The film looks amazing. Cinematography is top notch.

There were some great moments. Leo killed it, his scenes on the phone and with Benicio are amazing (film could have used more Benicio).

What I liked less: Sean Penn chewing the scenery at times. And the plot line about why he's doing what he's doing is well....stupid. No nuance, just really over the top characters.

'One Battle After Another' Begins With $2.5M Previews, On Par With 'Killers Of The Flower Moon' - Box Office https://t.co/hHjL9vivGI

— Deadline (@DEADLINE) September 26, 2025

It was awesome.

88% audience score on RT. Pretty solid for an artsy type movie.

This one is quite a bit less artsy than many of his. It's artistically produced, but it's the type of movie anyone can watch and find cool (even if they find the moral of it strange)

The best PTA movie since The Master in 2012.

Maybe the best movie of the year (time will tell with three months to go).

But in no way is this the best movie of the decade and especially not the century, as a number of critics are claiming. People need to slow their role in that regard.

Yes, it's incredible at times. No, I've never seen anything like it before. And yes, the final act/chase is worth the price of admission alone. That, and Penn may very well win Best Supporting Actor (as of now, he deserves it), DiCaprio will likely at least be nominated for Best Actor, PTA could very well win for Best Director, and the movie itself is the current front-runner for Best Picture.

But IMO, it's "merely" a good-to-great movie, not an all-timer, and I would argue not something most audiences aren't going to be super into. Not because of its (perceived) politics, but more because it's just too random and out there. Though, again, the second half is certainly more mainstream than the first, and the final act is a crowd-pleaser for sure. In fact, our audience applauded pretty loudly at the end.

But as much as I enjoyed myself, and as much as I appreciated the effort/originality, I doubt I ever watch it again.

I'll give Gore credit for seemingly liking much of the movie. That said, to his larger point - that the movie "glorifies violence against the government and authorities," along with the other guy's terrible read: "This revolutionary group - the French 75 - they use bombs and all that and I'm supposed to like to them?!"

… no, it doesn't, and no, you're not.

Because both of these moronic takes completely ignore the fact that every single violent revolutionary in the movie suffers the consequences of their actions save for DiCaprio's character. Every. Single. One. DiCaprio's character is the ONE member who got out and chose "family" instead and he's the ONE member who actually finds happiness in the end. Coincidence? No. It's the entire point of the movie.

Otherwise, BOTH sides are depicted as too extreme, psychos, dolts, etc, and the movie clearly highlights the errors/lows of each.

Again, this is like claiming The Wolf of Wall Street "glorifies debauchery and fraud" and then going, "This brokerage firm - Stratton Oakmont - they do mountains of cocaine and cheat people out of their hard-earned money and I'm supposed to like them?!"

Yeah, except for all the consequences they suffer in the second half of the movie, and where Scorsese ultimately/obviously comes down on the side of debauchery/fraud = bad.

Now, granted, the last scene of this movie obviously depicts protesting/standing-up-to-the man as a noble cause, but the takeaway is that the next generation, represented by Willa, has learned from the errors of the generation prior and will clearly be more responsible in their/her efforts going forward. Perfidia and Bob and their generation didn't fail because they got caught, they failed because they went about their plight in the wrong way. In fact, Willa is the one character in the movie who doesn't act purely out of selfishness while wearing a cause as a mask.

To all of these points, Gore and Ng and everyone like them are either idiots or they're acting in bad faith, and I can't tell which is more depressing. Never mind that Ng says there's "zero character development" in the movie, which is just flat out, laughably wrong, and only proves how imperceptible/stubborn/stupid he is.

PTA deciding to film that one road the way he did pic.twitter.com/cR2iTphorc

— Jared Gilman (@realJaredGilman) September 26, 2025

okay i get why they gave the road a poster now https://t.co/LGj5h0r5cx

— Luke (@qLxke_) September 26, 2025

Ag Since 83 said:

---

The letter from the mom saying they failed to change the world should pretty much tell everyone the takeaway isn't that violence is good.

---

Is this a joke? like the Native American bounty hunter who flips and shoots up the outpost so Willa can escape? The entire film glorifies left-wing violence and makes it look badass

Yes, the glorification of violence, via the character who said 'yeah, let's not kill the kid. That's too far'

He posted his review, dip***** He then began firing off replies trying to pick a political argument. You could glean everything you needed from his review.

Lathspell said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

He posted his review, dip***** He then began firing off replies trying to pick a political argument. You could glean everything you needed from his review.

---

We live in a world where half of it thinks a man with views like Charlie Kirk is a racist, fascist, and deserves to die. And you expect that you and I see Quo Vadis?'s post in the same way? Do you think you and I will view a movie like this the same? There is literally no agreement to be had here. You can screw off and I will consider the opinions of others who have actually demonstrated the ability to separate from left-think.

