Tarantino steals from trash and presents them in a 'cool' way, which is no longer cool.
Paul Thomas Anderson steals from the likes of Altman, Scorsese, Kubrick for no greater purpose other than to present himself as a great filmmaker. I don't see any greater aspirations in him trying to make a proper film for once.

Yes, Tarantino and Wes Anderson are "superficial" in that sense too, but what sets them apart from PTA is that they're happy with being "superficial", but I think PTA aspires for more, or at least it seems like it.

I COMPLETELY disagree!
Well, maybe some of his movies are like thatbut I've got to both agree AND disagree. "Sydney", "The Master", "Boogie Nights" and "Punch-Drunk Love" have stuff that you can't see going on. "Magnolia" is pretty up-front about what's going on in most of the characters' minds, Daniel Plainview may be crazy, and we may not go beyond his aggression, and Doc Sportello is unchanging, but proves to be a pretty good guy as we assumed from the start.5b4
So, while I can see what you're talking about, when I was first getting into film Wes Anderson is more the master of surface, or even Tarantino, then PTA. I see your point, and wish I could fully agree with you, but while I feel as if PTA's worlds can be lived in, most others' can only be visited.

This message has been deleted.

None of the links I provided are of my own reviews.
They are reviews from other experienced and respected critics who express thoughts that I agree with. I quote them to help illustrate my points in a manner that is far more skillful and literate than I would want to put forth myself in a forum like this.

Its a little shameless to be posting links to your own reviews on here.

These pseudo intellectuals are desperately trying to make the current directors seem hollow. It's really quite sad how they write these convoluted critiques as if they are so smart they are inside the minds of these filmmakers. It's funny because it's easy to see right through this guys "concern". Let's not mistake his concern for what's really his stubborness to embrace a filmmakers' angle on humanity.

Over a year later and still no answer from OP.

Just curious on your opinion, what films do you consider to be deep and complex films?

The issue here is that is not what Cheshire was criticizing - he was criticizing the fact that the writing in the film was shallow, trite and banal the way that TV writing was in the 80s & 90s. Your nonsensical response to that observation was "people who try to find political subtext in every movie they watch tend not to be that bright" and that "Cheshire is limited in only focusing on the political dimensions of the story."
These statements of yours clearly suggest that you take issue with someone who is falsely imbuing political content into a work where none exists. But that is not what Cheshire is doing at all. He isn't falsely projecting political messages into the script. Rather, he is saying that the script has no real message beyond surface tropes.
Maybe you are simply a poor writer yourself and are incapable of choosing words that convey your actual meaning in a clear and concise manner.
Cheshire was criticizing the overall lack of depth in the script, not the "political subtext". He merely threw out the examples of the source novel as one potential way that some sense of depth or nuance could have been added to the script, rather than surface tropes of "fanatics are bad", "family is good", "greed harms".
You deliberately mischaracterize Cheshire's point in order to justify your own shallow taste.
And yet you still insist on suggesting that Cheshire is the stupid individual here - not yourself. (?!?)
Your own petty shallowness is on display for the world to see here.

You're saying Cheshire hates PTA for not including the political subtext of the novel. I'm saying that Cheshire is limited in only focusing on the political dimensions of the story.
What's the issue here?
How do you like them apples?

Now you are REALLY being disingenuous, since you deliberately left out the first part of the quoted sentence from Cheshire that you originally responded to.
Here it is again, in full (with emphasis added):
"In a screenplay loosely based on
Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil!, in which there are communists, socialists, strikes and other hard-edged political realities
, all Anderson can manage to suggest are vague slogans along the lines of 'Capitalism Is Bad,' 'Religion Is Stupid' and, of course, 'It's All About Oil'."
Cheb68shire is clearly stating here that in the NOVEL, entitled "Oil!", there are "communists, socialists, strikes and other hard-edged political realities".
To which your exact response was as follows (from this post http://www.imdb.com/board/20000759/board/thread/243855994?d=243930869#243930869
"Funny thing is, that is not what There will Be Blood is about at all. This says more about the critic's superficial thinking process than PTA's. The fact that he saw oil and religion in a movie and automatically jumped to political conclusions tells me he did not even try to dive much deeper in the first place. It does not surprise me, though, because people who try to find political subtext in every movie they watch tend not to be that bright."
What's ironic is that Cheshire's whole point in that sentence is to criticize the fact that Anderson LEFT OUT all the rich political subtext from the source novel and simply focused on pedantic and simplistic themes that any naive college freshman can cook up in a dorm room on a late Saturday night. And yet, here you are, accusing HIM of being the one of imbuing the film with a "political subtext" that isn't there.
So you effectively called Cheshire stupid after YOU were the one who couldn't even muster some basic reading comprehension.
The level of stupidity and disingenuousness of PTA fanboys never ceases to amaze me. Many others would simply admit that they were wrong and move on from there, but you PTA fanboys just keep digging the holes deeper for yourselves like the adolescent boys that you are.

