Paul Thomas Anderson Films - Ranked Worst to First

PT ANDERSON FILMS – RANKED

Paul Thomas Anderson’s newest film, One Battle After Another, hit theatres at the end of September and has garnered massive critical praise and generated a cavalcade of conversation.

I love any conversation that involves the films of Paul Thomas Anderson…so I thought I’d start another one…namely by ranking his films.

PT Anderson is my favorite current filmmaker. He is a unique cinematic genius, a brilliant writer and an extraordinary director of actors. All that said…he is for many, an acquired taste…one which I have certainly acquired. Which makes it all the more profound when I DON’T like one of his films.

Anyway…without further ado here is my list of PT Anderson films ranked worst to first. This list is…ALIVE. It can change not just everyday but sometimes every hour. For example, just in the course of writing this piece my top three films flipped back and forth at least three times.

So here is the list…let the debate begin!!

THE NOT-SO-GOOD

10. Hard Eight (1996)– Hard Eight is Anderson’s feature debut and while it is a decent film featuring a solid performance from the ever-reliable Philip Baker Hall, it is definitely as bit rough around the edges. It’s impressive for a debut but not a particularly good movie.

Available to rent or buy on Amazon Prime

9. Punch-Drunk Love (2002)– This was Anderson shifting gears into a less ambitious cinematic undertaking after the sprawling Magnolia and the decade spanning Boogie Nights. The film is devoid of ambition though as Anderson makes the calamitous decision to cast the grating Adam Sandler as his lead in this unusual and dark romantic comedy. That was a very poor decision.

Punch-Drunk Love is beautifully shot, of that there is no doubt, but the script feels cloying and trite and the lead performance from Adam Sandler is unbearably amateurish.

I know people who have Punch-Drunk Love ranked number one on their PT Anderson list…those people are idiots.

Currently streaming on the Criterion Channel

8. One Battle After Another (2025)– All the caveats apply regarding my feelings about One Battle After Another. I’ve only seen it once…and saw it on a shitty digital projector at the local cineplex – which just got new chairs but failed to get better projectors and sound systems – so now people can be comfy and cozy watching movies on their sub-par projectors!

Anyway…maybe my feelings about this movie will change after I see this movie a few more times or with a better projector…who knows? But after one less-than-cinematically-ideal viewing I was not a fan. To Anderson’s credit, it is a tremendously ambitious film, but I thought it failed by almost every metric…including the performances.

Currently in theatres

7. Licorice Pizza (2021)– This film is really gorgeous to look at but ultimately, it’s all empty calories as there is no meat on the bones of its story.

The bottom line is it’s a rather vapid “hang out” movie that ends up being rather forgettable despite some great scenes and sequences.

Currently streaming on MUBI

THE VERY, VERY GOOD

6. Inherent Vice (2014) – I, unlike many, absolutely loved this movie and found it to be a psychologically profound piece of work that felt like a fever dream.

Like One Battle After Another it is based on a Thomas Pynchon novel…unlike One Battle After Another it is exquisitely crafted and filled with rich metaphor.

It also features top-notch performances from Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin…and is laugh out loud funny on occasion.

To me, the list of best PT Anderson films really starts here with Inherent Vice, an audacious arthouse gem.

Currently streaming on Amazon Prime

5. Phantom Thread (2017) – One of the more elegant, eloquent and dark relationship stories in cinema history, Phantom Thread features luminous craftsmanship – most notably its cinematography and wardrobe design.

It also features one of Daniel Day Lewis’ greatest performances as the persnickety Reynolds Woodcock. Leslie Manville and Vicky Krieps also give truly phenomenal performances in the film.

Phantom Thread is an often-overlooked Anderson film…but it shouldn’t be.

Currently streaming on Netflix

THE GREAT

4. The Master (2012) – Ok…the final four films on this list are out and out masterpieces in my mind.

The Master is a tour de force film that boasts two all-time great performances. Philip Seymour Hoffman is utterly amazing as the cult leader/con man Lancaster Dodd – it is one of Hoffman’s very best performances, which is saying quite a lot since he was one of the greatest actors of his generation.

