Paul Thomas Anderson returns with One Battle After Another, his most overtly political film of the year. Leonardo DiCaprio and Teyana Taylor play revolutionaries whose violent struggle collides with questions of family, loyalty, and survival. Blah, blah, blah.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays “Ghetto Pat” Calhoun, a bomb maker tied to a radical group resembling Antifa, known as the French 75. His partner/lover, Perfidia (played by Teyana Taylor), is a fierce warrior who leads raids on border state detention centers to free undocumented immigrants and defy government authorities, and in one case, even has a sexual encounter with one. During this period, Perfidia becomes pregnant, forcing her to make a decision between being a mother and fighting for the revolution. Of course, the revolution wins out, leaving Pat to care for their daughter, Charlene.
Eventually, Perfidia is captured and coerced into betraying her allies, forcing Pat to flee underground with Charlene. To protect her, he changes their names to Bob and Willa Ferguson, lives off the grid, avoiding technology, and raising her in secrecy.
Now a teenager, Willa (Chase Infiniti), becomes the focus of a relentless pursuit led by Steven J. Lockjaw (Sean Penn), the man in charge of the detention facility at the beginning of the movie. Bob, though awkward as a father, is deeply protective and determined to keep Willa safe. Helping them is Willa’s martial arts teacher, Sensei Sergio (Benicio del Toro), a member of the resistance who tries to guide them, though much of the tension lies in Bob’s inability to recall the crucial password to get help.
“Perfidia becomes pregnant, forcing her to choose between being a mother and fighting for the revolution.”
I have two issues with One Battle After Another. The first is one you may or may not care about, and the other is the movie itself. I get we live in a politically divided world, and with recent events (out of the filmmaker’s control), One Battle After Another is simply an ill-timed movie that presents its anti-fascist protagonists as modern-day superheroes. The story is sure to please half of the country, while pissing off the other half. “I’m right and you’re evil.”
It’s a film that portrays people with Paul Thomas Anderson’s political beliefs as good and those who disagree with him as evil, white supremacist buffoons. Many, including myself, felt like it was a two-hour and forty-minute lecture about how bad conservatives are as people. I’m sure you’ll criticize me for seeing too much politics in the film. Well, there is, and because you don’t see it, it doesn’t mean you agree with the politics in the film. The ending is essentially saying, “join the revolution,” and you’ll live happily ever after…spoiler alert.
This also means I didn’t care for any of the characters, and when you don’t care, two hours and forty minutes feels like five hours and twenty minutes. Sure, Bob seems like a nice guy…when he’s not blowing things up. Nothing is sexier than a pregnant woman with a machine gun. The racist general…it’s a given that there’s nothing to like about this guy. Some actors claim to find something to connect with in their character. Not here! He’s bad because he has to be.
Take away the politics, and you have a mediocre film. Yes, I’m well aware of Anderson’s CV, and this movie should have been as good as Boogie Nights, Magnolia…and every other movie he’s made. My biggest complaint is the pure lack of character development for every single character, except Charlene/Willa. Every character remains the same throughout the film. Essentially, we’re torturing all of our characters through the film, a domestic terrorist hunt. There’s no hero’s journey here.
Many say that the final car chase is a work of art in the end. The reality is that the only reason the hilly car chase exists is to justify what happens in the end. It’s a very long setup for a split-second plot point. I suppose the acting is good. Leo is a pot-smoking hippie, and this is the most normal human being I’ve ever seen Benecio Del Toro play. As Willa, Chase Infiniti is yet another carbon copy of the strong woman that we’ve seen in movies since 2016. I think this is the only character type that young actresses are taught in drama school today.
Ultimately, there’s nothing wrong with creating a biased political movie. I’ve seen plenty in my lifetime and quite enjoyed them. But One Battle After Another makes no attempt to build bridges or, at a minimum, a decent box office.
"…Nothing is sexier than a pregnant woman with a machine gun."
Section 1. Antifa as a Terrorist Threat. Antifa is a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law. It uses illegal means to organize and execute a campaign of violence and terrorism nationwide to accomplish these goals. This campaign involves coordinated efforts to obstruct enforcement of Federal laws through armed standoffs with law enforcement, organized riots, violent assaults on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement officers, and routine doxing of and other threats against political figures and activists. Antifa recruits, trains, and radicalizes young Americans to engage in this violence and suppression of political activity, then employs elaborate means and mechanisms to shield the identities of its operatives, conceal its funding sources and operations in an effort to frustrate law enforcement, and recruit additional members. Individuals associated with and acting on behalf of Antifa further coordinate with other organizations and entities for the purpose of spreading, fomenting, and advancing political violence and suppressing lawful political speech. This organized effort designed to achieve policy objectives by coercion and intimidation is domestic terrorism.
I found this movie very disappointing and a advertisement for domestic terrorism (Antifa) They used big name actors to cover up no talent (Teyana Taylor) Pure garbage. Absolute left (WOKE) lunacy. This movie lost millions. and the money tells the truth. Huge decline in DiCaprios career… Very surprised an incredible actor like Sean Penn would take part in this garbage. In the first chapter, The forced erection scene was unrealistic and killed this product from the start.
