One Battle After Another (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2025)

[Persona]

A bottom-third PTA for me.

As others have noted, works best as a comedy. Lots of Punch-Drunk Love anxious energy here. Enjoyed the humor, for the most part, and the extended setpieces were fun.

Lacks the nuance of character or control of scene that PTA's best films have. I also found little emotional depth here (thank God for Chase Infiniti, though, she really elevates her poorly written character and gives the film some semblance of a heart), and thought the aesthetic approach occasionally impressive but a bit scattered and haphazard. Probably PTA's least consistent film visually since Hard Eight, tbh.

A fine enough flick, I suppose.

[knives]

Just a small thing to add is that this is such a great California film. The land and buildings really function as a whole other character, something PTA regularly deploys, and a lot of the story seems molded from the setting. I thought this was especially effective in the final chase scene which as shot gave this woozy feeling that a lot of those hilly roads actually do. The angle he chooses to shoot the cars from feels unlike anything I’ve seen in another movie, but very much so feels like real life.

I also really adored how Bob was kind of an incidental character in his own movie. From a certain point forward he has no real effect on the events just trying to figure out what’s going on. It’s not a passive character, but it is sort of an observational one.

[Mr Sausage]

I also really adored how Bob was kind of an incidental character in his own movie. From a certain point forward he has no real effect on the events just trying to figure out what’s going on. It’s not a passive character, but it is sort of an observational one.

And that's straight out of the book, believe it or not. Despite playing very loose with the plot and characters, the film is oddly faithful to Pynchon's novel, from the setting, to the themes, to even lines of dialogue. The Bob character, Zoyd Wheeler, who starts out as the POV character and main voice of the novel, recedes into the background as the Willa Ferguson character, Prairie, takes over the narrative.

[knives]

If nothing else these PTA adaptations always make me curious to read the books.

[Mr Sausage]

In truth I'm not a fan of Vineland. Or Inherent Vice for that matter. I'd love to say that Anderson's adaptations improved on them, but I also don't really like those movies. Well, that's not exactly true. I did basically like One Battle After Another even if I stopped thinking about it the moment I left the theatre, tho' my rewatch of Inherent Vice last month was as unrewarding as the first watch.

Both Pynchon and Anderson have made total masterpieces. Just not these times.

[knives]

I thought the book of IV was significantly better than the movie which often felt like a punchline waiting for a joke. Reading the Vegas scenes in particular I felt like PTA just didn’t reach even the just having fun heights that Pynchon managed to square off. He seems to have been far more successful with blueprint style adaptations between this and TWBB which goes nicely back to his early steal from a movie days.

[Mr Sausage]

I'd agree with you. Of all Pynchon's minor books I think I like Inherent Vice the most. Anderson's adaptation is admirable faithful, but also less successful. He's, firstly, managed to make Pynchon's most comprehensible book incoherent (the problem of letting too many plot strands fall through the cracks to hit the 2.5 hour running time, plus having some important characters like Puck Beaverton, Adrian Prussia, and Mickey Wolfmann be non-presences in a plot whose comprehensibility hinges on them). Plus Anderson has this curious ability to let the tension hold so slack that tones don't shift so much as merge. Everything in Inherent Vice feels the same, whether it's comedic, dramatic, or violent. It's 2.5 hours of low key amble. One Battle After Another has the same problem, but intermittently, and to a far lesser extent.

Of Anderson's four obscure, loosely plotted, drifting movies about love and history (The Master, Inherent Vice, Licorice Pizza, and One Battle After Another), Licorice Pizza is the most successful to my mind. Maybe because the historical background was the one he lived through at the same age as his characters and so was most meaningful, or maybe because the basic rom-com structure is enough to hold together the labyrinth of history and pop culture, where events and references pile up without coherence or organization, but you can at least feel how the characters are experiencing each other through that congery of historical moments, and that gives it all a significance. The Master doesn't understand either its characters or their historical moment, so cloaks itself in defensive ambiguity. Inherent Vice understands its characters and history, but holds them, flattened, at arms length. One Battle After Another abstracts history into politics, for good or ill, but gets its characters wonderfully. It's the second best of the four, even if I wasn't especially compelled by it.

