criterionforum.org

At the end of the day, I value film as an art form over literature, so I’ll always prioritize a movie experience over a reading one

I strongly disagree there! In fact, one of the great things about spending all day watching moving images is that over the last fifteen years or so my reading has shot up to levels not previously reached since my teens, as the last thing I want to do in the evening is watch yet more films.

But books and films are different media, and it seems to me that reading the novel beforehand (unless of course you've read it anyway and can't avoid bringing up those memories) is by definition going to circumscribe your appreciation of the film, because you'll be constantly drawing possibly unhelpful comparisons.

I mean, some people really do think that film adaptations of novels should be little more than page-by-page illustrations, but that seems to me to fundamentally misunderstand some pretty core differences between the two media.

MichaelB wrote: Tue Feb 03, 2026 1:47 pm But books and films are different media, and it seems to me that reading the novel beforehand (unless of course you've read it anyway and can't avoid bringing up those memories) is by definition going to circumscribe your appreciation of the film, because you'll be constantly drawing possibly unhelpful comparisons.

The only two times I’ve read in anticipation of a movie were Inherent Vice (I read Vineland shortly after the movie came out) and White Noise, and I don’t think either had an adverse effect on my take on those movies. Admittedly I did and still wish IV did the book ending (damn PTA for using “God Only Knows” several movies too early), but reading White Noise made me appreciate how any adaptation is going to lock in on replicating the middle third and make its own choices otherwise. I have the take that Baumbach White Noise and One Battle are the same audaciously mainstream and moving distillation of their source material, but I’m one of very few holding those two in equally high regard.

Sometimes a film coming out will reinvigorate my desire to read a book, so I’ll make sure to read the book first. I’d rather not have the filmmakers’ choices in casting and locations infiltrate what the author’s doing. Plus that’s the way the process of adaptation is flowing, and far from needing a pure encounter with a new movie, I like going in watching it specifically as an adaptation, an artwork carrying a kind of history with it.

Funnily, while reading a good book makes me immediately want to see the movie, watching a good movie invariably kills my desire to read the book. In fact I can only think of a few scant examples outside of movies seen first in childhood: I only recently read Richard Stark’s The Hunter because I’m on a Parker kick and felt I ought to see the origins. I only read Sarah Waters’ Fingersmith because I was tearing through all her novels at the time, and honestly it was the one I was least looking forward to (tho’ it’s probably my favourite). And I only read The Melancholy of Resistance because, as with Waters, I was determined to read everything the author had written. There might be one or two more examples, but guaranteed I’ll have read them as part of some project or completionism urging me to it.

So knowing this about myself, for sure I’ll try to read the book first if I can.

I rewatched this at home last week. We had a lot of chatter about this above, but concerning the home video aspect ratio in 1.78:1 -- I saw the 70mm in 1.85, and thought it was an excellent presentation at the time, so this is much the same, and I don't see any reason to pine for a VV full frame version, though I would certainly try it.
Unfortunately I cooled my reception on this somewhat since my initial viewing at the theater. I'm sure its a personal response, but watching it at home amplified it's flaws, mostly having to do with plotting, and occasional incoherent logic, and dalliance with the absurd, and I lost some of the joy of the cinema bombast with my compromised home presentation, and it felt more ordinary. Maybe it's prescient scenario is sadly no longer as funny either. Notably, I had the inverse experience with Inherent Vice, and that film has risen in my esteem. Who knows the same might apply here for the next go-around. Regardless, this must (AS ALL CRITICS GRUDGINGLY AGREE), be one of the highlights of 2025.

RE: reading, when I am inspired to read the book it is usually when it is an inspiration rather than a direct adaptation. I remember thinking it was fun to compare Melville's Pierre with Pola X, separated by a century and a language. Or why not do like Godard and just mash it all together I have to admit I always really enjoy reading onscreen text/subtitles.

