>let's see:
>-it's a period piece

which fits perfectly in context with the source material. so, you're saying every period film is Oscar-tailored?

>-it's got a bunch of landscape shots so people can be amazed
>at the cinematography

should it be ugly and poorly filmed?

>-a few over acted scenes for the academy voters
>-lot's of slow pacing

which?

>to me,this movie has no real plot. it's just about an oil
>tycoon. if you care about the characters maybe it'll hit you
>but not me.

sure it does. it practically charts out the bulk of two integral lives, each which have their own story-lines and evolution/de-evolution. the plot is about a father and his child and the dynamic of their relationship with Day-Lewis' greedy oilman enterprise as the foundation.

>the score annoyed the hell out of me. there were these loud,
>eerie, shrieks like they were out of a hitchcock movie.
>problem is, nothing was happening. the score was so overly
>dramtatic i found myself laughing.

I found the score remarkable. It was so vastly different from all other scores, which, in and of itself, deserves praise. the tension it brought served the scenes well and underscored the dark overarching themes.

>i'm sure someone will pretentiously try to spin this movie as
>some critique of capitalism or whatever but please stop.
>

just walking down the street is enough of critique on capitalism for me. I don't need to pry it out of a film. besides, how can you enjoy something if you're picking it apart while you're watching it?