Then there is Joaquin Phoenix as the lead Freddie Quell. Phoenix’s performance isn’t just the greatest of his career, it is the single greatest and most revolutionary piece of acting in modern cinema history. You may think that is hyperbole, but trust me, it isn’t. Phoenix re-invented the art of acting with this intricate and stunning performance.

The Master is a mesmerizing meditation on masculinity and the modern man, and it requires multiple viewings to fully flesh out its meaning…and it deserves as many re-watches and you can manage.

Currently streaming on Roku

3. There Will Be Blood (2007) – There Will be Blood is at the very top of this list on many…if not most…occasions, as it is a full-on masterpiece featuring both Daniel Day Lewis, cinematographer Robert Elswit, and in some ways PT Anderson, at their very, very best.

A dark brooding tale about capitalism, masculinity and America, There Will Be Blood is a dramatic powerhouse that devours everything in its path.

Day-Lewis brings all of his substantial power and acting prowess to bear on his role as Daniel Plainview…who, in case you didn’t know…is an oil man.

There Will be Blood is as intense, expansive, jarring and invigorating a film as you will ever see. A truly spectacular piece of cinematic art.

Available to rent or buy on Amazon Prime

2. Magnolia (1999) – Magnolia is a bit of a controversial choice at number two as it was raked over the coals by critics and many fans back in the day. But the fact of the matter is it is the very best Robert Altman film ever made…and it wasn’t even made by Altman!

Magnolia features a cavalcade of top-notch performances, great writing, and some of the best editing in recent history…not to mention Robert Elswit’s glorious cinematography.

Tom Cruise of all fucking people, gives the very best performance of his career…and it is utterly amazing as Frank T.J. Mackey. Only PT Anderson could get Tom Cruise to be that great…and he really, really is that great in Magnolia.

Philip Seymour Hoffman too gives one of his best, most subtle, and most tender performances in the film as well.

I hadn’t seen Magnolia in quite some time and re-watched it this past week and it definitely still holds the same emotional power and melancholic mastery as it did when I first saw it 26 years ago.

Currently streaming on the Criterion Channel

1. Boogie Nights (1997) – As previously stated, There Will be Blood could easily be at this top spot, but the truth is that Boogie Nights is the PT Anderson film I have watched the most (I typically watch it at least once a year if not twice) and that I enjoy the most.

Seeing Boogie Nights for the first time back in 1997 was a religious experience for me – hell I was so enraptured by the movie I even wrote a paper on its symbolism and cinematography back in film school! It is a masterfully constructed film with a complex sensibility, a funny bone and devastating dramatic punch.

Boogie Nights announced PT Anderson as THE guy to watch in moviemaking and part of the joy of watching it was experiencing the giddiness of expectation for the unknown PT Anderson films to come.

Boogie Nights itself gets the very most out of actors like Burt Reynolds (a resurrection project – Burt gives his career best performance) and Mark Wahlberg (also giving his career best performance).

Then there is the unbelievably fantastic cast – Julianne Moore, Heather Graham, John C. Reilly, Don Cheadle, Luis Guzman, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Philip Baker Hall, Melora Walters, Thomas Jane, Alfred Molina and William H. Macy – all of whom are superb and give pitch perfect performances.

A great cast, a scintillating script, Elswit’s stunning cinematography and Anderson’s audacious direction make Boogie Nights his best film (at least for today), and most watchable – and re-watchable, and my favorite, film.

Currently streaming on Paramount +

Quibble all you want…but this is the official PT Anderson film ranking list!! If it makes you angry, that’s okay…because the list has probably already changed in the fifteen minutes after I wrote it.

In looking over Anderson’s filmography the thing that stands out the most to me…besides the glorious cinematography and usually inspired writing…is that Anderson is able to get the very best out of the very best actors around. You’d think that is an easy thing to do…but it isn’t.

Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood and Phantom Thread, Joaquin Phoenix in The Master and Inherent Vice, Philip Seymour Hoffman in Boogie Nights, Magnolia and The Master, Tom Cruise in Magnolia…and on and on and on.

PT Anderson isn’t just mandatory viewing for lovers of cinema and hopeful filmmakers, he is mandatory viewing for actors of all stripes and at every stage of their career. Beginner or old pro, actors everywhere can learn boatloads just by carefully watching PT Anderson films and seeing how a master director can elicit supreme performances from the entirety of his cast.

Alright…enough of my rambling…thanks for reading and hopefully I’ll see you at a screening of One Battle After Another where I try and catch the fever for this film which has thus far avoided me.

©2025

Keira Knightley, Sex Scenes and the Male Gaze

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes 47 seconds

Keira Knightley, best known for her roles in Bend it Like Beckham, Atonement, Pride and Prejudice, The Imitation Game and the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, has made headlines by declaring that she has ruled out doing sex scenes directed by men and that she disapproves of the “male gaze” in cinema.

The two-time Oscar nominated actress told the director Lulu Wang on the Chanel Connects Podcast, “I don't have an absolute ban [on filming nude scenes], but I kind of do with men….It's partly vanity and also it's the male gaze".

The “male gaze” in filmmaking is defined by feminist theory as the act of telling a story and depicting women from a masculine, heterosexual perspective for the pleasure of a heterosexual male viewer.

Knightley certainly has the right to not do anything she doesn’t want to do, but her blanket dismissal of male directors due to some supposed insidious “male gaze” is laughably ironic as one of the main reasons she became a big movie star is because she is so appealing to the “male gaze”.

Knightley has been very successful starring in films, mostly directed by men, that heightened her appeal, fed her vanity and maintained her dignity while not exploiting her in any way. This is what makes her newfound distaste for the male gaze, and male directors, so absurd.

It also makes her anti-male discrimination problematic when viewed in the wider context. Stripped of its self-reverential pro-feminist edifice, Knightley’s statement is an endorsement of blatant discrimination simply based on a director’s gender.

Would Knightley refuse to work with a master like Ridley Scott, who has made such great female empowerment movies as Alien and Thelma and Louise, simply because he was a man and the role required a sex scene or nudity?

Would Knightley refuse to work with other genius auteurs like Paul Thomas Anderson, Steve McQueen or Alfonso Cuaron for the same reason?

Knightley further buttressed her gender-based discrimination stance by saying, "If I was making a story that was about that journey of motherhood and body [acceptance], I feel like, I'm sorry, but that would have to be with a female film-maker".

Imagine if this gender based litmus test were reversed and actors refused to work with female directors on more masculine projects like war films or male driven stories.

According to Knightley’s myopic artistic worldview, Kathryn Bigelow, who won the Best Director Oscar in 2009 for her film The Hurt Locker, which tells the story of a man defusing bombs in the Iraq War, shouldn’t have directed that male-driven movie.

Knightley further explained her refusal to do a nude scene with a male director, “Because I'm too vain, and the body has had two children now, and I'd just rather not stand in front of a group of men naked."

What makes Knightley’s anti-male director diatribe all the more absurd is the fact that the issue of on-set and on-screen nudity and sex scenes has been well examined in recent years to the point where having to “stand in front of a group of men naked” would never happen.

A year ago the Screen Actors Guild published strict guidelines, standards and protocols that regulated sex scenes and nudity and required the use of professional “intimacy coordinators” on-set.

Intimacy coordinators are tasked with making sure all sets where nudity or sex scenes occur are closed – meaning that only the bare essentials (no pun intended) in terms of crew are allowed on-set and absolutely no one else. They also oversee rehearsals and confirming that all nudity and sex scenes included in the final cut of the film conform to what was agreed upon by the actors before hand.

