Cinematical‘s Scott Weinberg also saw There Will Be Blood last night, and is calling it “a stunning surprise” by way of a “departure” for director Paul Thomas Anderson — a monumental display of evolution that’ll wow the established fans and impress a helluva lot more new ones. This is a dark, compelling and effortlessly engrossing film, one bolstered by a lead performance that ranks among the very best of Daniel Day Lewis‘ impressive career.”

Hold on….”effortlessly engrossing”? Oh, he means on the viewer’s part…fine.

“The film will most often be compared to Orson Welles‘ Citizen Kane, so I guess I can get the ball rolling on that particular crutch — but it’s also an apt comparison. Which is not to say that There Will Be Blood will necessarily be dissected and revered 75 years from now, but the stories are certainly similar enough.

“Anderson’s film opens with a long passage of dialogue-free footage: A lone man hacks his way through a mine using a pick-ax and some dynamite. The year is 1898, and Daniel Planview is about to become an oil man. We witness the man’s unwavering resolve as he pulls himself from a vertical shaft after breaking his leg in a fall — and if you think that accomplishment displayed some tenacity…just wait.

“The 160-minute film covers Plainview’s journey from rock-scratcher to oil tycoon as it runs over the course of 29 years. And while it might come as no surprise to learn that Plainview loses more of his soul with every package of professional success, the way in which this potentially predictable story unfolds is nothing short of hypnotic.

“And gosh what a beautiful film to look at. The turn-of-the-century Texas landscape has rarely looked this, well, real, and Anderson paints his canvas with some masterful strokes. The establishing shot that introduces the central town is nothing short of stunning, and there are numerous sequences that simply dazzle the eye. Cinematographer Robert Elswit — a frequent PTA collaborator — should be preparing his ‘it’s an honor just to be nominated’ speech right now.

“And the musical score by Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood is more than a separate character in the film; it feels more like an aural Greek chorus.”

The Envelope‘s Paul Sheehan has put up a big generous piece showcasing 36 or 37 potential Best Actor nominees, with a separate click-through page and a really nice photo showcasing each would-be nominee. The only weird part is that this isn’t May or June or July — it’s late September and the field has been narrowed down to eight or nine guys, at most, and none of them are Anthony Hopkins in Slipstream! Please!

Due respect to the Envelope-rs, but they need to get with the program. The final quarter is up and rolling, and the finalists are Daniel Day Lewis (There Will Be Blood), Denzel Washington (American Gangster), Tommy Lee Jones (In The Valley of Elah), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead), James McAvoy (Atonement), Sam Riley (Control), Johnny Depp (Sweeney Todd) and Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild), and I’m being generous with two or three of these.

What’s the Envelope’s next move? Running a big piece about the 37 potential Best Actress nominees? It’s fine to run these big-blowjob, give-everyone-a-pat-on-the- back-whether-they-deserve-it-or-not articles if you’re the editor of a Hollywood Reporter special tribute edition and you’re looking to wangle as much advertising as possible, but this is Handicap Season — a time to start thinning out of the herd, not add to it.

N.Y. Times critic A.O. Scott has taken a fountain pen and more or less stabbed Wes Anderson right through the heart in his Darjeeling Limited review.

He’s calling the film “precious, unstintingly fussy, vain and self-regarding,” and says that the “humanism” of Jean Renoir or Satyajit Ray “lies either beyond [Anderson’s] grasp or outside the range of his interests.

“His stated debt to The River, Renoir’s film about Indian village life, and his use of music from Ray’s films represent both an earnest tribute to those filmmakers and an admission of his own limitations. They were great directors because they extended the capacity of the art form to comprehend the world that exists. He is an intriguing and amusing director because he tirelessly elaborates on a world of his own making.”

And yet Scott also calls Darjeeling “a treasure: an odd, flawed, but nonetheless beautifully handmade object as apt to win affection as to provoke annoyance. You might say that it has sentimental value.”