CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › PHANTOM THREAD (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2017)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PHANTOM THREAD (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2017)

post #1 of 88
Thread Starter 

This looks like the shit. 

post #2 of 88

I wonder if the actual movie will have that gauzy, filtered look.  I bring it up not because I object to it, but because trailers for THE MASTER looked the same and then the movie itself was razor sharp.

post #3 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

I wonder if the actual movie will have that gauzy, filtered look.  I bring it up not because I object to it, but because trailers for THE MASTER looked the same and then the movie itself was razor sharp.

 

PTA was his own cinematographer this time, a first.

post #4 of 88

And DDL's last dang movie, yeah?

 

I'll see it on that basis alone.

post #5 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post
 

And DDL's last dang movie, yeah?

 

I'll see it on that basis alone.

He'll be back for the Donald Trump biopic, which he will do just so they wont give him an oscar despite it being an outstanding performance.

post #6 of 88
I've tried and failed to warm up to Inherent Vice several times, but new PTA is always a must-watch. This looks like his version of an Ophuls film. Bring it!
post #7 of 88

Based on the premise, I was not expecting to find myself anxiously anticipating this (aside from wanting to see DDL's supposed final performance), but this looks right on my wavelength.

 

Then again, the trailers made INHERENT VICE look right on my wavelength, and that's a movie I just didn't "get." 

post #8 of 88

After hearing similar lukewarm-to-negative reactions, I still haven't attempted Inherent Vice. Fair to say it's "lesser" PTA?

post #9 of 88

OH HELLS YEAH

 

Been waiting for this trailer. I utterly agree with the above poster on Inherent Vice: it just doesn't work for me, which is a shame because the book is so great and on first blush seemed a perfect fit for PTA and the people he brought with him. It's the only PTA movie I don't like, and I actually thought he was on an escalating arc of greatness until he hit that bump.

 

But I'm ready for the rebound. Really interesting to look at this trailer and get to see some of PTA's work as his own DP... interestingly, I feel it owes much less to the influence of his long-time DP Robert Elswit (who did all of PTA's movies but one) and a lot more to Mihai Malaimare Jr., who did The Master, which happens to be my favorite PTA!

 

So, yeah, with that aesthetic resemblance, DDL working with PTA again and apparently, obviously, killing it... I am officially stoked.

post #10 of 88

If this is really his final movie, I'm truly going to miss Daniel Day Lewis. There are some actors who make cinema a poorer place by their absence (I'm thinking specifically Gene Hackman at the moment, due to the fact he also retired rather than being taken from us). 

post #11 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post

After hearing similar lukewarm-to-negative reactions, I still haven't attempted Inherent Vice. Fair to say it's "lesser" PTA?
Lots of people love it, and as much as I love the film's style, I still get annoyed when I realize there's an hour left to go. I haven't read the original Pynchon, which may have something to do with my dislike.
post #12 of 88

So this isn't about Daniel Day-Lewis putting on a mask and haunting a fashion show?

 

Anyways, yeah, looks good. DDL gonna be great one last time. Vicky Krieps looks terrific as well.

post #13 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post
 

After hearing similar lukewarm-to-negative reactions, I still haven't attempted Inherent Vice. Fair to say it's "lesser" PTA?

 

For me it's sort of a big nothing of a movie.

 

The book is so funny and engaging and has this mystery to it, has this undercurrent of something really dark and overwhelming, while on the surface everyone is just kind of stumbling around in their own drug-addled clouds of vice and so on. The fog protects them from the reality of their lives and protects them from the pains of real human conection. So they embrace it. And it's about this detective, who has spent years and years of embracing that fog, trying to see through it enough to solve something troubling. He has these brief glimpses of clarity in the book that shake him... and then he returns to the fog.

 

For all the talent involved, the movie somehow never manages to really capture that dynamic of the book. I know some people find the film quite funny, too, but to me the humor works many times better in the book. There are one or two moments of drama in the movie that work for me (that one long scene with Waterston, good stuff), but overall it doesn't move me, it doesn't make me laugh, I don't find it all that compelling or thought-provoking... it ends up feeling like a bit of a pointless experience. Some would say THAT is the point, but, I mean, I have better ways to spend my time. And the movie spent too much of it.

 

I dunno if I overestimated how the book would translate to film in the hands of someone like PTA (maybe it was too tough a nut to crack), or if PTA actually really botched it. My favorite parts of the book, huge chunks that I thought would be amazing on film (like when Doc goes to the band's house) are just sort of glossed over into nothingness and PTA tends to focus on the parts of the book or the tangents that I found the least involving. Felt like the movie got lost in its own fog, and not in a way that had any sort of entertainment or thematic value.

 

So watching this trailer and seeing a film that looks more assured in what it's trying to do, it's really heartening. I am ready for another great PTA movie.

post #14 of 88

I'll add to the chorus of people who could not get into Inherent Vice.  So weird, as like many of you, it seemed right up my alley.  

 

This trailer makes me want to watch Age of Innocence again.  That is some very underrated Scorsese.

post #15 of 88

oh this ISN'T a thread for the phantom?

post #16 of 88

If PTA had been... less successful, we'll say, the movie might have ended up starring fashionista Billy Zane?

