प्रेत धागा

Tweet me @MarkoutTV if you have a comment about this review that you want me to see.

Most of the interest in this movie will stem from the reunion of Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Thomas Anderson, star and director of There Will Be Blood, respectively. Moreover this allegedly will be the final performance of Daniel Day-Lewis' brilliant career. I say allegedly because similar rumors surrounded Lincoln, but given his famous selectivity regarding films, I am inclined to believe him and if this is truly his final performance, bravo on an unimpeachable career, sir (he won't read this).

This is a splendid film and one of the most captivating experiences I have had at a movie theater in quite some time. From scene one to the final, not a single person left the theater, not a single person talked or cracked a joke, and nobody took out their phone. An entire theater of people, singularly invested in what was on the screen. That is rare nowadays... even more rare when it comes to movies about dresses.

The credit for this phenomenon is all round. Let's start with the performers.

Although there are great supporting characters to be found here, particularly from Leslie Manville's performance as Reynold's stoic but well-mannered assistant, Cyril, this is a story about the relationship between two people: Reynolds Woodcock and Alma. Reynolds Woodcock is one of the mid-twentieth century's greatest dress-makers, his greatness brought about by his fiercely stringent routine and slavish devotion to his craft over any personal relationships. After a particularly stressful day he makes a solo sojourn to a diner where he meets Alma. There, they immediately take an interest in each other. Alma is a polite and self-conscious woman who immediately allows herself to become vulnerable in the confident-if-demanding arms of Reynolds.

I hesitate to call this film a "romance" or a "love story." I rather refer to the relationship between Reynolds and Alma as a great game: a game to see which one of them will get the other to make the necessary changes in order for their relationship to either become stronger, or fall apart. Reynolds is detached, possibly out of fear of falling in love or ruining his routine, possibly not. Alma's newfound sense of self-worth drives her to break down the rigid shell of Reynolds in order for him to prioritize her more. Again this may be because she is in love with him, or maybe she has never gotten close enough to another man to know how a relationship works, or maybe she secretly has the same need for power and control that Reynolds does, and not having it is maddening to her. All things are possibilities and there are infinite more.

I am using words like "possibly" a lot when describing the feelings and motivations of the characters here, and it's because this movie doesn't give you answers, and that's what makes it challenging, and therefore worth seeing. You will see these characters develop, you will see them argue, you will see them get along, you will see them exhibit coldness to one another, you will see them exhibit love and you will see them make some incredible decisions on their mutual-yet-connected journeys. However at no point will you be spoon-fed. Instead you will have to ask yourself: "what the hell are they thinking?" and be fine when you have to figure it out yourself. This film doesn't even answer the question of whether either of these people actually love one another. The most it does is show that to some extent, they learn to understand one another.

Daniel Day-Lewis is at his typical level of brilliance here. He perfectly plays the role of an obsessive personality, who is so averse to letting someone interfere with his work, yet who more and more, through both natural and artificial means, also doesn't want to lose the new woman in his life. It was a challenging role, with the need for confidence, intensity, comedic timing, physical and mental weakness at times, nonverbal communication and everything in between. If this ultimately becomes the framework for the definitive Daniel Day-Lewis performance, it will be earned.

However, I need to give a special shout-out to someone who was previously unknown to me, Vicky Krieps as Alma. She was given a difficult role to perform: she needed to have moments of vulnerability, confidence, sadness and glee. She needed to have both moments of submissiveness and vindictiveness and she had to make every second of her growth believable while acting alongside one of the most esteemed actors of all time. And she nailed it.

Only elevating the performances, Paul Thomas Anderson's direction is superb here. The film is lengthy, but not a single frame of 70mm film is wasted (and that's a good thing because that stuff is freaking expensive. Seriously those projectors are like tens of thousands of dollars each. The Alamo is one of the few theaters that has one and my ticket would've been like 23 bucks if it wasn't my birthday. Oh yeah, the movie).

Every moment of the film serves to advance the story. It's a slow burn, but you are always moving forward, and that is the important thing. The pace is consistently moving and therefore even though there are no time jumps or action scenes, it never gets boring. There is some damn stylish camera work here to boot, but it doesn't come off as pretentious. Pretentious is when M. Night Shyamalan says "Hey look what I can do" by trying to do a single-shot fight scene in The Last Airbender. When Paul Thomas Anderson does a single shot of Reynolds leaving his comfort zone while trying to find Alma (a woman who he still doesn't know how he truly feels about) at a crowded ball, you feel every level of his conflict. Everything from the beautiful imagery, to the spectacular camera work, to the authentic period representation, to the deliberate pacing and certainly to the career defining-performance of one lead, and the career-making performance of another, combine to make a delightful theater-going experience.

