Ranking: Paul Thomas Anderson Films

He's one of my favourite directors, and the best director I've yet to give a Best Picture win to (though it remains to be seen for 2007 and maybe 1999), and always at the very least a guarantee of something completely unique and one-of-a-kind even when taking influences from other directors. Naturally, I love some of his films more than others, so here goes...(note: a lot of the clips are NSFW, as are most of Anderson's films.)

7. Hard Eight (4/5)

My least favourite PTA film, and it's testament to his incredible talent as a director that it's not a bad film at all, It's probably his least assured film as a writer, which is perfectly alright considering it was his first film, and though it contains many of the flairs we know and love about his style, it's slightly muted in my view by the nature of the story, which is rather low-key and if I'm to be honest, not exceptionally interesting. It tells the neo-noir tale of a listless young man John (John C. Reilly) and an aged gambler Sydney (Philip Baker Hall) who takes him under his wing, I enjoy the film, but it really doesn't go anywhere particularly fascinating after the rather great initial scenes of setting up the tone and atmosphere. The finale where Sydney 'resolves' matters and gives John his happy ending with a cocktail waitress (a solid Gwenyth Paltrow), and the not so happy ending to John's buddy Jimmy (Samuel L. Jackson, one wonders why he hasn't worked with Anderson again), are well done, but I don't know it just never impacted me in the way I felt it was trying to. Nevertheless, I cannot fault any of its technical aspects, especially considering the limited budget, and it makes for a good enough start to Anderson's career, though based on this alone I would not have been extremely eager to pursue more of his work.

6. The Master (4.5/5)

A film I am in sore need of a re-watch, as well as some of Freddie Quell's (Joaquin Phoenix in a performance that needs to be seen to be believed) paint thinner brew, for this one. It was the first Paul Thomas Anderson film I watched, and not necessarily in the best of circumstances. Anyway, the film tells the story of Freddie, a seriously troubled WWII veteran with all manner of addictions, who finds solace of sorts in the hands of Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), leader of a religious movement called 'The Cause'. Things are pretty wild before this, pretty wild after this, the film's a pretty crazy ride but not necessarily in the way you'd expect. I find it very interesting that the film is divisive as it is amongst critics, and how differently people try to 'analyse' the film, since I find the film absolutely impossible to analyse on the whole. It strikes me as the sort of film you more experience Paul Thomas Anderson's vision than try to 'decipher' it, so to speak; he throws you into this strange world of the cult, throws various dilemmas about the natures of cults, and more importantly the psyche of Freddie and how he influences others around him, and how others around him influence him.

The great thing about the film, even as someone watching a Paul Thomas Anderson film for the first time, is that he somehow makes it all feel so natural. He builds this somewhat surreal yet brutally realistic universe to perfection, and is enabled by a particularly intelligent script to sustain it through the whole running time - I'm not entirely sure about the ending myself, but I guess we'll wait for a re-watch. The best thing about this film though, is the acting. Amy Adams, as Dodd's wife, is biting and incisive, far removed from her usual 'cheery' style in an effective, disconcerting fashion. PSH, in his last role for PTA, is marvellous as the deeply charismatic and deeply complex cult leader, holding you under such sway throughout. And best of show is Joaquin Phoenix, who made a completely bonkers return to the Academy Awards scene with his extremely original, mad turn as a man you never can quite get the hang of, but remains surprisingly human and sympathetic (at least to me) throughout.

5. Punch-Drunk Love (4.5/5)

An Adam Sandler romantic comedy that actually doesn't suck! Actually, I take that overarching statement back. Not all Adam Sandler romantic comedies suck, not 50 First Dates, not The Wedding Singer, not Click. And certainly not one which utilizes the talents of Paul Thomas Anderson to mould Sandler's usual 'calm guy with sporadic bursts of extreme anger' into something not only funny, but also a fascinating psychological exploration of a man putting on an extremely awkward, slowly cracking facade against the world. Sandler's Barry Egan is a man who seems nice and sweet, if a bit awkward, and the truth is, he is a nice and sweet person, truly, and it's so interesting to contrast this exploration of a man with something like The Master or There Will Be Blood. Sandler is fantastic at playing up the awkwardness of the man alongside the anger issues that pervade him, and makes his subsequent toning down of both aspects through his relationship with Emily Watson's luminous Lena.