---

Looks like you didn't read my review moron. I addressed the political angle directly. But carry on with your crusade. Thank God for people like Quo Vadis. Without him fighting the good fight, you might have had to view something and think for yourself about it.

Oh wait you weren't ever going to see it. Your mind is made up.

I saw it because the director is good and the cast is good, and it's everything they're claiming it is. You can watch visually impressive propaganda and still realize it's propaganda. Hell, Triumph of the Will is pretty badass if you don't care about what they're hyping.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

So initial disclaimer- I align on the far right side of the political spectrum.

I just finished watching this movie in Abu Dhabi, and it was entertaining. The acting is superb, the camera work is great, and as mentioned the highway scene is insane towards the end.

With that being said, anyone who says this film isn't political or isn't left-wing propaganda shouldn't be taken seriously.

Yes the film satirizes both sides, however there is a definite "good guy" and "bad guy" in the film; and they're who you'd expect them to be.

The good guys are communist revolutionary people of color and Jews, and the bad guys are white bearded Christian nationalists.

The exaggerations on the left side are light-hearted caricatures of blackspoitation films, potheads, the overly woke, and incompetent bumblers.

The exaggerations the right are evil racist misogynist homophobes, who keep people in cages, and want to rid the world of the mixed race. They also name their medals after Nathan Bedford Forrest, drive F-250's and American muscle cars, and "hail Santa"

Again, the nation can't put itself on hold because of the Charlie Kirk murder, but even notwithstanding his assassination; this will likely encourage mentally unstable people on the left towards revolutionary violence; likely entirely against white conservatives but that can't be helped. We can't run the country based off the mental instability of certain parts of the population.

---

Once again, because it apparently bears repeating...

Depiction.

Is.

Not.

Endorsement.

Rather, THEME is endorsement.

And this movie's theme/synthesis argument/"message" is, unequivocally...

"Family is more important than corrosive, violent extremism."

Corrosive, violent extremism on BOTH sides.

There is absolutely no other way to read what this movie is trying to say in the end.

Dicaprio's character chooses family over his brand of corrosive, violent extremism.

Penn's character chooses his brand of corrosive, violent extremism over family.

This distinction is made clear as day/could not be any more obvious.

And THAT'S what makes DiCaprio's character the "good guy," not the crap you're highlighting.

Even if he wasn't wrong, no one is concerned about the critical take of the TCs of the left. The Antifa and co folks who are gonna love this movie and be inspired by it are mouthbreathing degenerates with weed-fried brains. They aren't going to pick up on TC's nice little nuanced messages.

I've shown the math in no uncertain terms, across multiple posts now.

Yours is nothing more than admittedly biased, opinionated complaining that ignores blatant thematic points the movie is clearly/obviously making in the end.

You're going to have to do better than "you're wrong."

Show your work.

Show me where my argument falls flat.

Deconstruct it.

You might be able to find added nuance that kind of sort lends to your point, but you're not going to be able to discredit what I just said.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Even if he wasn't wrong, no one is concerned about the critical take of the TCs of the left. The Antifa and co folks who are gonna love this movie and be inspired by it are mouthbreathing degenerates with weed-fried brains. They aren't going to pick up on TC's nice little nuanced messages.

---

A movie that only makes $20M on its opening weekend isn't going to "inspire" anyone to do anything that they weren't already inspired to do.

And if this movie does somehow inspire anyone to commit violent acts of extremism in the name of revolution - thus missing the entire point of the movie's messaging - they're complete and utter idiots and should be thrown in jail.

Good Lord.

TCTTS said:

---

I've shown the math in no uncertain terms, across multiple posts now.

Yours is nothing more than admittedly biased, opinionated complaining that ignores blatant thematic points the movie is clearly/obviously making in the end.

You're going to have to do better than "you're wrong."

Show your work.

Show me where my argument falls flat.

Deconstruct it.

You might be able to find added nuance that kind of sort lends to your point, but you're not going to be able to discredit what I just said.

---

I just saw the movie, Leo was the good guy from the beginning; that much was obvious; even before the metanoia you're claiming.

They were the good guys because they were fighting the bad guys, do you need me to tell you that the guys invading high school dances and keeping people in cages as portrayed in the movie were the bad guys?

wangus12 said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

He posted his review, dip***** He then began firing off replies trying to pick a political argument. You could glean everything you needed from his review.

---

We live in a world where half of it thinks a man with views like Charlie Kirk is a racist, fascist, and deserves to die. And you expect that you and I see Quo Vadis?'s post in the same way? Do you think you and I will view a movie like this the same? There is literally no agreement to be had here. You can screw off and I will consider the opinions of others who have actually demonstrated the ability to separate from left-think.

---

I have mostly conservative views and this is what the media is telling you. As usual, the politicians and media paint both sides as depraved nut jobs that want the other group of the country to all die. The fact is that there is always a tiny fraction that are insane while the vast majority of Americans simply want to live their lives, support their loved families and couldn''t give 2 ****s about which corrupt set of politicians you support.

---