Quoted from the article:
"all Anderson can manage to suggest are vague slogans along the lines of "Capitalism Is Bad," "Religion Is Stupid" and, of course, "It's All About Oil" (no less simple-minded here than it was in Fahrenheit 9/11). "
He's clearly talking about the film, not the book on which it is based. Why are you accusing me of poor reading comprehension when you're the one who read it incorrectly?
Also, you believe just because some people respect the guy that he must be intelligent. It's obvious this is wrong, as well.
How do you like them apples?

All I was doing was providing proof that the original poster was not alone in his thinking. PTA fans have a habit of living in a bubble in assuming that everyone shares their assumption that Anderson is one of the best filmmakers of his generation. It is important to point out that there is a growing dissenting opinion out there.
Nobody is the "arbiter of all film matters" who has "final say", and it is completely disingenuous of you to suggest that I said so. It's simply your attempt to deflect attention from an argument that you know you can't provide an equally eloquent or developed retort to, so you try to put these false words and arguments into my mouth instead.
But surely you will recognize that the writers I have linked to are (a) better writers who have more developed opinions and (b) have a generally stronger film background than the random anonymous Internet poster who merely states "I disagree".
Some will obviously "agree" and some will "disagree". So what? What is the point of anonymous people stati2000ng that and nothing else? If you honestly feel that all opinions are equally valid no matter how inartfully they are articulated or how much they lack real substance, then there really is no reason for film criticism or discussion at all is there?
The reason I quoted the people I did is because they represent intelligent people who are great writers and have articulated the opposing opinion with greater clarity and detail than any others. Who would you have me quote? The adolescents on this site who simply spout "PTA is awesome!" or "PTA sucks!"?
I defended one critic in particular because a poster (Ressentiment) called the critic (Godfrey Cheshire) stupid for allegedly reading too much political content into Anderson's film, when in fact, Cheshire was discussing the book Anderson's film was based on, and it was the poster himself who proved to be stupid for failing basic reading comprehension of the review.
When I pointed the error out to Ressentiment and then listed the many qualifications that made Godfrey Cheshire quite intelligent and a well respected figure among professional critics, all Ressentiment could say was "good for him". I guess I really shouldn't expect much else from Anderson fans, who consistently prove themselves to be shallow, immature, and far less intelligent than they like to think they are.

you're defending film critics here. anyone's opinion is fine by me, to each his own, but to imply that film critics, film critics for crying out loud, are the arbiters of all film matters is ridiculous. you quoting a film critic to basically say "this is what this guy said, some other guy said something similar, therefore i'm right" is just silly. you have your opinion, and these people debating you have theirs, but come on, are you one of those self proclaimed "film buffs" (barf) who thinks film critics have the final say in any discussion regarding film? if you are then i can only assume that you're also one of those people who think that the movies nominated for the best picture oscar were the actual best movies of that year.

My question is why does pretentiousanderson care so much? His opinion is fine, but linking blogs and other opinions only proves that film makers can't please everyone, nothing more. So I don't get what he's/she's trying to prove here. Plus the "fanboy" claims aredumb. I dunno, maybe he's/she's trollin'?
You mean Norman Bates Jr. is the baby daddy?

Good for him. But his analysis of PTA's films is laughably off base. What's to stop him from saying Full Metal Jacket is a superficial anti-war film? Or that Apocalypse Now is "deliberately vague, meandering garbage"? He's clearly being unfair to PTA, using criticisms that can be made against any film by somebody who doesn't try to understand them.
How do you like them apples?