This is not your standard romantic comedy by any stretch of the imagination, however. If I had to cite a possible influence on Anderson, I'd say something like David Lynch's Wild at Heart, or the Coen Brothers' Raising Arizona come to mind, as Sandler plays a somewhat similar role as Nicolas Cage did in those films as an odd man faced with even odder circumstances in his pursuit of love. The opening scene is a beautifully shot, in medias res of oddity the Coens would be proud of, and I absolutely adore the third act which involves a VERY ANGRY Philip Seymour Hoffman shouting down a phone. A very wonderful, if small-scale film that while not a classic like some of his other films, remains a supreme joy to watch.

4. Inherent Vice (5/5)

A film that, while I love, I wouldn't necessarily recommend to everyone. If you thought The Master was odd in a not-so-good-way, stay away from this one. To call this film 'plot-less' would be unfair, though it does quite a lot to make you think of it in that way - it's basically a detective story about a private eye looking for a missing ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend while solving two other cases on the go, that are somewhat related, Raymond Chandler style. Except that this is no Raymond Chandler story, it's a Thomas Pynchon story, which means that the connections between the cases are at best tenuous throughout, characters are odd to the extreme and deliver exposition in the most bizarre manner, and the private eye himself, the one we are usually accustomed to being the Philip Marlowe-esque bedrock of sanity, is a stoner called Doc Sportello. The whole film is a mess in honour of the source material (apparently), and in terms of novel mysteries I find much more accessible, the taut plotting and characterizations of a Chandler to the scattershot nature of a Pynchon (I gave up on the novel Inherent Vice a few pages in).

Something tells me I should give the book another shot though, because I love the film. It's a fabulous mess. I don't think I'll put any of the individual scenes in here because out of context, they might not seem as effective as they really are in the sceheme of the film. Phoenix makes for an engaging and funny lead, reminding me a bit of a stoner Charlie Chaplin in his pratfalling antics, but the true gold to be mined here is the way Anderson stitches together this weird world of characters and situations. Josh Brolin's always angry police detective and adversary to Doc, Bigfoot Bjornsen, is my personal favourite of the lot, but the whole cast is completely on point, with particular mentions going to Martin Short's demented dentist Dr Rudy, Katherine Waterston's stylized femme fatale of sorts Shasta, heck, even Eric Roberts is great!! I cannot praise the cast enough, but Anderson's work is nothing to be sniffed at either. He perfectly mends the stylized tones of neo-noir and the 70's stoner vibe perfectly while still crafting an engaging story of sorts to follow through.

3. Boogie Nights (5/5)

I'd probably recommend this film to anyone who hasn't watched any Paul Thomas Anderson film, but wants to get into him. It's by far his most accessible film, which may seem a strange way to describe a film that gives insight into the 1970s and 1980s Los Angeles porn industry through the eyes of Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg), who soon becomes known as 'Dirk Diggler'. Boogie Nights is a film with a vast sprawling focus, but unlike Magnolia Diggler is always the ostensible lead, and Wahlberg gives an excellent performance as a man first fuelled by success and youth, and soon falling into drugs and depression, before soaring once again. The first film in which Anderson paid homage to Robert Altman with his huge ensemble and scope, Boogie Nights is a great and accessible film because its characters and their stories, are all so relatable despite their obviously unique profession. Julianne Moore's Amber Waves is sexy, sultry and seems like she has everything she wants from life through her job and fun lifestyle, but also faces the possibility of having a legal injunction against her ever seeing her child again; Don Cheadle's Buck Swope just wants to provide a good lifestyle for his newlywed wife and his soon-to-be-born child; Philip Seymour Hoffman's Scotty J. just wants love, and Burt Reynolds' Jack Horner just wants to make movies his own way.