Maybe Knightley is unaware of all of the new precautions and protocols in place regarding on-set nudity since she has had a “no nudity” clause added to her contracts since 2015, but even before then she wasn’t exactly known for doing a great deal of nudity anyway.

This is why her statements on the subject ring so hollow and feel so performative in nature. It is also striking that whenever Knightley mentions her vanity she quickly follows it up by tilting at the windmill of men or the male gaze in order to distract from her own shortcomings and play the victim/hero to an external imaginary villain.

In reality, Knightley’s anti-male director stance is quite nefarious, as it reinforces a worldview that puts the noose of identity politics around the neck of every artistic endeavor. This identity-based approach limits artists instead of empowering them, and ultimately will end up suffocating the creative process and any worthwhile art in the cradle.

Art should always and every time be a function of talent, skill, craftsmanship and passion…not identity. This talent-based approach allowed Leo Tolstoy to write Anna Karenina, straight actor Philip Seymour Hoffman to brilliantly play gay writer Truman Capote, Kathryn Bigelow to make The Hurt Locker and a pasty white Englishman like Eric Clapton to play blues music invented by black men.

The identity politics fueled, gender-restrictive, artistic limitations that Keira Knightly is so shamelessly advocating should be anathema to any true artist, and her embrace of them ironically exposes her as nothing more than a vain and vacuous movie star and an utter fraud as an artist.

 A version of this article was originally published at RT.

©2021

Philip Seymour Hoffman

ONE YEAR AGO I PUBLISHED THIS ARTICLE ON PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN DAYS AFTER HIS UNTIMELY DEATH ON FEBRUARY 2, 2014. I REPUBLISH IT NOW AS A TRIBUTE TO HIS ARTISTRY AND AS A SOMBER REMINDER OF HIS STRUGGLE.

There have been countless articles and commentaries about Philip Seymour Hoffman since his death this past Sunday. I doubt I can add much to the cavalcade of remembrances, but here are a few thoughts.

As a teacher, I occasionally will show film clips of actors that put a visual to a technique I am teaching. It is not something I do too often, but as I said, I occasionally do it. In talking with some clients after Hoffman's death, I realized that every time I showed a clip to students, it was of Philip Seymour Hoffman. That is how good he was, that I used his work to teach points to people and I never even realized it because I never even thought about it. Hoffman was so good that we never even had to think about it. His talent was off the charts, but the reason I used him as a teaching tool was because his skill, craft and technique were impeccable.

An example of his craftsmanship is his masterful use of his hands. Here is a clip from The Master that I use to show students about the effective use of an actor's hands in telling a story, specificity and detail in movement, defining character, and working with the camera. 

The clip above is also a great lesson in the use of physicality and focus. Hoffman doesn't give his opponent his focus, or square himself off to him completely until he fully commits to verbal combat, and the results are explosive, which he quickly realizes and tries to regain his composure for his audience members. Also, notice how when the shot goes wide, Hoffman uses his hands down at his waist level as opposed to at his shoulder level in the close up. He uses his hands to fill the shot he is occupying. He also doesn't randomly gesticulate, each movement is specific and detailed and punctuates his dialogue and voice.

The next scene is from Boogie Nights, and it is Hoffman's character Scotty J's introduction to the audience. It is an absolute masterpiece of an entrance. Hoffman uses the setting, his costume, his physicality and his breath to tell the audience immediately who this guy is and we instantly know him.

A few things to notice in this entrance. Hoffman doesn't just walk in and hit his mark. He enters at his own pace, still effected by the sick girl being carried out behind him. He hesitates, and awkwardly walks to his mark. Then at his mark, he surveys the pool party before him and takes a big breath before entering. This breath is fantastic in humanizing Scotty for the audience. We feel for him, he is a shlubby mess, but we feel for him after that breath. We understand that he is insecure, self conscious and fragile. That breath makes us allies of Scotty J. It is awesome. 