[therewillbeblus]

Despite him having multiple Oscars already, I have thought "Sean Penn is back!" multiple times in the last week... he's back, folks. There's no way he doesn't take the Supporting Actor statue for this, mark it down.

I've come around to believing this will be true as well. He'll be the acting Oscar that goes along with the rest of the awards. Just saw it for the fourth time, and now I've covered the formats (DCP, IMAX, VistaVision, and 70mm, in order) and they've all been great. I don't think this is top-tier PTA - it's somewhere in the lower-middle - but boy is it the weirdest, boldest blockbuster we may ever get, and I still can't believe how strongly it's connecting with audiences (though my fiancee didn't really like much besides Benicio). I think I love its effects and symbolic nature more than the film itself

[swo17]

How would you rank the formats?

[therewillbeblus]

Hard to say, since each theatre had different sound, varying volumes and acoustics that affected how I felt about the viewing aesthetics. I think there were aspects of the film that were key to see in IMAX, so I'd probably say 70mm IMAX would be the way to go (though my IMAX screening was not in 70). I'd give Vista the edge over 70, but they both looked outstanding

[bearcuborg]

For what it’s worth, I’ve seen it on every format except DCP. VistaVision was the most immersive.

After 3 viewings, the comedy and action never fail to deliver. But on my 2nd viewing I found that I was glad I already knew what was going to happen-because the story was more emotional. The reunion (and that beautiful music - which almost starts off like its open car door chime) and Perfidia’s letter had me in tears. I went from disliking Perfidia to having a great deal of empathy…

As for the politics, I mean-yes it’s there-but as soon as Perfidia tells Penn to “get it up” the use of sex is more interesting to me. I’m not much for ranking movies in general, but this is the only PTA film that I liked. To be fair though I haven’t seen anything since There Will Be Blood.

[Zot!]

As for the politics, I mean-yes it’s there-but

If somebody is looking for any kind of coherent political messaging, this is not going to satisfy you. Retconning 60s -style radical revolutionaries into a current day timeline should be your first hint that PTA is having a laugh. Sure, there is genuine social commentary, and some of the prescient immigration topics finally have some ring of reality, but even there, the baddies are mustache-twirling caricatures in Lacoste polos. None of this is bad, but it's very much absurdist in the Pynchon style of humor. The sincerity is saved for the father-daughter relationship, which is also clearly what PTA is interested in, seeing as his daughter also has mixed parents and is of a similar age....and appears in the movie.

[PfR73]

The reunion (and that beautiful music - which almost starts off like its open car door chime)

This comment reminded me of something: I really liked Jonny Greenwood's score (I think it might be my favorite since TWBB), but the cue I liked the most was one of the final cues, which actually sounded to me like it was influenced by Jon Brion; I figured maybe there was some conversation between Greenwood & PTA about doing something reminiscent of PTA's earlier films.

But then I couldn't seem to find that cue on the soundtrack album.

Turns out Jon Brion did 2 songs for the film, but there doesn't seem to be any release of them yet; I guess the cue I liked most must actually be one of those.

[therewillbeblus]

Spoiler

The close-up shot of Willa's face hugging Bob at the end was reminiscent of Punch-Drunk Love too

[hearthesilence]

I finally saw this after many delays, and strangely it felt like a different experience than what I've read from others around the web. Richard Brody and I guess Francis Ford Coppola were among those who felt overwhelmed and had to work hard to follow the story. I was expecting the possibility of needing a second screening, especially since I needed to ingest some really strong coffee to ensure I'd stay awake after running behind on sleep. (Did the trick - I was fully alert the entire time.) I did not have their experience at all - while there was no doubt a lot happening throughout the film, it felt very easy to follow along. Not once did I feel like I had to catch up with the plot or stop and remember what I knew about the characters.

