The act of relentlessly trying to paint this movie as pro-violent-extremism, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, is absolutely malicious. Y'all ***** and moan about the "dangerous" rhetoric the left uses, but this entire thread has been nothing but you falsely using "dangerous" rhetoric to paint the filmmakers, Hollywood, etc as not only endorsing/romanticizing violent extremism, but inciting the "impressionable," radical left to participate in violent extremism. The hypocrisy is off the charts in that regard.

You're ASCRIBING propaganda to something where there is no propaganda. THAT'S the issue. You want them to dial back something that isn't there. What's malicious is your relentless insistence that it exists, and thus that the filmmakers endorse it. It's a pretty clear, easy-to-understand distinction.

Head Ninja In Charge said:

---

FancyKetchup14 said:

---

Seeing this in 70mm tonight

---

Seeing a post in this thread where someone talks about the actual movie or moviegoing experience is like stumbling upon an oasis in the most ass-chapping desert on the sun's surface.

---

Agree!!

I'm seeing it today too

I love PTA

Magnolia punch drunk love there will be blood

All amazing films

I'll respond with my analysis tonight

TCTTS said:

---

One Battle After Another might be the best movie released by a major American studio since I started working as a critic (~2010). distressing how little else comes to mind!

— david ehrlich (@davidehrlich) September 9, 2025

---

This review and the history of PTA films is why I will watch this movie

Saw this write up, but at a conference and haven't read it all.

https://www.theringer.com/2025/09/29/movies/one-battle-after-another-movie-themes-explained-analysis

Really good movie. I thought Bob was absolutely hilarious and utterly helpless. PTA wrote that character wonderfully and I hope Leo is nominated for something. He was great.

Will be using "a few small beers" in the future.

Quote:

---

First
All I can say is I've read these boards for years and rarely post because I fear your reaction if you disagree. If you go read your responses in the past you tend to attack the person and not the message. I've seen enough instances of your use of extreme adjectives that led itself to being abusive language towards someone you don't agree with

like calling responding peoples' thoughts insane for example or you attack them in some way for a opposite belief this is meant to be a constructive criticism to your industry but you tend to respond aggressively so please read it that way and read this response this way too if I might ask

---

Except you're leaving out one key factor in all if this, which is that these people - the ones I disagree with, whom I "attack," use "extreme adjectives" and "abusive language" toward, etc - aren't just random people whom I go around bullying for sport. Rather, these people, 95% of the time, are the same 10-20 posters who live to HATE Hollywood/liberals on this board. Not just people for whom left-leaning media is starting to "take a toll," but rather people who express a seething, mocking hatred for Hollywood, and often for half of the country as well, in the exact same ways you claim Hollywood does for the right.

Otherwise, I'm sorry, but I simply don't do the things you listed with the people here who aren't aggressively/incessantly political, and I'm very conscious of that. Will Spilner and I get into it over the Star Wars prequels or whatever? Sure. Will I passionately argue for a movie I may have either liked more (or less) than others? Absolutely. But stuff like that is mostly all in good fun. Rather, most of the time I go out of my way to acknowledge and breed positivity here, whether it's responding supportively to great discussion/theories, or hyping as much content as I possibly can (in genuine fashion). If you can't see the positively I try to bring in those regards, which far outweighs my vitriol, I don't know what to tell you.

The truth is, there is a distinct F16 bleed-over on this board who HATES me, HATES my colleagues, and HATES my profession, who uses thread after thread here to constantly remind me of their hatred. And if it's not hatred, it's predominantly endless complaining about "woke" when, more often than not the amount of complaining far outweighs whatever "woke" transgression has occurred. Further, it finally dawned on me that for as much as these people incessantly complain, and ruin thread after thread with their complaints… deep down they enjoy it. They enjoy the venting, the rage, and the superiority complex it gives them, which only fuels the fire and makes this place more and more miserable/depressing at times. Which, in return, on fuels me to respond.

I mean, the very fact that you're not even acknowledging that very real phenomenon on this board, and not also lecturing the people in this thread opposite me for holding to their views just as stubbornly as I'm holding to mine, kind of proves my point. Have they been quite as vocal as me in this thread? No. But they're being just as one-sided, and in the past, in other threads, have been just as mocking, just as "abusive," and "attack" me all the damn time.

All of that to say, I've been working in this industry for over 22 years. I've put in my 10,000 hours and so much more. I know what I'm talking about, and I'm sorry, but I don't have to be humble about that simply because you want me to be.

