It doesn't make for an unwatchable movie, but it does place him in the company of people like Oliver Stone who sometimes take themselves too seriously. In the end, I think he wants to be Lars von Trier with a much bigger trailer.

I'd sign off with an insult, but I think I've worked enough of them in already. I look forward to your impassioned defense of Vincent Gallo's complete ouvre.