Regarding politics, Mr Sausage's take was pretty much how it came across for me. Some details that stood out - once a baby (Charlene, later Willa) was clearly on the way, it felt like Pat (later Bob) understood what that entailed. Settling down didn't feel like running away from his life as a revolutionary so much as innately understanding he had a child to think about and raise, and when he mentions "she doesn't act like she's pregnant," he clearly recognizes the red flag that the same sense of responsibility hadn't sunken in with Perfidia. The voiceover where she discusses her grievances becomes even more concerning.

It's probably unavoidable that one's own politics will shape how one reacts to the film, and not just in terms of ideology. In the closed politics thread, I was pretty open about how I felt and the experiences that shaped that. Without reiterating too much, political action to me has always boiled down to one basic principle - how it plays out in reality. (Often specifically, who's going to bear the brunt of the consequences if things go that way instead of this way?) At what point does a particular action become mostly posturing or self-gratification with too little consideration for the real-life effect it'll have on someone else, regardless of whether it's someone you know or someone you'll never meet? And with that perspective, the opening took on sad and inevitably tragic dimensions in terms of the choices made.

Having said that, through much of the opening, I wasn't sure I was going to like this - no doubt there's some masterful direction (like the opening's climax), but I thought I was beginning to see some of the complaints others have mentioned, that too many elements would be depicted too broadly. I didn't even like Sean Penn's performance for much of the film, especially in the beginning - I like Penn as an actor, but there are times (even in his most heralded performances) where he feels like he's acting in another film, like his performance doesn't really fit in with the rest of the scene. That happened quite a bit here. (For example, later on, when he first meets that organization, I felt like the scene was supposed to be much funnier than it played - it got almost no laughs at my packed screening. The problem for me was the disparity between his performance and the other characters - their demeanor was so plain in comparison, it made Penn's performance seem self-conscious and out of place. I felt like the others needed to be more ridiculous behaviorally speaking to make it really work.)

But as soon as the setup is done and we jump to the present, everything picked up. DiCaprio really is great in this - he really has improved leaps and bounds as an actor, transforming into his characters so wholly and naturally in a way that I wasn't sure was possible when he began stretching himself as an actor. Benicio del Toro was great too - he’s so at ease in this role and his performance lives up to all the praise his peers gave him while hawking this movie. The little added lines people have pointed out (“Tom Cruise,” “Harriet Tubman”) actually played like small passing details rather than defining moments for me, and that’s a credit to his performance. All the women were great too, especially Chase Infiniti and Regina Hall. I feel compelled to point out those performances because they were the real center of the film and gave it a real sense of flesh and blood - they weren’t just acting out ideas or dramatic stakes, it always felt like there was a lot going on inside, whether it was a tumult of emotions, a stream of thoughts and deliberations, etc. Sure, some of the others were cartoonish, and perhaps if I focused on those characters, I could see how Brody would claim there was “a lack of psychological grasp, a sense that the characters were being put into motion because the script called for it rather than because of any dramatic logic or internal urgency…characters who are little more than abstractions,” but that’s not how the others played for me, and in memory the overwhelming majority rested on them.

[knives]

To your point on Penn I think that was the intended goal. He’s not one of the Polo sons of Rockefeller that the rest of the adventurers are. He’s this awkward military guy seeking status above all else and is not a silver spooner.

[hearthesilence]

Oh of course, but I don't think the chemistry worked. Again, it probably would've helped to tweak the other actors because Penn's already established where his performance is at too firmly. For starters, conveying vanilla personalities doesn't necessarily mean playing it so boringly or straight. (There's even an exception that comes later with that old, decrepit guy.) Think about Dr. Strangelove (which Spielberg used as a comparison when he did a promotional interview for Anderson) - the President is a bland vanilla guy, but Sellars hits the right notes, making it fit within the film's mad and absurd characterizations. You definitely get all of those things, that he's the equivalent of white bread, but he fits in with the ridiculousness - that comes through perfectly in that great phone call to Dmitri to his ridiculous chastisement about fighting in the War Room.

In fact, just think of George C. Scott's performance - over-the-top, but does it seem out of place next to Dr. Strangelove, Muffley or the other major speaking parts? Never, they always feel like they're on the same page about the world they're in. (Granted, it's the same actor with the two characters I just mentioned, but point still stands.)