Yes, art is subjective. But the science of screenwriting, story structure, theme, etc isn't nearly as subjective as many would like to think. It's a highly technical endeavor, with all kinds of "rules" and nuance and once you learn to "see the Matrix" in that regard, after reading dozens of screenwriting books, thousands of screenplays, giving endless amounts of notes in professional development settings, and of course seeing hundreds more movies on top of all of that, you become an expert on the subject. To that end, this is my profession and I'm very good at it.

Also, I literally work with the people who make a number of the movies/shows we discuss on this board. I'm around them constantly, on Zooms with them, on emails with them, etc. In other words, I know how these people think, how they work, and often what they're trying to say/accomplish through their work. I'm not just some angry slapdick on the internet. For instance, last week, literally the day One Battle After Another hit theaters, I was on a Zoom with the person who runs DiCaprio's production company, trying to crack a new direction for a character in a pilot we're all making together. And for what it's worth, the show we're working on takes place in Texas, doesn't paint Texans/the right as backwards or wrong in any way, features a scene in a positive light in which a Christian prays, etc, and this is something that DiCaprio's name is on. So this idea that everyone out here - especially the guy starring in the movie this thread is discussing - hates you and your politics and your religion is, as always, an exaggeration. Does Hollywood lean left? Absolutely. But this idea that all Hollywood does is **** all over half the country simply isn't true.

This is all to say that it can be maddening at times when these ultra-conservative, politically-obsessed types, thousands of miles away, insist, in the most bad faith ways possible, that they know better or that they know what the intent of any given filmmaker is and I don't. Can you not see how that's frustrating? And how, when their attacks on me are laced with just as much vitriol and mocking, I'm the only one who gets called out, for simply responding to them?

As to everything else you said, I'm sorry, but I just don't have the energy to go over all of that stuff again for the thousandth time. You used multiple sweeping generalizations, put words in my mouth, ignored much of what I've said in this thread (again, I just can't with the lack of nuance anymore), and are clearly on the right yourself, in a way that's of course going to bias you to many of the arguments I make and the ways in which I conduct myself toward the more aggressive right-wingers on this board.

As always, you can choose with your wallet not to endorse Hollywood's messaging - or - in this day and age, you can easily go make the content yourself that you so desire. YouTube has FAR more reach than Hollywood does now anyway. Hollywood isn't the gatekeeper it once was, nor does it hold the level of influence you're claiming. Twenty years ago? Sure. But not anymore.

All of that said, if it's any consolation, the things I, personally, am trying to make don't lean liberal in the ways you describe and, as I said above, I'm making an effort to paint the right/Texans in a positive light (we're working on multiple Texas-set stories). I'm trying to do things different in that regard, but whether I succeed is another matter. That said… the right isn't always right, and Christians aren't always good. So when I feel like either need to be called out, whether in a movie we discuss on this board, in my work, or on this board, I'm not going to refrain from doing so.

FancyKetchup14 said:

---

Really good movie. I thought Bob was absolutely hilarious and utterly helpless. PTA wrote that character wonderfully and I hope Leo is nominated for something. He was great.

Will be using "a few small beers" in the future.

---

The more I've thought about it, the more I love the "utterly helpless" aspect. In the end, all Bob needed to be was a dad who showed up and a shoulder to cry on. He was there for her, and that's all that was required. Otherwise, she proved that she was able to save herself (granted, with the skills Bob gave her, which was a nice touch as well).

cena05 said:

---

Saw this write up, but at a conference and haven't read it all.

https://www.theringer.com/2025/09/29/movies/one-battle-after-another-movie-themes-explained-analysis

---

Quote:

---

Therein lies the sneaky resonance of the movie: It is, on a rather fundamental level, about settling down. DiCaprio's Bob, when we meet him again, has aged out of the revolution. He's a burned-out fugitive lying low - his ideals softened by a second life lived off the grid - and a paranoid grouch, distrustful of his daughter's generation. Like a lot of men, he's grown a little more conservative with time. And, in a way, so has the movie.

---

Quote:

---

You could say that the very structure of One Battle After Another mirrors Bob's journey. What they have in common is a shift in priorities. Fatherhood can do that, can't it? Bob's commitment to the movement falters after his daughter is born because she becomes his primary responsibility, the thing that matters to him most. The world around him contracts in turn, and the movie follows suit: Where Battle initially plunged us into a larger revolutionary clash (complete with supporting characters dispatched as quickly as they're introduced), it narrows its focus to a battle with personal stakes.