There's a lot of different stories to cover through the film's runtime and Anderson does a fantastic job of it. The only story I guess I've a bit of an issue with is William H. Macy's Bill Thompson; the payoff to his storyline is a brilliant scene, but I'm not sure if the whole film builds up to it quite perfectly. Anyway, that's a nitpick, because Macy is really good in the role, and Anderson's direction of that tracking shot scene is fantastic. There's so many great scenes to pick out here from various perspectives. From a smaller acting standpoint, any scene where Julianne Moore's onscreen is brilliant; her performance, easily a career-best, is funny and heartbreaking, and she shares marvellous chemistry with Heather Graham and Wahlberg. The set design, whether it's Horner's house or the disco scenes, perfectly capture the very specific time period, the soundtrack is great, the cinematography is downright amazing, especially with those tracking shots which are a thing of beauty. Anderson shows the ability to switch from one hilarious scene to one tragic scene without missing a single step, and manages to sustain a perfect balance of style and substance to the overarching storyline, while adding so many lovely personal touches, whether it be the various outfits of 'Rollergirl', the cafe holdup scene, or that lovely and rather touching finale.

2. There Will Be Blood (5/5)

In contrast to the films before and after this one on this list, There Will Be Blood has a relatively tighter focus in terms of character, though certainly no less tighter a focus in scope. By tighter focus on character, I mean the film hinges entirely upon Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Daniel Plainview, an 'oil man' through and through, because I'm going to talk about it more in the near future I'll have to sort of avoid talking about it now.

Anyway, without going into Day-Lewis' performance, there's still a great deal to talk about in this film. The cinematography is a great place to start off with, as it's some of the greatest cinematography of all-time, and no hyperbole is intended with that statement. Each scene feels like something out of an old John Huston film in the 1940s, but coloured, and every oil explosion, every landscape scene of oil mining, every scene in the Plainview household, feels so vivid and real and beautifully realized. It's a compellingly visual, viscreal experience to be beheld, that's only further supplanted by the excellent sound effects that truly make you feel within every experience out on the oilfields, and a downright brilliant soundtrack that incorporates Brahms' 'Violin Concerto in D Major' in the most unique tonal fashions (once after the derrick opening ceremony, once during the ending).

From a story perspective, the film actually does what lots of films are advised against, which is to tell of the story of a man's life as a story of a man's life, rather than pinpointing an exact event/moment in time of a man's life as the main story. Well this is part of the film's brilliance. We follow the complete arc of self-made oil man Daniel Plainview and never once does it feel rushed. The lead performance of course spectacularly does the job of selling Plainview's character transition in his ruthless quest for wealth and money, and it certainly dominates the film to an extreme extent. Which thus makes the performance of Paul Dano as preacher and adversary to Plainview, Eli Sunday, even more impressive, as he not only manages to hold his own against Day-Lewis, I'd argue that he in fact steals one or two moments away from him.

Anderson meshes all the aforementioned elements into a masterpiece of a film. It's an epic through and through, as the film's fantastic visual style, stylized and beautifully written script, and amazing ending make very clear. One might nitpick the lack of subtletly, though I'd argue there's a great deal of that in some of the quieter moments between Daniel and his son H.W., and some little touches in quieter scenes likes Daniel Plainview's confrontation with the elusive Mr Bandy. These small touches make the film work perfectly in line with the grander, bigger picture There Will Be Blood. I also think it's no spoiler to put the ending here since it's already so well known (it's a terrific ending and here's the Brahms I was talking about):

1. Magnolia (5/5)

As much as I love There Will Be Blood, and as frequently as I consider maybe making it my #1 PTA film, every time I re-watch or think about Magnolia I know I make the right choice in putting this at the very top. This is a truly ensemble film, the loosest ensemble film of his as there's no lead like in Boogie Nights or Inherent Vice, and each story seems to carry equal importance. The opening scene does an extremely effective job of setting up the tone of the film by telling of three stories of chance, as well as introducing us to the main players of Magnolia in a very straightforward, clear, somewhat expositionary fashion, and yet feels utterly natural and inspired. Too often I go into ensemble films and exit them without any idea of who I was watching onscreen besides big names actors placed to help the audience remember their names; there's certainly an abundance of them here (Tom Cruise, John C. Reilly, William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Julianne Moore to name but a few), but even if they weren't big names, the clear-cut and very entertaining way they're introduced with such a meta vibe helps imprint them in our minds.

