Phantom Thread

The message of the film: relationships are not about love and respect but deceit and control.

I thought it had interesting things to say about love and especially enjoyed how Reynolds and Alma's relationship teeters between standard and deeply gothic in nature.
I also enjoy how it's really about magic mushrooms.

It was slow but I enjoyed how weird the characters were. The acting and cinematography were great. I guess part of the point was how detestable the characters were. The first scene with the tailor guy sick as legitimately spooky.
Actually now that I think about the themes of mistake and regret, obsession, and a crumbling relationship were compelling to me.

I thought it was a brilliant and beautiful movie. lewis looked and spoke exactly like my grandfather which made it surreal

I also enjoy how it's really about magic mushrooms.

lol

fuck my life how do you use the spoiler option

Hey, let's make a movie with no engaging characters or conflict and characters that don't change or learn anything! Fuck storytelling! Just watch DDL act! Dude, poison mushrooms!

DDL was doing the same old routine and his love interest couldn't act at all. Zero emotive capabilities.

Bracket spoiler bracket __________ bracket /spoiler bracket

It was a bourgeois movie about a tailor? Do you want fucking lil Jon to come in with some trashy Kardashians?
Maybe she was reserved and quite because her husband was a near-psychotic dick?
I mean it's fine that you didn't like the movie but don't act like it was a bad film

i disagree :3

this but also i loved it

What exactly is the "same old routine"?

How can you say the characters didn't change or learn anything? How can you say there was no conflict, or storytelling? This is about as dishonesty a review as you could write, shame on you user.

She was reserved and quiet before they even became partners, let alone married. The actress that played her did a terrible job emoting, so yes, that makes the movie bad.

"did a terrible job" how bout you use some valid criticisms there bud. How, when? Don't be lazy

Tell me what the characters learned and how they changed then. They are the same terrible people at the end as they are at the beginning.

She couldn't emote. How many fucking times do I have to say it, you imbecile?

>I still didn't like them so they didn't change
Reynolds finally found a defiant, maternalistic partner that brought the tenderness out of him, Alma succeeded in making a difficult domineering partner make her feel special and needed.
The result is Reynolds was able to have a cathartic experience about his dead mother.

That's a lazy criticism and you haven't explained it in enough depth for me to believe it hinders the film in any way and should be considered a flaw let alone the reason why the film was bad.

He wasn't near psychotic, just a fussy child with mommy issues. We aren't given compelling reasons for the characters to even like one another. She really seems to just put up with him so she can wear nice clothes.

And I'm saying the story was written that way because its a pretentious movie about a delusional British tailor.
You didn't enjoy the movie =/= the movie was bad

You stated how the characters reached their goals. That isn't a character arc. Their perspectives and flaws didn't evolve at all.

I'll spell it out for you: she has the same facial expression for half of the film. That Twilight actress even has a larger acting range.

It's pretentious... but not bad... sorry, I consider pretentious movies to be pretty bad, user.

The thing is, it wasn't a "goal" of Reynolds to find a woman like Alma, he didn't realize that was what he needed until she forced thst realization upon him, with poison.
I don't know exactly what it is you wanted but I found the events perfectly compelling.

She was expressionless, but how was she supposed to look? Did you notice how stoic other elements of the film were?

While I'm at it...
Pretentious is just a word. Write something thoughtful

You're a fucking hack of an audience member.

Look up the definition of pretentious. You clearly need to.

I think the reason they got together in the movie was because he thought she had the perfect body, and she felt like wearing his dresses made her beautiful, and enjoyed being around him. The conflict was when he was too obsessive with his work to make an emotional connection with her, whereas she felt stifled and used. The magic mushrooms was a really fucked up but compelling conclusion that I liked

I respect PTA, but his movies aren't for me

"attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."
And how does this connect to your original point?

Actually, the rest of the female cast was excellent. Especially DDLs main advisor. Just not the female lead. She had no screen presence. It didn't help that she looked like a transperson either.

What exactly do you not like about pretentious movies? If a movie has an unconventional plot, characters, presentation, why would that make it any less enjoyable?
I know pretentiousness is an insult but you could just swap it out with artsy I guess

Isn't that pretty much every PTA movie?

If something pretentious it isn't as important or noteworthy as it is pretending to be. The word is always used with a negative connotation.

I'm misusing pretentious then.
Replace it with unconventional or artsy my point still stands

Because DDL last film, and they want to celebrate his work before he dies

This, I can agree with.
But her plainness seemed to go along with how she felt so unnoticed, unappreciated. He's caters to these stunning women and she feels she, the plain jane has to compete with that.

The movie wasn't unconventional or artsy. Hell, I wish it had been. This film was the least engaging "art house" film I've seen in a while.

The problem with this is that this notion of "importance" was felt by you, the viewer, and so to call something (especially a work of fiction) might only reflect your impression of whatever it is, and not the intent of the filmmaker. But I digress

>>Why are we here? just to suffer?

>youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60&v=UMyoCr2MnpM

Yes, but I was hoping this one would be different

I'm sorry guys I don't mean to be a jerk.

>killing it
The only routine he knows

>She seems to just put up with him so she can wear nice clothes.
You mean to tell me that women are vapid whores who marry for material gain? Well colour me surprised, user!

The film is about how women are materialistic bitches who just annoy men with ambition and drag them down.

It's the true story of every relationship that every man who has ever tried to achieve greatness has ever had to put up with.

He likes that she's pretty, she likes that he's successful.... It's a tale of romance as old as time.

It was the best movie I've seen in a long while and it should be winning the oscar. The only reason I can imagine to dislike this movie is not enjoying slow paced movies

That so many of you dislike this reinforces my conviction that it's a masterpiece.

The characters don't change much but you discover them as the movie goes along, complexity > development. Also
>no conflict
Turn down the phone when watching kino, kid

>I feel like I wasted 2 hrs of my life.
try watching this next

Unironically this.

I think the problem is that people remember PTA for his Reddit dramas where people scream and mock religion and then it ends with a surreal "iconic" scene like the frog rain or the bowling pin murder

but PTA decided instead to make some boring-ass drama and nobody cares. He needs to make fun of some religious cult or religious figure and get some famous actor to eat the scenery, then reddit/Cred Forums will love him again

*looks at the catalog*
*raises paw*
Yeah me too

I liked IV

>if it has no arc its bad
Go back to star wars

poorman's altman. anderson is a good filmmaker, but that's about it, he's insanely overrated by reddi/tv/

low IQ posting