3 out of 10? If you can get past your thin-skin, you can not in good conscience think this is a fair score. Beautify shot. Amazingly scored. Brilliantly acted, dashed with Hilarious Satire. I felt so lucky to be able to witness such an original high-budget film in this day and age of sequels and superhero movies. Looking at your other reviews… you gave Freakier Friday a 7/10 and this a 3? This must be rage-bait…and I took it.
This is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. I almost walked out after 20 minutes but I’m a masochist so endured the entire movie. It seemed as though there was a greater interest in creating epic visuals rather than a genuine story with interesting characters. The pathetic car chase at the end was slow rolled into what I felt was anti-climactic slop. The attempt to insert the current political atmosphere into the movie was so badly done I’m left wondering what was the point. I’m left with the realization that I wasted 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.
Wow. So how long do you think you are going to be allowed to be in my country, Ng? MAGA doesn’t like you. Don’t think you’re one of the good ones – they’ll deport your stupid a*s as soon as they can.
This movie is ridiculous. It’s pro domestic terrorism, pedantic in its politics (all immigration control is depicted as monstrous), and seems to reduce white males to either inept or cartoonishly racist. PT should be ashamed of this mess.
You write, “It’s a film that portrays people with Paul Thomas Anderson’s political beliefs as good,” but Perfidia’s character is not portrayed as good at all. She’s a horrible, selfish mother who abandons her child, not to mention a murderer and a rat.
I would actually take these negative comments seriously if you progressives would actually shell out the cash and watch this movie. It’s box office tanking so hard, it’s pathetic.
That is objectively not true, my dude. I know MAGA is accustomed to telling bald faced lies even in the face of directly and quantifiably contrary data, but pretending like this is a box office bomb is just laughable. I guess get mad that “fascist white supremacists are bad” is a premise of the movie, but try not to make up outright lies to justify your take. It’s pathetic.
This is either a thinly veiled political takedown or one that falls short by virtue of the author’s grievously limited comprehension of film. I have a hard time deciding which. It is poorly written to boot. “His most overtly political film of the year” – what does that mean? It’s his first film in four years. And if family, loyalty, and survival are “blah” subjects, then perhaps Mr. Ng has already written off most of film history.
Of his two chief complaints, the most sinister is that of the film’s purported divisiveness. If Mr. Ng cared to explore the role of art in our society, and countless before it, he would quickly learn that art and politics are the strongest of bedfellows, and the best time to use art for the purpose of political commentary is precisely the moment in which it can make the most difference. As elementary as that is, it distresses me that Mr. Ng has so prematurely declared himself a film critic. These are lesson even my high school children have learned.
Worse still is the insideous notion that film, or any artform, ought to comply with some arbitrary societal standard or placate a particular group of people. In this case, the reviewer seems to implicitly lend credibility to fascist viewpoints by painting anti-fascist principles as a matter of political opinion. If he can’t operate under the assumption that fascism is bad for fear of causing offense, then I’m afraid the bias belongs to him, and it takes an altogether more grave form.
Another grievance seems to rotate around a claim that the film was a “lecture about how bad conservatives are as people.” Let’s take a step back for that for a moment. It is the critic himself who has chosen to equate the horrifying actions on screen with conservatism. Knowing many conservatives as I’m sure we all do, most feel just as strongly that children do not belong in cages, shadowy government agencies that ‘disappear’ people are frightening, and there may be too many morally bankrupt, mentally troubled individuals like Col Lockjaw in positions of power. This film does not portray conservatives – it portrays racist, fascist criminals masquerading as law enforcement and benevolent leaders. The fact that these people happen to be on the political right may not surprise us, but it does not paint conservatives on the whole as bad people.
Mr. Ng’s second complaint, and one that occupies only one half of one paragraph of his review, concerns character development. Beyond its inadequacy, this speaks to a clear bias, conditioned by objection to the film’s message. Each central character has a clear arc. One is a militant, deeply flawed, uncompromising, who is believed to have turned on her people, but has in fact yielded and then fled for their protection. One is a wild, opportunistic revolutionary, loving, but without discipline who must redeem himself for years of lethargy and complacency. The other is a wide-eyed but strong-willed child who must grow up quickly to save her own life.
Finally, I am stunned by his criticism of the car chase scene, which is a masterclass in the slow burn. In fact, Mr. Ng’s own description of the scene illustrates precisely why that cinematic device so effective. “The only reason the hilly car chase exists… A very long setup for a split Second plot point.” Well done – you got it!
Mr. Ng – please study film. And if you already have, please go back and do it again.
“I’m MAGA and this movie made me feel ATTACKED.” Learn how to write a review – how did u even get this job? Go read some Pauline Kael (doubt u even know who she is) so u can see what goes into an actual film critique and how pathetically short you fall. You don’t know how to write and you don’t know about cinema. I mean I doubt they pay you much for this s**t but whatever it is it’s too much.