Oh and the ending is brilliant.

See it in 70mm if there is a theater near you with the capability.

My Rating : 8/10

This is a delicately executed drama intimately woven around the characters of Daniel Day-Lewis as Reynolds Woodcock and Vicky Krieps as Alma.

Right from the opening shots I was engaged and the brilliant performances, beautiful background music coupled with breathtaking cinematography make this a worthwhile watch if you are in the mood for something slow, something a bit art-y. However if you are not in the mood for something like this it can become a chore to watch so I ask the viewer to understand that it is a very beautiful film and in the right frame of mind you will be absorbed into the world of this renowned mid-twentieth century dressmaker who can be a bit fussy.

Daniel Day-Lewis is at his typical level of brilliance here. He perfectly plays the role of an obsessive personality, who is so averse to letting someone interfere with his work, yet who more and more, through both natural and artificial means, also doesn't want to lose the new woman in his life.

Stylish camera work, wonderfully-paced drama. Solid 8/10.

Let us get this out of the way- Phantom Thread is a beautiful film with a great premise and promise. A couture dress designer (Daniel Day Lewis) is demanding in the extreme and finds a muse (Vicky Krieps). He enjoys using her as a dress model and a companion, but she wants more. Along the way, the director, Paul Thomas Anderson, throws hints of intrigue starting with the title of the film. There are empty pretensions of dress-making as high art, secret messages sown into dresses and haunting memories. All of this leads to- exactly nowhere. Everything Lewis and Krieps do is recorded lovingly and meticulously on film with great mood music in the background. But there is no great reveal, no deep insight into human psyche, no higher truth. In the end it comes down to what a woman wants and what the man can live with. Lewis and Krieps are excellent, especially Krieps, but Lesley Manville as Lewis's sister has the thankless job of looking stern in every scene. Nothing in the film sticks with you when you leave the theater except the dresses, photography and the music; because Anderson has not come up with anything really interesting in the story. Unlike his "There Will Blood", which was a great film, Phantom Thread is a phantom film. It is a beautiful ghost of what should have been a really good film. See it if you wish to say goodbye to Daniel Day Lewis, but keep your expectations low.

This is obviously a carefully crafted film: from the scenes, the acting, the words, the clothes, the facial and body movements, the music, it is all careful and artistic. That being said, it is terribly descriptive: an obsessive dress maker finds his muse in a strange woman who wants him to be hers alone. There is nothing else, just their play back and forth, and then the film ends. If you are here for the quality of film making, then you will probably like the film. If you want some insight into human psyche, this is a good film to learn from, with actors as dedicated as Lewis, Manville and Krieps. If you are looking for an interesting story that fills you with emotion and teaches you new things, you may be disappointed.

It doesn't help that neither of the characters in this film is even remotely relatable. Lewis' character is the typical obsessive genius that is careless of others and focuses on his work above all else. Yet he is not that much of a genius, just a failed human being with some temporary success and weird fetishes. Manville's character is a stern woman who's only purpose in life seems to care for Lewis to the point of losing herself, to keep things in balance when his histrionics threaten "the house". Krieps' character is plain creepy. If you want something to make you fear women, this is a great start. She is concomitantly lovely and well intentioned and borderline psychotic.

Bottom line: a very technical and artistic study on a rather boring subject and some unrelatable people.

The alleged acting swan-song of Daniel Day-Lewis ("Lincoln") sees him deliver a brilliantly intense portrayal of a maestro in his craft with all the quirks and egotistical faults that come with that position.

Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950's fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, "Maleficent").

Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, "The Colony"). But he gets more than he bargains for.

This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and - aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words - limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.

What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville's award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I've seen this year so far.

It's a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for "Darkest Hour", Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because "he always gets one". He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.

Kreips - not an actress I know - also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn't such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.

Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood. It's really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with "The Shape of Water").

All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson ("Inherent Vice", "There Will Be Blood"). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the "fashion industry" (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of 'duty' based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.

The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say "There is strong language ('f**k'), as well as milder terms including 'bloody' and 'hell'. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman's nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress." For a 12A, the board say "The use of strong language (for example, 'f***') must be infrequent". I didn't count the f-words... but as I said I don't think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that "frequent"? And - SHOCK, HORROR... visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within "Black Panther", you have to question this disparity.