And by the way, here is some background on Godfrey Cheshire, the critic and frequent contributor to RogerEbert.com, whom you sug2000gested in your response is "not that bright".
http://www.rogerebert.com/contributors/godfrey-cheshire
Godfrey Cheshire is a film critic, journalist and filmmaker based in New York City. A native of North Carolina, he co-founded Raleighs Spectator Magazine and began writing film criticism professionally in 1978. After moving to New York in 1991, he served for a decade as chief film critic for New York Press; his writings have also appeared in The New York Times, Variety, Film Comment, The Village Voice, Interview, Cineaste and other publications. He has also won three Arts Criticism awards from the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. Cheshires areas of special interest include Iranian film, the conversion to digital cinema and cinematic representations of the American South. He is a former chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle and a member of the National Society of Film Critics.
He is also the author of one of the most prescient and groundbreaking essays of film criticism in the last 20 years, "The Death of Film/The Decay of Cinema" which can be found here:
http://www.nypress.com/the-death-of-film-the-decay-of-cinema/
and which the lead editor of RogerEbert.com described as being a "landmark" archievement in film criticism for its many insights that it managed to gather back in 1999 when such observations were hardly obvious. (Here:
http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/death-of-filmdecay-of-cinema-at-15-a-conversation-with-godfrey-cheshire
)
But I'm sure his critical intellect is no match for a genius PTA fanboy of your caliber.

In a screenplay loosely based on Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil!, in which there are communists, socialists, strikes and other hard-edged political realities, all Anderson can manage to suggest are vague slogans along the lines of "Capitalism Is Bad," "Religion Is Stupid" and, of course, "It's All About Oil" (no less simple-minded here than it was in Fahrenheit 9/11).
Funny thing is, that is not what There will Be Blood is about at all. This says more about the critic's superficial thinking process than PTA's. The fact that he saw oil and religion in a movie and automatically jumped to political conclusions tells me he did not even try to dive much deeper in the first place. It does not surprise me, though, because people who try to find political subtext in every movie they watch tend not to be that bright.
In describing "communists, socialists, strikes and other hard-edged political realities" the critic was describing Sinclair's novel (which unquestionably has political overtones)b68 - not Anderson's script that is loosely based upon it. So you completely misread what the critic wrote, and then still managed to accuse him of being "not that bright". Now THAT'S rich!
What the critic stated about Anderson's script itself (as opposed to the book that inspired it) was that it wasn't any deeper than surface messages such as "Capitalism Is Bad," "Religion Is Stupid" and, of course, "It's All About Oil". That criticism rings true and it is the fanboys who end up reading too much into it - not the critic at hand.
Nice try though, Einstein.

In a screenplay loosely based on Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil!, in which there are communists, socialists, strikes and other hard-edged political realities, all Anderson can manage to suggest are vague slogans along the lines of "Capitalism Is Bad," "Religion Is Stupid" and, of course, "It's All About Oil" (no less simple-minded here than it was in Fahrenheit 9/11).
Funny thing is, that is not what There will Be Blood is about at all. This says more about the critic's superficial thinking process than PTA's. The fact that he saw oil and religion in a movie and automatically jumped to political conclusions tells me he did not even try to dive much deeper in the first place. It does not surprise me, though, because people who try to find political subtext in every movie they watch tend not to be that bright.
I do think The Master was PTA's weakest movie, and it was clearly side-tracked in favor of Inherent Vice (both were being written at the same time). I'm not prepared to speak about it, because I have only seen it once and didn't really get it.
However, in my opinion, PTA soared to new heights with Inherent Vice, and there are some incredible subtexts and allegories in that film I've only just begun to understand after two viewings. The story attacks some angles that society is only just now coming to terms with - the book was written in 2009 - about the beginnings of consumerism and realignment of authority (recall how Big Foot gave in and ate Doc's weed at the end, and how billionaire Mickey Wolfmann was manipulated by unknowns). I think The Master touched on the latter a little bit, too, about how we all report to a "master" other than ourselves, though Inherent Vice took that to a societal level and explored the fact that we may not even know who our master is. I think PTA had a deep understanding of the book, especially because the author gave his blessings for the adaptation, and he re-interpreted some scenes in pretty insightful ways. Notice how the ending was different than the book but capitalized the story perfectly. I, for one, think that is fantastic stuff, and the fact that the film also looks beautiful and crisp is a satisfying bonus. I cannot take anybody seriously who criticizes a filmmaker successfully adapting a Pynchon novel.
Anderson's fanbase is incapable of distinguishing between genuinely deep or complex films from those that merely invoke complex themes on a surface level in order to justify a passion for making films as an end in and of itself.
I believe you have it backwards. Garvey, or whoever that is, seems to have badly misinterpreted PTA's films, and out of frustration, projected his insecurity onto PTA. Reading his article made me cringe. I resent being lumped in with the hipster crowd.
How do you like them apples?