 

 

"This Armani- he'll never amount to anything!"

post #17 of 88

He looks like a middle-aged Brando that hasn't gone off the rails.

post #18 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

 

 

This trailer makes me want to watch Age of Innocence again.  That is some very underrated Scorsese.


DUDE I JUST CAME BACK ON HERE TO SAY THE SAME THING

 

It may just be the Daniel Day Lewis in a similar period piece talking, but yeah. It feels like PTA might have made an edgier spiritual sequel to Scorsese's Age of Innocence (which I love so much). The 2046 to AoI's In the Mood for Love. Or AoI crossed with something like Pablo Larrain's Jackie.

post #19 of 88
This looks very pretty. It also looks pretty boring.

I list There Will Be Blood in my top 5.
post #20 of 88

It seems like there's some kind of thriller element that the trailer hints at. DDL's character seems like a person with secrets, who likes to hide secret messages in the linings of garments.

 

At least I hope there's something going on under the surface besides some 60-year-old man's relationship issues.

post #21 of 88

Anderson movies have a tendency for the first trailer to evoke a feeling of unease by using an underlying sense of tension that builds throughout.  (There's also often a creepy laugh in there somewhere.)  I think the trailer is following this formula, but I'm not sure how much it has to do with the movie as a whole.

post #22 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post

 

At least I hope there's something going on under the surface besides some 60-year-old man's relationship issues.

 

I'm sure there will be plenty going on under the surface. But I am hoping thematically, as opposed to plot-wise.

post #23 of 88

PTA's films started losing me around the time of The Master.  There are things I like about it, but as a whole it doesn't work for me.  Vice just left me cold.  Didn't get it at all.  I really liked the new creative direction he was headed with TWBB (which is insanely great), but he seemed to go even more strange, and I just can't seem to connect with his new stuff.  I'll see this, but I'm kind of dreading another PTA flick I'm just staring at blankly.  

post #24 of 88

I got an Age of Innocence vibe also. One of my favorite Scorseses.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

PTA's films started losing me around the time of The Master.  There are things I like about it, but as a whole it doesn't work for me.  Vice just left me cold.  Didn't get it at all.  I really liked the new creative direction he was headed with TWBB (which is insanely great), but he seemed to go even more strange, and I just can't seem to connect with his new stuff.  I'll see this, but I'm kind of dreading another PTA flick I'm just staring at blankly.  

I like The Master a lot, even though it kinda drifts off into the ether by the end.

 

Inherent Vice is frequently gorgeous, but there's no "in" for me there . . . It has plenty of surface-level charms, but even with the subtitles turned on, it's so inscrutable that I stop caring. 

post #25 of 88

My instinct might be way off, but PTA is sort of like Aronofsky for me-- these are guys who tackle hyper-ambitious projects, but the end result can end up feeling either formless/lacking focus, or conceptually interesting but somehow losing something in the translation to the screen.

 

Meanwhile you have Tarantino, who many people find overindulgent, but I think always has a really firm grasp on what his movies are doing.

post #26 of 88

It reminds me of something Gilliam said about Spielberg being a "great director of individual scenes" but not having the best grasp of the whole.  PTA now seems to put a great deal of effort in creating these great actor-y moments, that the movie as a whole almost seems like an afterthought.  If you take alot of individual scenes from The Master/Vice, it's like you're seeing bits of a masterpiece, but it's not really the case, at least for me.

post #27 of 88

Re: Aronofski, seems like after mother! the bloom is off the rose.

 

Maybe all of these auteurs are destined to disappear up their own asses at some point or another.

post #28 of 88

Please no "mother!" talk in here, I've not seen it yet.

post #29 of 88

Well, I agree with you that The Master ends up being less than the sum of its parts.

post #30 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
 

My instinct might be way off, but PTA is sort of like Aronofsky for me-- these are guys who tackle hyper-ambitious projects, but the end result can end up feeling either formless/lacking focus, or conceptually interesting but somehow losing something in the translation to the screen.

 

Meanwhile you have Tarantino, who many people find overindulgent, but I think always has a really firm grasp on what his movies are doing.

 

Even though I get what you're saying, I don't feel that way at all about Aronofsky.  The Fountain is the only film of his that feels lost in translation, and that's probably because he was forced to drastically alter the film for a lower budget after Pitt dropped out.  Everything else I think works on a micro and macro level.

post #31 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

It reminds me of something Gilliam said about Spielberg being a "great director of individual scenes" but not having the best grasp of the whole.  PTA now seems to put a great deal of effort in creating these great actor-y moments, that the movie as a whole almost seems like an afterthought.  If you take alot of individual scenes from The Master/Vice, it's like you're seeing bits of a masterpiece, but it's not really the case, at least for me.