Then also notice when Scotty J meets Dirk Diggler that he uses his hands. He plays with his sunglasses, he tugs on his shirt in order to cover his belly, he indicates with his hands whom he is talking to or about. Even in the coverage of Dirk and Reed Rothchild where we only see Scotty's back, Hoffman still uses his hands, which gives even more of a visual life into what could have been a flat and basic scene in the hands of a lesser actor and director.

Finally, take a look at Hoffman's monologue from the film Happiness. See his use of breath to give inner life and fullness to his stillness. Then watch as the camera pulls back and his hands are revealed, he then rubs them against the chair. He becomes tactile when it serves the shot in order to show more of his character. When the shot was tight and he couldn't do that, he used his breath to reveal his character's inner life and wants, but when the camera is pulled back he can use his hands to reveal more and he does. (My apologies….sadly, the Happiness clip has been pulled from the internet, but I strongly encourage you to go watch Happiness directed by Todd Solendz, and in particular watch the scene where Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is at his therapists. You will know it when you see it. That is the scene I am describing here. As a replacement scene, check out Hoffman's work from Charlie Wilson's War. Notice his physicality, his posture and stance, his voice and breath, and finally how he uses his hands. Notice also how he adapts his physicality in order for his performance to be appropriate to the camera frame. This is master craftsmanship combined with sheer talent and passionate commitment. )

These are just three very brief examples of the craft and detail that Philip Seymour Hoffman brought to all of his work. I highly recommend viewing his entire body of work in order to see many more examples of mastery. The highlights of his work for me, can be seen in Boogie Nights, Magnolia, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Happiness,  Punch Drunk Love, Doubt, Capote, Synecdoche, NY and The Master. Watch his hands, watch his physicality, watch his focus and watch his breath. He uses everything in the actor's tool bag to bring life and humanity to all of his characters. I think that is the thing that strikes me most about Philip Seymour Hoffman. As a character actor, he wasn't given a whole lot of screen time to create memorable characters and bring them to life, but he used his talent and skill to bring the smallest of characters into clear focus, and his films were so much better for it.

I think that is why he is so beloved in the acting community. He was an average looking guy, with a doughy body and that usually means you don't get too far in this business, but he overcame all that through hard work, skill, commitment to craft and talent. He went from a character actor to a leading man for no other reason than he was great at acting. He didn't give a shit about celebrity or the Hollywood game or any of that nonsense. He loved acting and film and theatre, and that's why we loved him. Most people who get into acting don't do it to be a celebrity, they do it to be an artist, and Hoffman epitomized the actor as artist. In a business where casting decisions are made based on the size of one's Twitter following as opposed to one's skill, or where a "leaked porn video" is worth more cache than time spent working in the theatre, Philip Seymour Hoffman was a beacon of artistry that showed the way for artists to make the most of the opportunities Hollywood can present without buying into the nonsense of all that comes with it.

I was lucky enough to see Hoffman on Broadway a few times. Twice in "True West" with John C. Reilly and once in "Long Days Journey into Night". He was a magnetic stage actor, who filled theaters with his physical presence and drew the audience in with his delicate humanity. I regret not being able to see his Willy Loman in "Death of a Salesman", just like I will regret not being able to see him in any other plays or films. His death is a profound loss for actors and film and theatre lovers everywhere.

One final comment, in the past few days many people have written about Philip Seymour Hoffman and either their interactions with him, or how his death has effected them in some personal way. This is a natural tendency when someone famous dies. We all personalize these things because we feel as if we know the person because we've spent so much time watching them work that we feel we know them. We don't, of course, but that isn't going to stop me from doing the same thing.

To me, Philip Seymour Hoffman had the perfect life. He was a highly respected, award winning actor who worked in great art house type films (P.T. Anderson type-films) and also made some great money in more blockbuster type films. He did fantastic plays on Broadway and also directed other smaller plays. He had a fine family, three young kids, and enough financial security that he should never have had a care in the world. Perfect. Except it wasn't. This is something I have in common with Philip Seymour Hoffman. He had been sober 23 years leading up to his heroin overdose. I have been sober 22 years. We are both of the same generation, both from New York and we both have the same disease. He died of his disease, and I am still living with mine.