I don't even feel that he is that good with actors. He often lets them (or even encourages them to) overact. The result is histrionic, cringe-worthy performances like Julianne Moore's one-note screeching in Magnolia.
But you are spot-on with his writing skills (or lack thereof). It is clearly his biggest weakness, and more critics are speaking up about it (despite the abuse they will no doubt suffer from his rabid, but clueless fanbase whose ideas of philosophical depth never reach beyond what would be spewed out in a freshman college dorm after a 6-pack of beer).
Here are some of the noteworthy observations from esteemed critics:
http://goo.gl/OvwcDQ
"For to be blunt, the culture has far more to fear from the likes of Paul Thomas Anderson than it does from The Avengers. Indeed, what's really troubling about the current cinematic scene is not that the detritus of Marvel Comics meets with popular success; it's that the critics who sniff at such multiplex fodder are seemingly unable to parse actual artistic statement from its simulation. What we're getting at the arthouse as a result is a kind of waxworks avant-garde, in which highbrow tropes and structures are glossily invoked sans cultural salience or purpose.
Not that Paul Thomas Anderson has ever been all that convincing a cinematic con (tellingly, his movies tend to be about swindles - he knows his own type). For some time I've been following this would-be auteur's career - which has proved a professional arc littered with bizarrely clueless accolades. In the beginning - say, with Boogie Nights, which put Anderson on the map - he struck me as an apt student of Altman who had his own way with method actors. He could cajole unforced naturalism from a large ensemble; beyond that he didn't have much to say, though (Altman didn't, either; without a great script he was nothing). But if it was clear that Boogie Nights had no real theme or reason for being (beyond an actor's exercise, that is) - well, Anderson was still young, and I understood why people would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But by now I've sat through almost his entire oeuvre, and maturity has brought forth no apparent original voice or idea; indeed, I'd argue there has been no persuasive raison d'tre for any movie Anderson has ever made.
Of course there's always a superficial excuse for his latest project (Big Oil! Scientology!), and I'll say this much for Paul Thomas (at left) - he's on to his own game, and knows the best way to deflect awareness of the void at the heart of his Big Ideas is with the equivalent of a curve ball out of left field. Thus he usually punctuates hib68s pastiches with a cinematic stroke so strange that you feel it has got to signify something (but what?). Hence a deluge of frogs rained down on L.A. to distract us from the vacuum of Magnolia, and Kubrick was invoked at the anti-climax of There Will Be Blood. These gambits had absolutely nothing to do with anything else in their respective movies, and they were utterly unresonant in and of themselves. But they gave the impressionable the very strong impression that there must be something to interpret here.
And critics like [A.O.] Scott have been happy to stoke that delusion - indeed, Scott carefully cuts his rave of The Master with hedged praise (the movie "defies understanding!" he crows). Other enthusiastic critics have helpfully explained that the film is "intentionally opaque." Uh-huh. The ploy is obviously desperate, but it's hardly new; indeed, I remember the silly Ty Burr excused the inept finale of There Will Be Blood by claiming it was intended to demonstrate that the movie should have already ended.
But alas, The Master is all too easily understood. A veiled account of the early days of Scientology, it follows a cult called "The Cause, " led by a somewhat L.-Ron-Hubbard-like (only classier) psychiatric-preacher-messiah, "Lancaster Dodd" (Philip Seymour Hoffman). A nearly-disturbed drifter, Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), who is suffering from alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder - along with a complete lack of social skills (his idea of an opening line is "Do you want to beep?") - falls into Dodd's orbit. Which seems like a good thing, actually, as Freddie's the kind of loser who needs the structure of a cult - and master and man enjoy a weird symbiosis for a while, before there are problems and they kind of break up (maybe).
That's about the whole movie. But fear not, the paucity of plot is overshadowed by a staggering amount of obvious symbology and pseudo-intellectual exegesis; indeed, watching The Master is like working out an acrostic of received ideas. Quell, for instance, is addicted to some sort of vile alcoholic concoction that includes things like gasoline and motor oil - in one scene, we see him draining the tanks of a battleship for a cocktail - yes, he's literally sucking on the poisons of the American military-industrial complex!
But if you think th

I disagree
You mean Norman Bates Jr. is the baby daddy?