Well, I finished the second half of this (bluray) tonight. I'm somewhat thrilled, confused, and curious, all at once. My immediate/broadbrush reactions: I must rewatch this, soon. This is mid-tier Anderson. I could rarely fully engage with Di Caprio. Penn is brilliant. Other Anderson feels much more focussed and less scattershot. Johnny Greenwood seems rather confused/unmemorable in this. This is so USA 2026. I might in the future declare this as one of Anderson's very best - but right now it cannot touch his last few. It doesn't connect for me, fully. I really care about his previous main characters. Here they mostly feel like passing strangers. Ultimately, this feels like the first Anderson, for me, where too much is being squeezed into the runtime. It's suffocating. Yet strangely intoxicating. I grudgingly admire it. I believe in it. Rewatches will be more convincing. Perhaps.

And The Oscars are always right, so I better get onto this rewatch....

Mr Sausage wrote: Tue Feb 03, 2026 2:07 pm Sometimes a film coming out will reinvigorate my desire to read a book, so I’ll make sure to read the book first. I’d rather not have the filmmakers’ choices in casting and locations infiltrate what the author’s doing. Plus that’s the way the process of adaptation is flowing, and far from needing a pure encounter with a new movie, I like going in watching it specifically as an adaptation, an artwork carrying a kind of history with it.

Funnily, while reading a good book makes me immediately want to see the movie, watching a good movie invariably kills my desire to read the book. In fact I can only think of a few scant examples outside of movies seen first in childhood: I only recently read Richard Stark’s The Hunter because I’m on a Parker kick and felt I ought to see the origins. I only read Sarah Waters’ Fingersmith because I was tearing through all her novels at the time, and honestly it was the one I was least looking forward to (tho’ it’s probably my favourite). And I only read The Melancholy of Resistance because, as with Waters, I was determined to read everything the author had written. There might be one or two more examples, but guaranteed I’ll have read them as part of some project or completionism urging me to it.

So knowing this about myself, for sure I’ll try to read the book first if I can.

I often do this too, so that I can have my own images in my head for at least a short while before I see the film's images. I've often done this particularly when writing a review for Cine Outsider and before that The Digital Fix (typically 2-3000 words for a single film on a single disc, so room for some consideration of the source material). I'm doing a series of articles for the British Fantasy Society on children's SF/F/H serials and I'll read the original novel while doing this - three novels in the case of The Changes. But even if I'm not reviewing something, I will try to read the novel first if I have the time and opportunity.

As for Pynchon, the only one of his I've read was The Crying of Lot 49, during my university degree, and that's a novella. I've found the sheer size and supposed difficulty of the likes of Gravity's Rainbow more than a bit daunting, but one day.

If I have the time when writing a full-length S&S review, I'll watch the film, write a rough draft, then read the book, and then watch the film again.

I remember this paid particular dividends when reviewing Lajos Koltai's Fateless, because the temptation to assume that the film's disorienting aesthetic beauty (given the horror of its subject) was down to its debutant director falling back on the fact that he'd been a very distinguished cinematographer for decades—but in fact the original Imre Kertész novel takes a very similar approach, with its teenage protagonist offering a detailed, rhapsodic description of a sunrise over Auschwitz while only noting in passing that a woman near him in the carriage had died.

Noiretirc wrote: Wed Feb 04, 2026 6:52 am Well, I finished the second half of this (bluray) tonight. I'm somewhat thrilled, confused, and curious, all at once. My immediate/broadbrush reactions: I must rewatch this, soon. This is mid-tier Anderson. I could rarely fully engage with Di Caprio. Penn is brilliant. Other Anderson feels much more focussed and less scattershot. Johnny Greenwood seems rather confused/unmemorable in this. This is so USA 2026. I might in the future declare this as one of Anderson's very best - but right now it cannot touch his last few. It doesn't connect for me, fully. I really care about his previous main characters. Here they mostly feel like passing strangers. Ultimately, this feels like the first Anderson, for me, where too much is being squeezed into the runtime. It's suffocating. Yet strangely intoxicating. I grudgingly admire it. I believe in it. Rewatches will be more convincing. Perhaps.

This has become a film I just put on before bed sometimes, if I'm working I'll put it on in the background - a real Disney clamshell VHS case type of movie. The soundtrack and dialogue are intoxicating to me. And in that time, I can definitely tell you that it becomes easier to parse. In an effort to cut it down economically (or at least that's how I interpret it), there's a lot happening at any given time, a lot of dialogue sequences delivering plot-crucial information in small packages (especially concerning Sean Penn's plot developments) that open up beautifully upon even just a second rewatch once you know the players and the broader plot mechanics. Then the tenth time... even better!