Maybe that arc resonates with Anderson. After all, he has also settled down over the years - personally, as a father of four, but also as a filmmaker. There was a coke-binge energy to his early milestones - the Scorsesean highs and lows of Boogie Nights, the endless dollying and distracted ensemble shuffling of Magnolia. His work has become more refined, less caffeinated, confidently itself. Like Bob, Anderson is no longer a young man, brimming with adrenaline, eager to prove himself. His priorities have shifted. One Battle After Another plays, perhaps most rewardingly, as the work of an artist taking stock of how our sense of what's important shifts over the years - but also how the passion of youth still simmers within, ready to be reignited, redirected, or passed like a torch to a new generation.

In the end, Anderson privileges the personal over the political. Or maybe he just finds the latter in the former; the two are not mutually exclusive. Either way, it's the way he foregrounds his characters - their loyalties, their passions, their grudges - that could really endear Battle to the large audience some believe he's courting with this nervy mishmash of ideas. What looks initially like a state-of-the-nation address becomes something more broadly, dramatically satisfying, and maybe more cathartic.

---

cena05 said:

---

Did you leave out this quote or am I reading it wrong?

"Anderson remains steadfast in his blunt messagenamely, that we have to face these authoritarian *******s with all the fight that we have. "

---

I simply disagreed with that part.

Yes, it's clear that PTA still believes "we have to face these authoritarian *******s," but the context of the movie negates the "with all the fight we have" caveat, i.e. it's made clear that violence is not the answer. What Willa leaves to do at the end of the movie isn't violent, it's merely protest. She's still going to "fight," but she's learned from the sins of her parents and is going to "fight" the "right" way.

Now, I realize a number of you still probably believe that mere protesting in this scenario is "woke" or whatever, and that's fine. I'm not saying this movie isn't left-leaning and I've made that distinction clear from the jump. I'm simply saying that it's very clearly anti-extremism/violence on both sides, especially in light of its pro-family message.

Other than that half-sentence, though, I think the review is spot-on.

Quote:

---

And everything boils down to a few simple things. Firstly, how easily are you propagandized?
Second, was this your type of propaganda?
Or lastly, are you confident enough to admit that this is propaganda when all of the institutional hack critics look you directly in your eyes and tell you that this is one of the greatest films ever made.

---

Quote:

---

This is more of the same far-left pandering we've been getting from Hollywood for years. There's just one caveat here. It's wrapped in competent film making that's undercut with a very busy story and an odd comedy element that works together to disarm the viewer. This all allows those who enjoy this to excuse their propaganda and gaslight you, the viewer, into thinking it's some sort of balanced, intelligent commentary.

---

when a YouTube chode echoes your (very dumb) interpretation

‘One Battle After Another’ star Chase Infiniti was named after two pop culture inspirations

• Nicole Kidman’s Chase Meridian in 'Batman Forever'

• Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase, “To infinity … and beyond!”

(via @THR) pic.twitter.com/iSjfNYWjDG

— Culture Crave 🍿 (@CultureCrave) September 29, 2025

With a few searing seconds from a movie trailer, a star was born. Chase Infiniti — the complete unknown at the heart of P.T. Anderson's #OneBattleAfterAnother is not wasting her moment.

Full cover here: ⁠https://t.co/Iklu22JWlb pic.twitter.com/KV5JP6GKs2

— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) September 26, 2025

Quote:

---

She was born Chase Infiniti Payne, after Nicole Kidman's Batman Forever character Chase Meridian and Buzz Lightyear's Toy Story catchphrase ("To infinity … and beyond!"). Her parents raised her - and a younger sister, Dolce Imani - in Indianapolis, where they own a construction company. They never had any intention of putting her through the Hollywood paces, but they did hope the name would push her toward general greatness. As a child, Infiniti showed an interest in and an aptitude for performing. "I always loved going to see musicals, my sister and I would constantly put on little shows, and I went through a phase where I watched Hairspray every day after school for six months straight," she says. Noticing this, her mother encouraged her to audition for a local musical theater revue when she was 10. "I went into it being like, 'Fine, sure, whatever,' and then afterwards I was like: 'I want to do this for the rest of my life.'"

