I don’t come from a Christian background, and I cannot say I am too well versed in the religion either. I’m from India, and to me There Will Be Blood is more of an intimate, personal piece than Citizen Kane will ever be. Daniel Plainview is like the relentless Michael Corleone of The Godfather II, he is like The Joker, and that is what makes the character and the film such a masterpiece. It is a horror film, yes, and a horror film in the deepest and the most profound sense of the word. Most times, in horror films, we look towards the exterior, when all our fears have their root inside of us. Like Mulholland Dr., like Taxi Driver. But these people – Diane and Travis – are people who are pawns of their fate. Daniel Plainview is not. He is a colossal figure and he has the might to fight God if he summons the gall to challenge Plainview. That is kind of ego that Daniel-Day Lewis brings to the character. Consider him not as a man, but as Nietzsche’s Overman’s foe. Kane and Corleone (if we choose to consider and believe The Godfather III) are men who have eventually run out of steam, in the long run. I don’t think Plainview can ever. He is much more than a man, much more than a person. He is an institution. He is The Joker with a cause. The Joker is a man who is ultimately self destructive, like Tyler Durden. That is because they inherently believe they’re bad and that they aren’t people who deserve to have good happen to them. They’re the guys who think that out of God’s indifference and utter hatred, the latter is better. Not Plainview, who for one makes good happen for him, and two doesn’t like challengers. He believes in himself. And he matches God’s hate for him, with his own spiteful one.
Don’t for a moment think that Plainview is pure evil. He loves his child, and I don’t think that ought to be mistaken.
I think There Will be Blood might well be one of the greatest examinations of evil, if not the greatest. And yes, it is not a film one can easily like.

I'd just like to say that, in the five months since I first saw the film, its virtues have outshone its flaws in my memory — I love the looseness of its construction, coupled with its delicate shifts in tone. I stand by most of the critical comments that you quote from my review, but I still think it's a special piece of work.

(With perspective, I also think I have a clearer idea of what the film is about — the impossibility, and indeed inadvisability, of coerced personal change — and think Jeff Wells is so off-base in his assessment of Leigh's directorial intention that I don't even know where to begin.)

I do think the quotes of mine that you've selected create the impression of a harsher review than the one I wrote, though — I liked the film from the get-go, and was thoroughly engaged by Poppy, at the levels of both character and performance. So when you say "none of these critics find (Poppy) particularly agreeable," I'd like to label myself an exception.

Anyway, like you, I'm right on board for Oscar nominations for the film — Eddie Marsan in particular needs recognition. Thanks again for such a thoughtful article, and good luck interviewing Leigh! (He can be a tough case.)