Respect your opinion. Things I agree : This movie is NOT a masterpiece, so yeah it’s overrated. But I still quite enjoy the film a bit. There’s enough interesting story and characters. And I disagree that a strong woman like Willa shouldn’t be depicted in films. Maybe you just have a different idea of what a strong woman is. As far as politics is concerned, I have no problem with the depiction as I’m not American and don’t live in America so eventhough I have some general idea about political divides in the country, I couldn’t connect with how “real life” this is. 7.5/10
Spot on review.
This film was boring. I’ve seen this trope before.
The comedy was forced as well. I’m liberal and this film angered me.
Thanks for validation. Why are so many raving about it?
I wish I read your review before I went to see this. Completely agree with everything you said.
I knew this was going to be a very poor review as soon as i read the first sentence, ”Paul Thomas Anderson returns with One Battle After Another, his most overtly political film of the year.” How many films did PTA release this year, for this film to be his most overtly political of the year? Nothing that followed made any more sense than that first sentence.
Critiquing the film for ”taking sides” and attacking conservatives, is like watching the ”Schindler’s List” and critiquing it for attacking national-socialists. The film is satirizing MAGA, a racist, hateful cult masquerading as a conservative movement, that spews hateful rhetoric against anyone that isn’t a white Christian. Yes, their ideology is evil. It isn’t a matter of ”opinion”, unless you think being racist, homophobic, anti-science bigot is a just agree-to-disagree. Everything in the film is currently happening in real life and yet you have the temerity to blame Anderson that he’s taking a side, as if we’re talking about the MJ vs Lebron debate, not civil liberties and human rights vs a dictatorial takeover.
Then you complain about the film not having a hero’s journey. Why would expect a hero’s journey in a film about revolutionaries? It’s about angry, disfranchised people who try (and fail) to break the wheel, and take down the prejudices and inequalities society is build upon. They are disillusioned, messy, volatile, which is what human being turn into when they’re pushed against the proverbial wall. If you wanted a film about a Superhero saving squirls, you should have watched Superman again.
This is either a thinly veiled political takedown or one that falls short by virtue of a grievously narrow comprehension of film. I have a hard time deciding which. It is poorly written to boot. “His most overtly political film of the year” – what does that mean? It’s his first film in four years. And if family, loyalty, and survival are “blah” subjects, then perhaps the author has chosen to write off most of film history.
Of his two chief complaints, the most sinister is that of the film’s purported divisiveness. Anyone who cares to explore the role of art in our society, and countless before it, will quickly learn that art and politics are the strongest of bedfellows, and the best time to use art for the purpose of political commentary is precisely the moment in which it can make the most difference. As elementary as that is, it distresses me that the author has so prematurely declared himself a film critic. These are lesson even my high school children have learned.
Worse still is the insideous notion that film, or any artform, ought to comply with some arbitrary societal standard or placate a particular group of people. In this case, the reviewer seems to implicitly lend credibility to fascist viewpoints by painting anti-fascist principles as a matter of political opinion. If he can’t operate under the assumption that fascism is bad for fear of causing offense, then I’m afraid the bias belongs to him, and it takes an altogether more grave form.
Another grievance seems to rotate around a claim that the film was a “lecture about how bad conservatives are as people.” On the contrary, it is the critic himself who has chosen to equate the horrifying actions on screen with conservatism. Knowing many conservatives as I’m sure we all do, most feel just as strongly that children do not belong in cages, shadowy government agencies that ‘disappear’ people are frightening, and there may be too many morally bankrupt, mentally troubled individuals like Col Lockjaw in positions of power. This film does not portray conservatives – it portrays racist, fascist criminals masquerading as law enforcement and benevolent leaders. The fact that these people happen to be on the political right may not surprise us, but it does not paint conservatives on the whole as bad people.
The author’s second complaint, and one that occupies only one half of one paragraph of his review, concerns character development. Beyond its inadequacy, this speaks to a clear bias, conditioned by objection to the film’s message. Each central character has a clear arc. One is a militant, deeply flawed, uncompromising, who is believed to have turned on her people, but has in fact yielded and then fled for their protection. One is a wild, opportunistic revolutionary, loving, but without discipline who must redeem himself for years of lethargy and complacency. The other is a wide-eyed but strong-willed child who must grow up quickly to save her own life.
Finally, I am stunned by his criticism of the car chase scene, which is a masterclass in the slow burn. In fact, the author’s own description of the scene illustrates precisely why that cinematic device so effective. “The only reason the hilly car chase exists… A very long setup for a split Second plot point.” Well done – you got it!
Dear author, please study film. And if you already have, please go back and do it again.
Wow. How do you have a job? That is the lamest review I have ever read. “Leo is a pot-smoking hippie, and this is the most normal human being I’ve ever seen Benecio Del Toro play.” What are you even talking about? Absolutely pathetic.
I bet you’re great at parties.
In the very first sentence, you say that this is PTA’s most overtly political film of the year. I’m pretty sure it’s his ONLY film of the year. Tell me, why should I keep reading after such poor attention to detail? For the record, movies can speak to politics and be about politics without being inherently political themselves. It’s called “showing, not telling.” It’s called “depiction, not propagation.” I critic should know these things.
pretentious. trying to be different than the general populous I see. just write truth. this is the film of the year.
A legitimate review. Thanks for being real about it.