Una batalla tras otra

Granted it's good, and I like most of PTA's films, but it's not like this is anywhere near as brilliant as something like There Will Be Blood or The Master.

The plot is very simple, and while that's not a bad thing, I found it difficult finding anything substantial to grab onto. The performances are certainly good but again it feels like all the actors with the exception of probably Chase Infiniti and maybe Sean Penn aren't given a whole lot to do.

In my opinion this was far less interestingly photographed than something like Phantom Thread, and with less compelling characters than something like The Master, and lacked the spectacle and gravitas of something like There Will Be Blood.

Still better than most films releasing these days, but if you're looking at all the rave reviews like I was and expecting a masterpiece, from my perspective I'd be lowering my expectations.

It gets a 7/10 for being well performed and pretty well written, but I can't go beyond that because it lacked the depth I'd normally be seeking from filmmakers of PTA's caliber.

The film kept my attention and I genuinely enjoyed watching it, but I walked away feeling like something was missing. I'm still not sure why critics are so ecstatic about it - it's a solid piece of work, just not exceptional in the way the reviews suggest. I don't regret the time spent, yet I don't feel any desire to rewatch it either.

Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another is a film that wants to be epic but ends up didactic. There's no denying its technical accomplishments: the cinematography is vivid, almost painterly at times, and Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn deliver performances that are magnetic, commanding your attention even when the story falters.

And falter it does. The film's ambition - to comment on political extremism - is undercut by its simplistic moral universe. One side of the conflict is portrayed as entirely evil, with no redeeming qualities or relatability. Every action they take is chaotic, violent, or manipulative, leaving the audience with no one to sympathize with on that side. This lack of nuance turns the movie from a story into a political lecture, making it feel less like cinema and more like ideological instruction.

In a moment when America feels more divided than ever, the timing of such a film is jarring. Its portrayal of chaos and extremism is so stark that it risks being taken too seriously by audiences at either extreme, rather than prompting reflection. More troublingly, it underscores how out of touch Hollywood can be with most Americans, presenting a world of ideological extremes that few viewers would recognize in real life.

Still, the film isn't without merit. Anderson's eye for detail, his visual inventiveness, and the sheer force of DiCaprio and Penn's performances make it watchable even when it preaches. But for a director capable of deep, character-driven storytelling, this attempt at political commentary feels like a missed opportunity.

Went to see the movie because of the cast, but the promise, the delivery, and the highly confusing message was disappointing. No coherence anything at all, ended up walking out before the end.

-The movie seems to glorify revolution but "not really" and for no apparent reasons.

Would not recommend.

Based on some of Thomas Pynchon's novel "Vineland", P. T. Anderson's movie is amazing in its uncensored satirizing of the right-wing takeover of America. The great acting, especially by Sean Penn in a dynamic role as the heavy (somehow sympathetic without pulling any punches) plus realistic filmmaking is a bold approach to material that is speculative fiction in a dystopian mode.

Of the many highlights, I especially liked the style of an extended sort of chase scene among three cars on a rolling elevation highway -pure cinematic suspense with thrilling photography and editing. The heavy quotient of dark humor throughout is brilliant.