Rating: 2.5/5
Synopsis:
Paul Thomas Anderson tries his hand at mixing blockbuster thrills with his signature indie style. We follow a revolutionary couple, who spent their younger years fighting to free migrants from ICE facilities at the U.S./Mexico border. They use any means necessary to free them, often including violence and coordinated attacks. But they give up this life once a child comes into the picture. Many years later, the mother has abandoned the family and the father has fallen into a drunken and drug riddled state. An old enemy returns years later, looking to ruin this family for a hidden secret that occurred many years ago. Can this father keep his daughter safe while being thrown back into political turmoil?
Positives:
I may come under fire for this review but I have to be honest with my readers. This film wasn’t formatted to my taste. That being said, it has some undeniably impressive attributes. Paul Thomas Anderson is an auteur filmmaker who has a style all his own. His unique imprint leaves an impression with the viewer that always gives them a memorable experience. “One Battle After Another” is no exception, dripping with a frenetic energy that only Anderson can concoct. His use of troubled characters in a world full of bombastic energy makes for a film that uses its runtime well. At two hours and forty one minutes, the film moves at a brisk pace that rarely allows the audience to lose focus. Each scene has a unique situation that carries its characters forward into the next absurd situation. Anderson’s screenplay keeps us on our toes, whether it be DiCaprio’s character forgetting a secret password due to the prolonged usage of marijuana or a high stakes car chase in the final act.
This is true for our characters as well, each getting a unique place in the story to add a different layer to the chaos happening around them. Sean Penn, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Chase Infiniti are likely to be the ones who get the most buzz come awards season. Benicio Del Toro also adds a subdued but intriguing performance. Not only does Anderson bring us a unique set of characters, but his use of score also adds to the high octane energy of the film. Fans of his will enjoy this stylistic choice but others may find it offputting. The camera work is also impressive, utilizing quick cuts and interesting angles to immerse the viewer into each scene. This is especially true during the third act car chase on long, windy desert roads. Anderson uses techniques that are unique even for him. The sound mixing is also impressive during the action sequences. On a technical level, “One Battle After Another” continues the innovative streak of director Paul Thomas Anderson.
Negatives:
While the film has some undeniably impressive attributes, the experience as a whole left me feeling very mixed. His work is certainly not going to be for everyone. Those who will enjoy the film know exactly what kind of filmgoer they are. Others? I feel that this may be a waste of their time. Paul Thomas Anderson’s work has been an up and down experience for me, sometimes creating films that leave lasting impressions while others feel like pretentious vanity projects. Unfortunately, “One Battle After Another” falls into the latter, leaning into stylistic creative choices rather than making a film that is actually enjoyable. I struggled to find a single character to find sympathy for or connect with on a deeper level. Each feels like a caricature, being underdeveloped to a point of pondering their inclusion at all, or simply being so over the top that they are nauseating to watch. Whether it be the terrorists associated with the French 75 or the perverted, hypocritical Colonel Lockjaw, I found it hard to connect with any of these people. The film is filled with complex individuals that fail to resonate outside of the sticky situation they’re in. Sure, one could argue that the grey area within each character provides nuance, but being that the French 75 uses violence and domestic terrorism to achieve their goals, I couldn’t root for them. The characters are over the top and get little development outside of their extreme behavior.
Anderson also has a background score that is present for most of the film (as he does in many of his other stories). I find this to be completely distracting, especially during character driven moments. I understand that this adds to the frenetic energy that the film is supposed to elicit but it is a choice that simply doesn’t work for me. His direction of the story also feels aimless, often staying within one scene for far too long while letting the chaos run the show. The plot largely operates within the confines of a situation rather than being character centric. We don’t get enough nuance as to why some characters feel drawn to the revolution while those like Lockjaw are inspired to stop these domestic terrorists. I feel as though the film is trying to be more accessible while maintaining the niche style Anderson is known for. This isn’t interesting enough on a thematic level compared to his other films. The story is trying to highlight a character driven experience in the midst of political unrest and extremism. I simply don’t think it achieves that, meandering between a bombastic story and sitting on one side of the fence amongst two problematic ideologies. Regular viewers may not connect to the subject matter as much as cinephiles, especially with the unrest happening in the U.S. these days. With the hot streak Warner Bros. is on, taking a financial risk on a film of this nature is admirable. I just don’t think box office returns combined with niche subject matter is a winning formula for them.
Conclusion:
“One Battle After Another” is an ambitious, risky film that has loads of creative merit. It gives us a handful of unique characters that are placed in a crazy environment. Despite some crafty editing and gorgeous cinematography, the film has problems on a narrative level. It makes strange creative choices just to be strange, especially with character decisions and their behavior. Every single person in the film is so extreme and morally muddied that it’s hard to get behind any of them. The chaotic energy and questionable narrative create problems as well. The sympathetic tone to domestic terrorists is troubling, especially in our divisive political climate. I just don’t believe there is any sort of justifiable reason to romanticize the “protagonists” in this film, especially when the villains are equally reprehensible. This is a film for a certain kind of audience member…likely those looking for high art, avant guard style filmmaking. It reeks of desperation to be recognized during awards season. Regular viewers are likely to feel out of place here. I’d recommend skipping this one unless the ideology of the film or creative prowess is of intrigue. Otherwise, no need to sit through this one. Truly, it’s a shame having to say that.