NSFW

The film builds up all the characters and stories into a somewhat supernatural conclusion that some might hate, but I personally love. Anyway, as for what leads to the end, what else can I say besides the fact that I love it. It's difficult to try to describe each storyline, as many parallel and overlap with one another, but if I had to single them out:

• Police officer Jim Kurring's (John C. Reilly) tentative romance with junkie Claudia Wilson Gator (Melora Walters)
• Claudia's father Jim Gator (Philip Baker Hall), a television host on What Do Kids Know? is dying from cancer and wishes to reconnect with his estranged family, Claudia and her mother Rose (Melinda Dillon).
• A former producer on the show, Earl Partridge (Jason Robards) who is also dying from cancer, and who wants to reconnect with his son through his night nurse Phil Parma (Philip Seymour Hoffman).
• His son, Frank T.J. Mackey (Tom Cruise) is a pick-up artist and 'motivational' speaker confronting his demons firstly through an incisive reporter (April Grace) and through Earl.
• Earl's second, much younger wife Linda (Julianne Moore) who married him for money, but now wants none of it because she's truly fallen in love with him.
• Former What Do Kids Know? contestant Donnie Smith (William H. Macy) is in love with a bartender named Brad and wants to get braces to somehow impress him.
• Current What Do Kids Know? contestant Stanley Spector (Jeremy Blackman) is being constantly pressured by his father (Michael Bowen) to win.
• A body in a closet.

Whew. A lot to get through, yet somehow Anderson goes all-or-nothing and entirely succeeds in this regard. Each story is spliced and intertwined with each other in such a remarkably smooth fashion, and you never lose track of each character's story even when they're technically used to enhance another character's arc. The stories and characters feel so human even when uttering some very stylized and sophisticated dialogue because of Anderson's approach which is to make everyday life something worthy of artistic depiction. Below I've included some of my favourite scenes in the film in that regard, making real life situations and confrontations something truly exceptional:

These wonderful little scenes help to support the bigger bombastic ones which are equally great:

These are just a few of the amazing scenes in the film. There's one which brings all the stories together and the characters all sing to 'Wise Up':

I'm not going to add much from the third act because that's where so much of the power of the film comes into play. I'll just say this: Tom Cruise has a breathtaking scene near the end where even the biggest Tom Cruise hater will become a Tom Cruise fan. He gives one of the greatest performances in the cast, though Philip Seymour Hoffman is also great in one of my favourite roles of his as just a simply nice guy. Everyone is stellar; I haven't even gotten to the likes of Julianne Moore, who gets a hugely OTT role and manages to make it work completely:

Or Philip Baker Hall, whose storyline and breakdown scenes present such a fascinating contrast in how understated and yet even darker they are, and are directed with such remarkable restraint by Anderson:

I'll not spoil too much about how it all wraps up, but it really is one of the film's soaring points. It's all technically down to chance, and yet chance builds the film's finale into a perfect blend of tones. Nothing is closed-and-shut happy or sad, hopeful or dark, it's all down to how you engage with the film, and the beauty of it is you engage with the film in different ways depending on which storyline you feel most strongly about. For me it's a close call among them all. Julianne Moore's, Jeremy Blackman;s and Philip Baker Hall's storylines are consistently engaging, William H. Macy's is great, Cruise and Robards' are fantastic, but my favourite has to be the relationship between Claudia and Jim. John C. Reilly is quirky, messed up, heartbreaking, funny and ends the film on a magical note, one of my favourite film endings ever.