At the time, she thought that meant a career as a workaday actor of some kind; she had no sense of the possibility of a career onscreen, but she felt in her bones that she was a performer. She booked her first role in a local production of Hairspray (fated!) and promptly adopted her stage name. "I dropped my last name when I was 10," she says. "My parents were like, 'We gave you a star name, so now you've got to use the star name.' You can look back to any Playbill. I was Chase Infiniti."

---

So agreeing with 99% of something isn't good enough? I have to agree with 100% of it for my opinion to be valid?

"... with all the fight that we have" isn't the heart of what this movie is "really about," though. Like, not at all. Literally NOTHING in the final 2/3rd of the movie supports that and, in fact, the final 2/3rd argues directly against it. But it's beyond obvious that you don't care about evidence or actual cogent arguments at this point. You've got your "feels" and no one is going to deter you from them.

Name ONE instance outside of the first act of the movie where it thematically "calls for" violent ideology/extremism.

Where it doesn't put family first, above those things.

Just one single instance in the final 2/3rds of the movie.

Where blatantly violent ideology/extremism is painted in a positive light.

Where Pefidia is made to be a hero or someone to look up to.

Where family isn't the movie's north star on the part of our two protagonists.

My problem with your ridiculously stubborn argument is that in seven pages of discourse you haven't done this once. You just keep repeating the same, nauseating bull**** without providing any concrete examples whatsoever.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

While he's in domestic terror deep cover he's still part of the organization, it never depicts that as a bad thing

It's the FIRST ACT of the movie. This is how damn near every movie works. The first act ALWAYS depicts the world the "hero" needs to leave behind. It's the stagnant "wrong" world the "hero" is trapped in. Again, this is screenwriting 101. For the millionth time, THE MOVIE ISN'T GLORIFYING THIS LIFE. It's clearly DEPICTING it as a NEGATIVE to leave behind, seeing as everything that follows it screams YEAH, THAT WAS A BAD DECISION.

The boogeyman throughout the entire 2nd and 3rd acts is an insane white supremacist deep state cult, which the audience is supposed to believe is plausible

Ha, wait... you think the audience is supposed to believe that the "Christmas Adventurers Club" and a crazed horny lunatic named "Colonel Lockjaw" are meant to be plausible? Have you ever heard of farce? A poster above summed it up perfectly... it's nothing more than madcap Coen Brothers exaggeration, in the most hilarious way.

Mom and daughter hip-firing fully automatic weapons, but surely not for radical violent action

Again... the mom part is in the FIRST ACT of the movie. Then the daughter is shown in similar fashion training for PROTECTION, due to her ultra-paranoid father, not because she's training for violent acts of extremism. The arc of her character is that this the cycle she has to break. Seriously, how do you not get this?

The movie essentially ending with Willa off to join in on the fight against the oppressor.

Yes, I and others have explained multiple times now that she's off to do so PEACEFULLY. That's the entire point. The "revolutionary" arc of the movie is from violent protesting to non-violent protesting. And that's okay! Just because you're annoyed by "woke" protestors or whatever doesn't make them bad people.

None of it critiques the protagonists' Neo-Marxist motives, ever. None if it shows that the guys on the other side are not, in fact, fascists.

Again... it critiques it through ACTION, not words. I don't know how many more times this has to be explained. Truly, I have never met anyone so willfully hellbent on ignoring so much simply so you can continue to play the victim and complain on the internet.

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

So all of that is just how you've chosen to interpret things.

The dude whose review you liked was spot on with the part you cut out. But I guess he's a complete idiot, like me, for not seeing it your way.

---

You realize the exact same thing could be said of your take, right?

Except one of us has brought pages of evidence, receipts, and expertise while the other just keeps repeating "Nuh-uh! Propaganda!"

Also, I'm not "interpreting" anything. 95% of all movies have three acts. And 95% of all movies have an act break from act one to act two where the "hero" leaves his or her old/wrong world behind. This is how proper storytelling fundamentally works, in 95% of every movie you've ever seen, and this movie is no different.

It's like a mechanic explaining exactly how an engine works and you going, "Yeah, well, that's just how you interpreted it." No. It's how the car works. Same thing with movies. It's a tangible, repeatable, mechanical thing.

It's also hilarious how "with all the fight that we have" has suddenly becoming this end-all, be-all litmus test/indictment for you, when the sentence itself means nothing in the grand scheme of this conversation.