My wife, who does not have art house inclinations in the slightest, loved this and similarly it’s lately become her go-to movie on long plane flights for work

Special edition appears to be UHD only, but the extras are on a Blu-ray Disc? Am I really going to have to buy two different copies of this?

The “One Battle After Another” 4K UHD + Blu-ray collectible steelbook will contain a Blu-ray bonus disc with special features created by Anderson and a 24-page booklet with behind-the-scenes photos.

On June 2, “One Battle After Another” will be available to own on in collectible steelbook packaging in 4K UHD + Blu-ray from online and physical retailers. The collectible steelbook will include a Blu-ray bonus disc with special features created by Paul Thomas Anderson along with a 24-page booklet with behind-the-scenes photos.


“One Battle After Another” 4K UHD + Blu-ray collectible steelbook will contain the following special features:

Camera, Lighting & Costume Tests
Chase Infiniti Screen Test
Learning, Studying... Always Perfecting: The Making of One Battle After Another
The Cutting Rooms
Opening Night at The Vista

domino harvey wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 3:09 pm My wife, who does not have art house inclinations in the slightest, loved this and similarly it’s lately become her go-to movie on long plane flights for work

My wife as well. She’s so intoxicated by it and we both swear by Del Toro. Who is only in 12.5 minutes of the film.

domino harvey wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2026 11:13 pm Special edition appears to be UHD only, but the extras are on a Blu-ray Disc? Am I really going to have to buy two different copies of this?

From the packaging shots, it looks like you get the film on UHD, Blu-ray, and Digital. I don't think the included Blu-ray is just extras only.

EDIT to be clearer: It's a 3-disc set: 1 UHD with the film, 1 Blu-ray with the film, 1 Blu-ray with the extras.

Oh wow, I didn’t see that. Great!

did anyone else think it was absolutely rude when Anderson cut off the woman giving her acceptance speech before him when they went up to receive best film? i get time may have been an issue but he could have put his ego aside seeing as how it was his third time up there. I can see how him and Tarantino gravitate towards each other they're both self centered manchildren.

What gives you the impression that he cut her off?

probably when he rushed towards her midspeech, cut her off by saying in a bratty tone "yeah okay" before taking over the mic so he could talk.

She is clearly pulling him towards the microphone while finishing speaking, indicating that she wants him to speak, introducing him as "Paulie". He does not cut her off, and the "yeah okay" seems to be because he's a bit surprised.

Hahah yeah she literally says his name and directs him to start speaking, if anything the “yeah ok” read more like reluctance to take the mic again

mfunk9786 wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 3:04 pm This has become a film I just put on before bed sometimes, if I'm working I'll put it on in the background - a real Disney clamshell VHS case type of movie.

Interesting to hear about people's home watching habits. I think this is probably meant for another thread, but while I will admit to dozing off to many movies, maybe even intentionally once or twice, I don't think I've ever put anything on for ambient therapy or comfort, especially not repeatedly. No offense implied, but my movie watching is usually trying to replicate a trip to the theater. Maybe I should loosen up, and get with the times.

mfunk9786 wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 3:04 pmThis has become a film I just put on before bed sometimes, if I'm working I'll put it on in the background - a real Disney clamshell VHS case type of movie. The soundtrack and dialogue are intoxicating to me. And in that time, I can definitely tell you that it becomes easier to parse. In an effort to cut it down economically (or at least that's how I interpret it), there's a lot happening at any given time, a lot of dialogue sequences delivering plot-crucial information in small packages (especially concerning Sean Penn's plot developments) that open up beautifully upon even just a second rewatch once you know the players and the broader plot mechanics. Then the tenth time... even better!

I watched it twice on opening weekend (one standard screen, and the second time on IMAX). Was really wowed on the first viewing, but I was quite taken aback by how much more I enjoyed it the second time. I haven't watched it since, but looking forward to picking it up soon and seeing how it'll be the third time, watching it at home.

Reading a random novel I just learned that a French 75 is a 75 mm field artillery piece introduced in France near the end of the 19th century. It was the first modern artillery piece and was used extensively by France during WW I.

So there would be where the revolutionaries got their name.

It's more famously an alcoholic drink, which is what I'm certain the group was named after