I was absolutely speechless when I heard he had died. After more than twenty years of sobriety you sort of assume that you have slain the dragon and you don't have to think about it ever again. The truth is, you haven't slain the dragon, you have just driven it from the kingdom, and if you don't build up large castle walls, the dragon can come back and obliterate you. It has happened to me, where the thought occurs to you that maybe, just maybe, you could have a beer, like a normal person, and your life could go on uninterrupted. You can convince yourself of nearly everything, and convincing yourself that you are normal is the insidious voice of the disease whispering in your ear. 

There are some things you can do to counter the dragon whispering in your ear about your normalcy. You can not listen, but that only works for so long. That is not a defense, it is a white knuckling attempt to ignore reality. The better option is to build big castle walls in the form of surrounding yourself with people who don't use. This almost always means eliminating your friends from you life. It can also mean eliminating a spouse or family member from your life. This is hard to do, but it is what is needed. You can fool yourself into thinking you can get by without it, but you won't. You will fail, and you will die. I know, I know…"I'm loyal", "I'd never turn my back on my friends/wife/family etc etc". Yeah, I get it. You're the exception to the rule. The rules don't apply to you.  Your recovery will be different. 

Bullshit. No it won't. You will fail, and you will die. This is reality. Reality is that you should not go to bars, or parties or family gatherings if there will be drinking there. You can't go. If people don't get it…fuck them. You must be as relentless against the disease as the disease will be against you. The disease doesn't care how, why or with whom you use…it only cares that you use. You must be as vigilant as the dragon, and this son of a bitch dragon, he don't sleep.

If you don't have the disease but someone you love does, these rules apply to you as well. You must be as ruthless as the disease. You can cut no slack, you can offer no sympathy, you can only offer a way out, and that is contingent upon the user stopping their use. You cannot argue, or debate or bargain. The deal is, you stop using, and I'll be your best friend and ally. If you use, I will not tolerate your presence. You have to hold yourself to that. It also wouldn't hurt to be an example and not use yourself, even if it isn't "your problem". The truth is, you need to change your life almost as much as the addict does, so be an example of courage through the changes you make.

I've heard and read a lot of people saying Hoffman was "selfish" or an "asshole" for loving the needle more than he loved his kids. I find this line of thought really repulsive and misguided. Hoffman had a disease that killed him. It is a truly cunning disease that doesn't change how much you love people, but it does change how you love people. So hearing people diminish Hoffman's struggles by saying he simply chose this way of life is infuriating to me. That is not to say that those things have no place being said to an addict, they do. If saying those sorts of things makes someone stop using, then go crazy with it. One of my favorite things to say to a male addict is to tell him to "be a man", meaning, clean up and take care of your family and kids and life…"be a man!" (by the way, this is only an option to use if the person saying it has been through recovery and is sober themselves…please keep that in mind).  Here is a brief clip of the approach:

 It might work, it might not, but when the disease has a hold of someone, you do whatever it takes to wrest control away from it, and if that means getting rough, then you get rough. The way I see it is this, when someone in your life is in the throes of addiction it can be a nuisance, an annoyance, a nightmare and a pain in the ass, and you can say all sorts of insensitive and outlandish things like "you're selfish" or "you love the needle more than you love your kids". But when someone dies from addiction, you should say none of those things, all you can say is, it is a tragedy, and seeing it any other way simply reveals you to be an emotionally immature, empathetically obtuse, narcissistic nit-wit and jackass. 

In conclusion, the world lost a truly remarkable artist this past week to a disease that is as unscrupulous as any. I hope we take both Philip Seymour Hoffman's fantastic work and tragic death and use them as lessons for our art and life moving forward. I know I will use it as a joyous reminder of the artistry of acting, and a terrible and tragic reminder that the dragon never sleeps.