Don't (necessarily) listen to these dogamtists in pragmatist's clothing. I have smoked crack plenty of times with relatively no ill-effects; it is definately a foul drug and can wreak havoc with people, but a good deal of this is stigma. However, a friend of mine was a full-on crackhead. he would disappear at the end of evenings out with friends and just wander off for days into the wilds of the city (and this town has plenty of those).

For one, make your own decision, as there will always be the dump-him-now people. While well-meaning, these people have no perspective, nor insight into such matters. As a man who is fully, and seemingly well-employed, he is clearly well within the bounds for rehabilitation in my limited experience. Crack grabs certain people and won't let them go, but many users who are not daily users are fine after a few months; this just isn't heroin --- admitedly, I can't exactly guarantee this.

And to respond to someone else's: "one often hears of women who stand by their addicted men. You rarely hear of men standing by their addicted women. Why? Men are more practical"

BullShite! I myself, some years ago, installed a former girlfriend with some serious issues in rehab at great emotional and personal expense to me. Plenty of people do. I would agree, as soon as a woman is an addict, there is a presumption, often true, that she has decided to open herself to sexual exploitation for monetary gain.. its just too easy an option. Some men may see or presume this and jump off the boat real quick-like, but there are plenty of well-intentioned, dedicated men helping people into rehab. (Although, full disclosure, the relationship was OVER once she was safely packed off to rehab, but she was a 2-5 bag-a-day junkie)

You clearly are getting your info from b movies... it just dunna work that way.

I'm familiar with the situationas I had to put my my junkie exGF into rehab, but not before she was hoing out in the projects. I used to go down there and hang out with a six pack watching everyone smoke and shoot up for hours, just to keep an eye on her. Good stuff. Thankfully I had virtually nothing to steal, of merit at least, although compared to some of the peoples on here, it sounds like my associates were perhaps a little more ghettofied. For example: where the F**k do you find a crack dealer willing to front you rock? I do remember some shadeballs hanging outside the apartment try to SELL, though.

Nonetheless, because you have had a horrible experience doesn't mean anything. All the people here are either spouting dogmatics(my word) or extrapolating from damaging personal events. Contrary to statements here: There is such a thing as a once-a-week user, and that is not a subject open to interpretation. Are all 'addicts' horrible hurt and damaged people with serious personal problems as was stipulated by the woman who satted she and a friend of her's were crackheads and were now 6-figure hoity-toities? Probably, but to cite my father, 8 of 10 people out there are completely loony anyway, so the odds are good. And people who work with addicts only see the people who desperately need them in the end, so their statistics are biased.

All I know is that I know any number of people who have had their issues with addiction, from booze, to oxycontins, to crack to heroin, and have spent a good deal of time at crackhouses, halfway houses, working with meth fiends as well as lived next door to Philadelphia most notorious drug haven (of which there are many). Some people recovered, or managed themselves, some not. In general, no one who was on opiates did, but that is another story. While the advice to dump-the-bastard may be right, I just doubt the advisors have any solid basis for these claims. but if it is true that the man is indeed a once a week user, to binge excess but not disappearing for days, I'd say, based on some notable experience, that he is well within the realm of someone who could recover. This is not to say what the writer should or should not do...

I'll wholeheartedly agree the end scene is WAY overboard. However, much of the rest of the film I was rather took with, and do feel Plainview was both abhorent yet simpathetic. The disagreement comes where people start supposing what acting SHOULD be, and the Zach supposition is that it is of the modern method-bunch school (all the stradler/mamet/stani. modes) which emphasizes less obtrusive activities... i.e. 'honest' subtlety. Interestingly, few people know Gene Wilder was a well-versed student Strasberg; in Willy Wonka, his role in one of the campiest films of all time, where one could have seen a comedian blow up the staging, Wilder was quietly reserved and human.

However much of the rest of 20th century filmmaking espoused more demonstrative forms, and to some extent Plainview comes from this school.

Plainview in this film was a blowhard. I, for one, acknowledge some of it may have been over-the-top, but I found plenty to be excited about in the film. Indeed, my father used to maintain some of the overt physical reactions such as the overtly clenched jaw and furrowed brow. To pull another interesting item was Plainview careful inspection of the corpse of his faux-brother following the murder.

So, well, I liked it for a number of reasons I con;t go into in this format, while noting some excesses.

Although I will agree with come ZachDetractors that the tone of the article was somewhat pompous. I think I am able enough to not be 'wowed' by loud acting like some monkey after a shiny bauble. And Zach does sort of presume that she is correct without leaving much room or acknowledgement of dessent.

Ah well.

not proof-reading!