This movie was great. If you liked thoughtful almost-action movies No Country for Old Men or even something like The Fugitive, you’ll enjoy this. There are cinematic set pieces as beautiful as anything I’ve seen in years (the rooftop sequence!) the acting is stellar throughout, and the finale gives an original take on one of the most common film plot devices of all time.
The film’s politics are very progressive/liberal so I can imagine that deterring some viewers but PTA adds a lot of nuance and subversion throughout that make it more of an examination of radicalism than a straight trumpeting of it. As mentioned in another comment the radical characters often disagree and are shown taking very different strategies that then produce very different outcomes.
Reviews are very hit or miss nowadays (mostly miss for me), but the verdict for One Battle After Another is absolutely correct.
For those of you who are on the fence wrt watching this movie, the politics and the revolutionaries simply form the backdrop for the story. The movie is ultimately a chase-thriller and the cinematic pleasure on screen is just incredible. If you are a fan of superbly shot and staged set-pieces, this movie is for you.
I feel like this review needs a huge amount of context on PTA and his previous films to create any sort of justification for this film. That... that does not seem like a good movie to me.
I think you’re mistaking the review for the movie. The review is written for people with that deep context and with an interest in peeling back all the layers PTA put in his movie. The movie itself works well as an action movie, and works very well as a meditation on the way parents burden their kids, and so on.
The review does not mention Deandra (played by Regina Hall) at all, among other black characters who weren't negative representations per se. Deandra is very prominent in the second act of the movie and her responsibility and dedication to the mission is quite apparent.
Regardless, I think it’s a fair observation that French 75 is cartoonish at times. This is not a movie about how great revolutionaries are, although it is a movie about how necessary they are. PTA also certainly makes some odd choices around minority characters.
Watching this movie, I did not get a sense of glorifying violence in any way. If anything, it glorifies resistance to authority. The strongest and most successful members of the resistance (like the Sensei) avoid confrontation. It's the violent ones that end up detracting from their cause.
Funnily enough that character's name is Perfidia, which is the Latin word for treacherous. To anyone considering watching, it is a well-paced action movie with some very funny parts.
Who said the film is glorifying violence, certainly not that review?
Certainly not the review lambasting PTA for presenting Black women in every negative stereotype possible to show that violence is bad?
Certainly not the movie that has a Black woman named Jungle Pussy (I don't care it's her stagename, she's not robbing banks on stage) shouting about how she defines Black Power while screeching and waving a gun on a bank counter, until her Black female accomplice shoots the Black guard.
Certainly not the movie where said accomplice then abandons her child (again) and places her in mortal danger while getting most of her accomplices killed.
A betrayal only made possible she cheated on her partner and was fucked and impregnated by an influential enough white man a few scenes earlier.
PTA is sick. There's a reason a Black woman has had 4 of his kids and he still won't marry her.
I've not seen the film yet (if ever) so I have no opinions here at all.
In general, reading books and watching film, I have no issue with singular characters; black women rap, some have songs such as WAP, other support Trump in earnest, some are matriarchs that usher in social change for the better, others can end up as welfare queens with crack babies, real life has a rich spectrum.
The review above has some strong opinions about PTA's character mix and representations and I'd really have to watch the film through to form an opinion as to whether this is odd for no reason, sloppy, an unconscious tell of the directors world view or a deliberate bit of skewing that forms part of whatever message he wishes to convey.
Like many, I try not to get too deep into a rabbit hole of second guessing books and films, first impressions are often the ones that count most.
This movie was great. If you liked thoughtful almost-action movies No Country for Old Men or even something like The Fugitive, you’ll enjoy this. There are cinematic set pieces as beautiful as anything I’ve seen in years (the rooftop sequence!) the acting is stellar throughout, and the finale gives an original take on one of the most common film plot devices of all time.
The film’s politics are very progressive/liberal so I can imagine that deterring some viewers but PTA adds a lot of nuance and subversion throughout that make it more of an examination of radicalism than a straight trumpeting of it. As mentioned in another comment the radical characters often disagree and are shown taking very different strategies that then produce very different outcomes.