[Zot!]

think of George C. Scott's performance - over-the-top

Ah, I'm probably late to the party, and I have no excuse, since I just watched it, but that's what this is, isn't it. I don't want to be reductionist, but Penn skews very close to that very funny character. That movie gets better each year, might be my favorite Kubrick, strange he never tried his hand at comedy again.

[Roger Ryan]

... strange he never tried his hand at comedy again.

I think every film Kubrick made after Spartacus is a comedy, some dryer than others. You can substitute "satire" for "comedy" if you'd like, but there are laughs to be found in all of his post-1960 films with A Clockwork Orange and portions of Full Metal Jacket coming closest to Strangelove.

I agree with Spielberg that Anderson's latest is the closest we've gotten to the successful concoction that is Dr. Strangelove in the past 60 years, although others have tried with very good (Fight Club) to questionable (Wrong Is Right) results. While Kubrick's film has James Earl Jones in the only main non-comedic role, One Battle After Another provides that position to both Chase Infiniti and Regina Hall, allowing the rest of the leads to be play comical characters (again, some dryer than others). Anderson isn't doing exactly what Kubrick was doing so I have no problem with varying degrees of characterizations in One Battle After Another. The important aspect is the characters remain consistent throughout and I believe they are.

[knives]

I didn’t find those WASPS vanilla at all. There’s a real menace here that gave me the feeling that our buffoon villain finally met that real evil that motivated the revolutionaries. They felt so utterly alien.

I did love that the old guy was called Roy Moore though. That’s probably the most applause worthy funny name in the whole thing.

[Mr Sausage]

They’re also totally ridiculous in their own right. I mean, the Christmas Adventurers? Reminds me of that South Park episode where the scientologist stand-ins are called The Super Adventure Club, but which the kids call ‘that fruity little club’.

[therewillbeblus]

The "punk trash" line killed me

[hearthesilence]

They’re also totally ridiculous in their own right.

Yeah it definitely comes out more in the second scene they have...

Spoiler

Hail Saint Nick!

...but again I should emphasize "behaviorally." The whole name of the club, etc. is ridiculous, but for the most part, they just play it straight. I used Sellars as an example because even when he's the straight man as Muffley or Mandrake, he finds a way to make his line delivery or his mannerisms funny that's independent of what he's actually saying. But again, I'm talking about the way the chemistry worked for me in many of Penn's scenes, and I'm more inclined to criticize Penn's performance because there are other films where at least to me his performance doesn't quite sit organically with the rest of the movie or a given scene, and this one reminded me of that. I don't think the performances by the Christmas Adventurers is actually bad or wrong, I'm just thinking what would likely make those scenes play better for me. (I do agree Penn's performance is consistent through the entire film, so that actually makes it difficult to imagine what he could do differently if it isn't working for me in one particular scene vs. another.)

[domino harvey]

Despite him having multiple Oscars already, I have thought "Sean Penn is back!" multiple times in the last week... he's back, folks. There's no way he doesn't take the Supporting Actor statue for this, mark it down.

My thoughts exactly. The Oscars have to be over, right? Talk about the right movie at the right time. Penn’s is an All Timer performance. I loved the truly odd and wonderful choices Penn made, especially his little walking gait. Utterly mesmerizing perf, it doesn’t matter what you think of Penn, this is his best work. I thought Del Toro was also fantastic in a completely opposite register, and I hope he manages a nomination as well. Great laughs from just embodying an ethos of serenity and calm in a way which never becomes caricature (a real risk with this kind of role). DiCaprio mines huge laughs of his own from his constant stoned out frustration and it would be lovely for him to win again for such a completely different role than the one he won for

Loved the climactic chase, and the wonderful, simple yet highly stress-inducing score that just ramped up the tension endlessly. I was grabbing one hand in the other for like the last thirty minutes, can’t remember the last movie I watched that had me so amped up

[cdnchris]

I loved the truly odd and wonderful choices Penn made, especially his little walking gait.

I saw an image online comparing his walk to Vince McMahon's and now I have no choice but to believe that's what he based it on. Whatever the case, every choice he made was great.