One Battle After Another (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2025)

[pistolwink]

Wandered into an adjacent theater after (the very disappointing) House of Dynamite to re-watch the last hour of this, and whoever above said Penn performs Lockjaw as a malevolent Popeye is absolutely on the money.

The climactic car chase remains a thing of wonder. On re-watch I'm not sure the film sticks the landing. The ending feels too rhetorical to me.

[domino harvey]

Not surprisingly, this will be competing for Comedy at the Golden Globes

[Persona]

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.

Completely agree about IV. Inherent Vice isn't Pynchon at his best, but I like it a lot. I don't think PTA's film really captures the essence of the book, which is very funny, sure, but also has a deep sense of mystery and confusion at its heart.

It just doesn't translate into the movie and probably a lot of filmmakers besides PTA would have failed in similar ways, so this is not me wishing someone else had adapted it.

[FrauBlucher]

Even if you take the novel Oil! which PTA turned into There Will be Blood was such a small part of the book. I would guess just the first quarter of the book, if that, was used for the film. It seems that he uses novels for inspiration and a foundation as a means to his films more so than a movie replica

[MichaelB]

Not surprisingly, this will be competing for Comedy at the Golden Globes

Quite right, too - no other film has made me laugh out loud quite as much this year, and I don't think any of those laughs were unintentional.

Even if you take the novel Oil! which PTA turned into There Will be Blood was such a small part of the book. I would guess just the first quarter of the book, if that, was used for the film. It seems that he uses novels for inspiration and a foundation as a means to his films more so than a movie replica

I'm sure this didn't happen here, but I'd really love it if an author made it a contractual condition that a significant chunk of an adaptation of their work (say, a third minimum) had to consist of new material. It would certainly ensure a more interesting film than merely illustrating the book.

[knives]

Eh, I’m not sure about that. Look back to John Huston’s theories on adaptation and how it is sometimes better to more literally adapt material.

[MichaelB]

Not if you're not John Huston and you're just moronically illustrating the book - as rather too many literary adapters are prone to do as a by-product of their own lack of imagination and/or desire to please fans of the book rather than filmgoers.

Milan Kundera pretty much ordered Philip Kaufman to make sweeping changes to The Unbearable Lightness of Being, partly because it's an unfilmable book anyway if you're daft enough to attempt it literally, but also because Kundera used to teach film at FAMU in Prague and so was unusually aware (for a novelist) that it was a fundamentally different medium that needed a hefty amount of original input if it was to work at all.

[knives]

Well yes, a badly made literal adaptation is bad, but so is a badly made loose adaptation. It’s a totally neutral value.

[MichaelB]

You're missing my point, which is that I like the notion of the original author forcing the filmmakers to be more creative.

[Mr Sausage]

I admire what Park Chan-Wook did with Sarah Waters' very fine Fingersmith: just made up his own third act and ending, entirely because he wanted to. And so the The Handmaiden is a very faithful adaptation for much of its running time, until suddenly it's not and you're in totally unexpected territory (or vice versa if you read the book second, as I did).

[MichaelB]

Which reminds me of Stanley Kubrick killing off a key character in The Shining for the specific reason – as he admitted later – to freak out people who'd read the book.

I haven't read Stephen King's Doctor Sleep, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the reappearance of that character was flesh-and-blood in the book, while a ghost in the film, as the latter is simultaneously trying to be a viable sequel to both versions.

[domino harvey]

Pop Culture Glossary of 25 references in the film

[hearthesilence]

The Film Comment Podcast: Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another

Film Comment Editors Clinton Krute and Devika Girish invited critics and programmers Miriam Bale and Adam Piron on the Podcast to discuss the film’s successes and failures, how it fits into PTA’s larger body of work, and its engagement with American history and the present. If there’s one thing the four agreed on, it’s that One Battle After Another is indeed a “very rich text.”

[Black Hat]

See, I think both Feihong and Mr. S, plus their ancillaries in this thread, are correct. Therein lies the problem with the film, as in its doing the Jon Stewart "don't take me seriously" thing despite rolling around in the goop of seriousness. I think Fei and Mr. S took different routes to a similar conclusion. This is representative of who Paul Thomas Anderson is today as a card carrying member of AARP far more than it is about anything else. How you feel about that is up to you. What troubles me about any movie like this is where the line between caring and having fun should be. There, the film's glossy superficial nature lets both its characters and us off the hook. To me, this was an uncanny sequel to Licorice Pizza, a film I disliked immensely because of its nostalgia, while understanding how well it's structured. Same thing here, which leads me to the conclusion that Paul Thomas Anderson is a good, perhaps great filmmaker, but in terms of having anything to say (not a requirement), as milquetoast a simpleton as they come.

Otherwise, I'm surprised people largely are fans of Greenwood's score. Granted, I've never been keen on him or Radiohead, but I thought his score here was abrasive and overwrought. Lastly, the only thing that really grinded my gears was using The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, as played out a choice I've seen a movie with artistic aspirations I've seen make. On the other hand, imagining what Gil would have thought about this film has been entertaining me.

[GaryC]

The Parkway Cinema in Barnsley (UK) is currently showing the film in 70mm. The Prince Charles in London will have it in 70mm from Boxing Day. This is presumably the print which had its first run at the Irish Film Institute in Dublin.

[TheTreeSong]

See, I think both Feihong and Mr. S, plus their ancillaries in this thread, are correct. Therein lies the problem with the film, as in its doing the Jon Stewart "don't take me seriously" thing despite rolling around in the goop of seriousness. I think Fei and Mr. S took different routes to a similar conclusion. This is representative of who Paul Thomas Anderson is today as a card carrying member of AARP far more than it is about anything else. How you feel about that is up to you. What troubles me about any movie like this is where the line between caring and having fun should be. There, the film's glossy superficial nature lets both its characters and us off the hook. To me, this was an uncanny sequel to Licorice Pizza, a film I disliked immensely because of its nostalgia, while understanding how well it's structured. Same thing here, which leads me to the conclusion that Paul Thomas Anderson is a good, perhaps great filmmaker, but in terms of having anything to say (not a requirement), as milquetoast a simpleton as they come.