This is definitely fair. I can think of great scenes in both (Joaquin and PSH's audit in The Master; the entire opening sequence set to "Vitamin C" in Inherent Vice), but I'm not nearly as eager to rewatch them as his earlier films, even The Master, which I really liked.

post #32 of 88
Thread Starter 

Spoiler:

 

I haven't seen The Master or Inherent Vice. 

post #33 of 88

I love The Master. As I said before, it is my favorite PTA. I think it is a, har-har, Masterpiece. Unlike Inherent Vice, The Master may have some showy scenes for its actors and its filmmaking, but everything is still gelling around its themes. In fact, I think The Master is PTA at his most thematically on-point. It may not have the awesome scope or smoldering central performance of something like There Will Be Blood, but I do think The Master is the more nuanced and ultimately more interesting work. TWBB is basically an allegory for American greed and a satire on "manifest destiny." The filmmaking is astonishing and DDL is unforgettable, but that is what it boils down to. I think The Master has more going on in its subtext. I don't know, it gives me a ton to chew on, anyways. And I'm glad Hoffman had a performance like that one towards the end of his career.

 

I respect Aronofsky's audacity and just the fact that he's somehow able to secure millions of American dollars to make the sorts of movies he makes, but overall I find him too heavy-handed and gimmicky.

 

In my opinion, PTA is a different caliber of filmmaker from Aronofsky. Now, PTA was great but more derivative with his earlier films: the influence of Scorsese was thick on Boogie Nights, Altman with Magnolia, etc. He definitely started to step into something that was more his own with TWBB. If Phantom Thread is a return to form after the disappointing Inherent Vice, we can start conversations about where PTA ranks with America's greatest filmmakers. Right now I'd put him in the Top 20.

post #34 of 88

This thread has reminded me repeatedly that Philip Seymour Hoffman is dead and what a fucking bummer that is.

post #35 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

the entire opening sequence set to "Vitamin C" in Inherent Vice

 

you damn right about this.

 

of the 2 out of 4 stars I give Inherent Vice, one whole star is for this scene alone.

 

just because I love that song that much.

post #36 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post
 

This thread has reminded me repeatedly that Philip Seymour Hoffman is dead and what a fucking bummer that is.

 

I got to meet him and pitch him a movie idea one time.

 

I am often sad about him being dead. And as far as what he did as an actor, he is irreplaceable.

post #37 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post
 

This thread has reminded me repeatedly that Philip Seymour Hoffman is dead and what a fucking bummer that is.

 

Sometimes I think about how the universe has denied us Hoffman's Lear and I get SO MAD. 

post #38 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasp View Post
 

I love The Master.

 

I respect Aronofsky's audacity and just the fact that he's somehow able to secure millions of American dollars to make the sorts of movies he makes, but overall I find him too heavy-handed and gimmicky.

 

In my opinion, PTA is a different caliber of filmmaker from Aronofsky.

 

I stand by my criticism of both filmmakers, but at the same time, I agree with this stuff.

post #39 of 88

On board because this is DDL's final film but I have to admit, it looks kinda boring.

 

(I'm one of those clods who found Age of Innocence a snoozefest, though I was a callow 20-something when I saw and haven't revisited it since.)

post #40 of 88

This looks great.  It doesn't give too much away while also hinting at the underlying darkness.  I'm in.

post #41 of 88

I don't understand why anyone thinks this looks boring.

 

But that happens to me a lot.

post #42 of 88
Thread Starter 

It looks boring in the way people said CAROL was boring. 

post #43 of 88
post #44 of 88

THE MASTER didn't fully click with me until a second viewing. I've been trying to work up the nerve to give INHERENT VICE another shot.

post #45 of 88

The Master still resonates for me in large part because of the performances (including Amy Adams) and the cinematography, but I've given Vice a shot 3 separate times, and it's always the same: It starts out, I'm completely into it, then within 80-90 minutes I'm checking my watch. Even then, there are moments I like, such as that lovely flashback in the rain set to a Neil Young song, and I love Waterston and Phoenix's long scene towards the end, but it never quite clicks. Martin Short plays a coked-out dentist, and I'm still like "whatever, Movie, I'm exhausted."

 

It's certainly The Long Goodbye for this era, but frankly, my mind wonders during that too.

post #46 of 88

See, I love The Long Goodbye.  Though it did take a second viewing to really go with it.  But it has an effortless cool that Inherent Vice... does not.

post #47 of 88

Well Phoenix is no Elliot Gould.

post #48 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

It looks boring in the way people said CAROL was boring. 

 

Maybe some of us just don't dig period dramas as a general rule.*

 

(CUE: various and sundry Chewers passionately telling me to stop painting with a wide brush and open my mind and cinematic horizons!)

 

 

 

 

*Keep in mind that Last of the Mohicans and Ben-Hur [the good one] are in my top five favorite films, so this isn't a hard and fast rule. 

post #49 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
 

See, I love The Long Goodbye.  Though it did take a second viewing to really go with it.  But it has an effortless cool that Inherent Vice... does not.

I like a lot of it, and Gould is great, but in terms of stoner crime odysseys, I lean Lebowski. (and I didn't like that much the first time I saw it either!)

Also, just to reiterate for the hell of it, Age of Innocence is wonderful. As with nearly every movie mentioned in this thread, a rewatch did wonders.

post #50 of 88

PTA by way of Merchant-Ivory?  I'm totally down for this.

 

(**scurries off to re-watch The Remains of the Day**)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › PHANTOM THREAD (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2017)