I haven't seen Phantom Thread because I couldn't find the subject matter any less appealing. I'm taking shots at that type of film in general and not Phantom Thread itself, because I haven't seen it. But if you don't really like it that much, I'm thinking I will hate it.
I didn't like Phantom Thread, but not on account of the acting. Rather, I found the plotting ridiculous. However, my wife enjoyed the film, and ever since she's been wanting to feed me mushrooms.
You're overthinking the Kundun/Irishman comparison and I didn't do a very good job of explaining the point -- I was simply trying to say a quiet and/or mature crime film doesn't have anything in common with period pieces. For what it's worth, I consider Mean Streets much more of an anti coming-of-age film than a neo noir. I haven't seen Phantom Thread because I couldn't find the subject matter any less appealing. I'm taking shots at that type of film in general and not Phantom Thread itself, because I haven't seen it. But if you don't really like it that much, I'm thinking I will hate it. I like Inherent Vice and need to see it again. I found the journey or adventure in that movie entertaining, but the flaw of the film is inherent, pun unintended, with the source material. It's an anti PI movie that doesn't stick the landing. Night Moves, for as blandly directed and scored as it is (sorry Stanton), accomplishes what Inherent Vice tries to pull off. I do like the movie, I just don't know if Anderson should have wasted years of his life adapting that overrated novel, in my opinion. The 70's San Fernando Valley movie actually seems really intriguing. We more or less agree on Magnolia. It has the look and feel of a great movie, and has that magical type of pace that all great 2.5+ hour movies need to have...but it's so up its ass, and there's a lot of janky writing, overacting and arrogance. But I also admire it's vulnerability and how much it puts itself out there, but that's also the problem with the movie too. As for Boogie Nights, some of the acting can be a little much, and I've really grown to hate Julianne Moore's performance, but I also understand how others can tolerate it, or even enjoy it. The Filmstruck jab may have been a little mean, but if we're going by the theory that a movie needs to double its budget to break even, all of his post TWBB movies have lost money and only Phantom Thread had a box office total that surpassed the reported budget, and it wasn't by a whole lot. I think it's fair to say that he's been appealing to a niche crowd in the last decade.
Phantom Thread is one of the most excruciating movies I have ever seen in my life. I'd have eaten the poisonous mushrooms if I could only have been assured of a quick death, before the movie ended.
Gotcha, thought I might have been overthinking the Irishman / Kundun thing. I always thought The Master made money? I know Inherent Vice didn't, I guess I have my facts wrong.Give Phantom Thread a try, even if you dislike it, it's worth a shot because as n_l says I think it does well what you don't seem to like about modern PTA movies. Also don't listen opinions on Phantom Thread by anyone who adores Hacksaw Ridge or Patriot If you like Inherent Vice, which PTA movies do you dislike? Punch-Drunk Love sure... but TWBB and The Master? I'll never understand the TWBB distaste on this board, this is like the one place on the internet/world that collectively hates that movie. Overacted sure, but so fucking fuuuun for being that way. Who needs another subtly acted epic when we can turn the structure of the "American masterpiece" on its head by being theatrical and funny as hell?
I don't love Inglourious Basterds
The Master is interesting and certainly a good movie, but it should have been told from Hoffman's point of view.
Also I predict you could just as well have the same criticism if the characters were reversed. The more we learn about Dodd the less interesting he is, too.
It's close to my least favorite QT movie. Me and n_l talk about this a good amount - I have no idea why it's as popular and acclaimed as it is. But OUATIH gets significantly better each viewing - I think it's his best work (not his most defining or important work obviously - but the best)To me that's like saying E.T. should be told from the alien's point of view. Or Paris, Texas should be told from the son's point of view. That's less critiquing one movie, and more asking for a different one. Also I predict you could just as well have the same criticism if the characters were reversed. The more we learn about Dodd the less interesting he is, too.
TH and DJ have been making great points about The Master but I think one aspect of the movie that shouldn?t be overlooked is the feel of deep mystery: you spend a long time trying to make sense of what the characters are thinking about (or trying to do)... and Years after it?s been released it?s still hard to decipher what the movie is really about. Post TWBB PTA has been actively trying to hide what he?s after and to remove the obvious scenes and what we call in French the ?passages oblig?s?. He?s trying to invent a new way of telling a story. So yeah, it won?t come with mainstream appeal, and it will come with some kind of pseudo elitist touch. There Will Be Blood was probably the last time he reached the sweet spot between the two. For now he?s on the other side. But that?s good to me: we need more talented filmmakers on that side and less people wasting their talent and career, slowly killing the Industry and destroying brains on the Disney side.
Very interesting point you made about the storytelling method that PTA may have been trying to pull off, but I feel like stuff like Cemetery Without Crosses (1969) could be described in the same way, and that's a spaghetti from 50 years ago.
We just disagree philosophically. I don't think there's more room for originality by making arthouse movies or making movies for arthouse audiences as opposed to genre stuff. I'm of the belief that nothing is really original, and a genre director can just as easily have a personal or unique style as any other director. To me, the best contemporary movies can really only be fresh and/or reinvigorating, and nothing else, with maybe a Tommy Wiseau type as a rare exception.