Otherwise, I'm surprised people largely are fans of Greenwood's score. Granted, I've never been keen on him or Radiohead, but I thought his score here was abrasive and overwrought. Lastly, the only thing that really grinded my gears was using The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, as played out a choice I've seen a movie with artistic aspirations I've seen make. On the other hand, imagining what Gil would have thought about this film has been entertaining me.

You nailed it, especially this being every bit a continuation/follow up of Licorice Pizza. Same awful lowbrow fratboy humor (please, say "pussy" one more time), same bad improv from the cast. Reading interviews, I'm not sure that he even writes dialogue anymore (at least 20 years in the making apparently and this is what he came up with?). Seemingly he just lets actors come up with stuff on the day. It has barely been noted that Anderson has been working with an almost entirely different group of people these last two films. What happened to his longtime producers JoAnne Sellar and Daniel Lupi? Something tells me that they were the only ones who could say "no" to him so he sacked them.

I think his obsessions just aren't interesting anymore. Maybe they never were and I'm just realizing it now. He's what, 55 now? Move on from the Demme thing already (speaking of which, his needledrops these last couple of films have been dreadully obvious. American Girl and Dirty Work, really?). Being so fascinated with such a forgettable band like Haim (apologies if you're a fan) seems like a microcosm of where he's at now. I'm also growing tired of this cynical use of Pynchon. It feels more like a way to attach some profound meaning to his films than any true understanding or kinship with Pynchon's writing.

I also don't think the characters/performances are particularly good anymore either. (Though I think his hit rate in this area was always exaggerated. His tendency to give actors free reign/chew scenery has always led to some bad performances from the beginning). I think Penn is terrible in this, especially from the point where Lockjaw meets Willa. Benicio is fun I guess, but no real surprise there. The only real compelling work here IMO is by Regina Hall, but Anderson doesn't care about her or her character at all. Another issue, he keeps casting novices and/or not particuarly good actress in his important female roles. Not that I've ever particuarly thought Anderson was good at female characters. Watch Support the Girls if you want to see Hall and Shayna McHale/Junglepussy play complex, three dimensional women.

It's as politically hollow as I expected it to be (I don't suspect that Anderson has any real interest in politics either way. I doubt he stands for/cares about anything other than movies, really.) but it fails as a father/daughter story as well. We barely get anything of Bob and Willa's relationship other than one cliched, unfunny generational gap argument.

I think I'm only just seeing now how undisciplined a filmmaker he is. I suppose I once found that charming for some reason but now no longer do. I can't expect that to ever change as long as awards/critical acclaim is thrown at him no matter what he does.

[pistolwink]

His videos for Haim are very boring, but I think it's as simple as, he's friends with them.

[The Narrator Returns]

I don’t consider myself more than a regular HAIM fan (many of the songs are great but I haven’t felt the urge to listen to a full album of them) but HAIM / Valentine is my favorite thing PTA has done post-Inherent Vice, maybe by a fair margin. That’s where the Demme aping is best-served, just consistently beautiful and interesting performance footage.

[TheTreeSong]

His videos for Haim are very boring, but I think it's as simple as, he's friends with them.

It might just be him revealing himself to be simple and not very interesting. Hence, befriending a band (yes, I heard the story about their mother being his teacher) whose music sounds like it belongs as background noise on Grey's Anatomy. Alana Haim's contribution (if one can call it that) to this film could (and if he's actually smart, should) be a fitting end to that tedious collaboration but I doubt it. Less because of said friendship and more because he, like quite a few of his peers (*cough* The Adventures of Cliff Booth *cough*), doesn't know what to make movies about anymore. Hence going back to the Pynchon well again. Hearing him talk about the genesis of the last two films, it sounds like he's taken various slivers of ideas he's had the last 25 years and just jumbled them all together.

post-Inherent Vice

I had to laugh at that (not you, just the wording), as if Inherent Vice was some sort of landmark.

[domino harvey]

What do you like?

[TheTreeSong]

What do you like?

I quite liked Frankenstein! Funny, in 2017 I may have been one of the ones whining about The Shape of Water winning over Phantom Thread but not anymore. Critics/film bros be damned, GdT's last couple of films (and perhaps in general. I've possibly soured on PTA as a whole and would have to go back and rewatch the films to check but I can't muster up the interest) have been much better and richer than PTA's.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Marty Supreme. I'm surprised that there appears to be no thread for it.

[Finch]

Really just random initial thoughts than a proper review but I did like the film a lot. I'm not sure how to feel about Sean Penn's character,

Spoiler

particularly the shot that captures him walking down the road bloodied with a rifle by his hand as if he was a terminator but then I thought the last scene he has in the film where he is disposed of in an oven and cremated felt like a repudiation of the road shot where he seemed indestructible

. I think I like his performance but it does feel different from everyone else's.

I found the wide shot of him and the bounty hunter in the canyon that captures the first part of their conversation absolutely gorgeous.

Wasn't a fan of the piano score (Greenwood?) but loved the music that plays over

Spoiler

the girl reading the letter from her mother

. Anyone know if it's original or a licensed song?

[domino harvey]

It’s a leftover Brion music cue, there’s details in the cultural references link I posted upthread

[Finch]

Thank you, dom!

[Matt]

I missed that the 4K UHD and Blu-ray were announced for January 20, 2026. No supplements as far as I can tell.