Paul Thomas Anderson, not parents-teachers association. Had to read a bit till that became obvious
Reviews are very hit or miss nowadays (mostly miss for me), but the verdict for One Battle After Another is absolutely correct.
For those of you who are on the fence wrt watching this movie, the politics and the revolutionaries simply form the backdrop for the story. The movie is ultimately a chase-thriller and the cinematic pleasure on screen is just incredible. If you are a fan of superbly shot and staged set-pieces, this movie is for you.
I feel like this review needs a huge amount of context on PTA and his previous films to create any sort of justification for this film. That... that does not seem like a good movie to me.
You're talking about one of the best-reviewed movies in years. https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/8936-one-rave-after-...
"Emilia Pérez" has 13 oscar nominations. It's the worst film I've ever seen.
Critic reviews mean nothing, because they form a clique which moves simultaneously.
Emilia Pérez wasn't well-reviewed at all. Reviews and Academy Award nominations are different things.
I think you’re mistaking the review for the movie. The review is written for people with that deep context and with an interest in peeling back all the layers PTA put in his movie. The movie itself works well as an action movie, and works very well as a meditation on the way parents burden their kids, and so on.
I prefer this review for its accuracy: https://boxd.it/beixJD
The review does not mention Deandra (played by Regina Hall) at all, among other black characters who weren't negative representations per se. Deandra is very prominent in the second act of the movie and her responsibility and dedication to the mission is quite apparent.
Yep really sincere reviews use the word jungle pussy. The right wingers are just grabbing them all the time.
I'll sit out the right|left and racial aspects here and just note that in this film
* Leonardo DiCaprio plays a character named Bob, and
* Shayna McHayle plays a character named Junglepussy
~ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/fullcredits/
It'd be a poor review that glossed over a films choice and representations of characters, this one's on the director and writer, not the reviewer.
To be fair, that’s McHayle’s stage name too.
Regardless, I think it’s a fair observation that French 75 is cartoonish at times. This is not a movie about how great revolutionaries are, although it is a movie about how necessary they are. PTA also certainly makes some odd choices around minority characters.
Watching this movie, I did not get a sense of glorifying violence in any way. If anything, it glorifies resistance to authority. The strongest and most successful members of the resistance (like the Sensei) avoid confrontation. It's the violent ones that end up detracting from their cause. Funnily enough that character's name is Perfidia, which is the Latin word for treacherous. To anyone considering watching, it is a well-paced action movie with some very funny parts.
Who said the film is glorifying violence, certainly not that review?
Certainly not the review lambasting PTA for presenting Black women in every negative stereotype possible to show that violence is bad?
Certainly not the movie that has a Black woman named Jungle Pussy (I don't care it's her stagename, she's not robbing banks on stage) shouting about how she defines Black Power while screeching and waving a gun on a bank counter, until her Black female accomplice shoots the Black guard.
Certainly not the movie where said accomplice then abandons her child (again) and places her in mortal danger while getting most of her accomplices killed.
A betrayal only made possible she cheated on her partner and was fucked and impregnated by an influential enough white man a few scenes earlier.
PTA is sick. There's a reason a Black woman has had 4 of his kids and he still won't marry her.
There's a Fortnite colab for this movie.
The skin chosen for Teyana's character is her pregnant and bare bellied.
I've not seen the film yet (if ever) so I have no opinions here at all.
In general, reading books and watching film, I have no issue with singular characters; black women rap, some have songs such as WAP, other support Trump in earnest, some are matriarchs that usher in social change for the better, others can end up as welfare queens with crack babies, real life has a rich spectrum.
The review above has some strong opinions about PTA's character mix and representations and I'd really have to watch the film through to form an opinion as to whether this is odd for no reason, sloppy, an unconscious tell of the directors world view or a deliberate bit of skewing that forms part of whatever message he wishes to convey.
Like many, I try not to get too deep into a rabbit hole of second guessing books and films, first impressions are often the ones that count most.
[flagged]