Leo, PTA, and the Battle for Meaning in Modern Cinema [Podcast]
Few films spark the kind of passionate debate that One Battle After Another has. It’s been called everything from “the best movie of the year” to “the defining Hollywood film of the 21st century.” But is it really?
In this episode, Head of Development John Schramm and Creative Executive Danny Murray go head-to-head in a spirited breakdown of the film that has critics, filmmakers, and audiences buzzing. From Leonardo DiCaprio’s polarizing performance to Paul Thomas Anderson’s ambitious themes of revolution, power, and failure, the duo digs into what makes the film extraordinary, and where it might fall short.
Full Transcript: Kinolime Podcast Episode 21: Leo, PTA, and the Battle for Meaning in Modern Cinema
Participants
John Schramm - Head of Development, Kinolime
Danny Murray - Creative Executive, Kinolime
John:
Welcome, everybody. Today we’re debating the most talked-about film right now here at Kinolime Studios. I’m John Schram, Head of Development. With me is our star CE, Danny Murray. We’ve got two star CEs, actually, and they’re both stars.
Danny:
We’re going to talk about One Battle After Another. If you care about film, whether you live and breathe movies or you’re just a casual viewer, you can’t not talk about this one. I saw it last night in IMAX at Kips Bay on the East Side. Dead center seats. John hooked me up.
John:
He did. Last minute - amazing. We’re going to have a little chat because Danny has a hot take. Go ahead and state it.
Danny:
Quick prologue, not 40 minutes, I promise. I saw the film opening night, 70mm IMAX at Lincoln Center. When the lights came up, the worst review I heard was, “That’s the best movie I’ve seen this year.” The average review was, “That’s the best movie I’ve ever seen in a theater.” I landed somewhere else: this is the defining Hollywood film of the 21st century. Nothing comes close.
John:
That’s a big statement, and honestly, I loved the film too, really loved it. But I want to push back on “defining.” It’s early to call. We’re still in the first quarter. Touchdown on the opening drive? Sure. But there’s a lot of game left.
Craft & Performances
John:
Positives first. From a writing perspective, the film is excellent at sustaining intention and obstacle, especially in the second half. Characters have clear goals; there are consistent impediments; the “one battle after another” structure works. Leo trying to save his daughter, great escalating conflicts.
Performances? Outstanding. Sean Penn is top-notch. Teyana Taylor is terrific. Chase Infiniti is incredible.
My issue is with Leo. I’m a little tired of his recent run of anxious, middle-aged loser roles. He’s great at it, but we’ve seen it, Wolf of Wall Street, Don’t Look Up, Killers of the Flower Moon elements. His presence pulled me out at times. Sean Penn, Teyana Taylor, Chase; magnetic every time they’re on screen.
Danny:
I love that Leo’s lame. But I do think the trailers were intentionally ambiguous. The opening scene makes it clear why they didn’t market certain elements broadly, let’s call it an immediate plunge into an Obama-era detention-facility reality. That choice probably affected the box office and audience expectations.
Theme & “Defining” Status
John:
Here’s why I hesitate to call it “defining.” The story felt vacant thematically by the end. Who truly changes? Maybe Leo becomes a slightly better dad. There were opportunities to grapple more deeply with hot-button topics, what it means to be a failed revolutionary, power, race - and it didn’t fully dig in. I left asking, “What was the core takeaway?”
Danny:
I disagree. The film’s underlying theme, to me, is that people who try to create massive structural change often die thinking they failed. Their actions spark others who carry the fight forward. Leo is, in many ways, a poser, just like the real Leo can seem on climate when he talks big and flies private. That hypocrisy is the point: his greatest contribution is the spark he passes to his daughter. By the end, his spirit,however compromised, ignites something real in her.
John:
I didn’t feel her arc was earned. She spends time at a convent, shows little interest in revolution, and then suddenly she’s following in her mother’s footsteps. It felt rushed.
The Tracker & Third Act Tension
John:
Story issue: in the third act, at the 1776 Roadhouse moment, the tracker in the white Charger has a major turn while Leo doesn’t. We barely know the tracker, yet he has a code shift, “no kids”, that drives a critical outcome. It felt like PTA wrote into a corner and used a character with minimal setup to bail out the plot.
Danny:
His code is established: he doesn’t work in the business of killing children. He’s a coyote who traffics people, yes, but the film draws a line for him - twice. When he realizes he’s crossed into “killing kids,” he stops. It’s not a redemption monologue, but it tracks with the rules the film gave him.
John:
It still felt rushed. Even a single shot of him wrestling with the choice could have helped. As presented, it plays like a soft deus ex machina, a convenient out that undercuts Leo’s climactic agency.
The Climax
John:
I found the third act a bit flat. The shot of Leo going over the hills? Brilliant, peak cinema. But a great third act usually puts the protagonist and antagonist on a collision course where the theme is decided. Heat is a good reference: you’re on pins and needles waiting for that confrontation.
Here, eliminating Sean Penn’s character (or sidelining him) defuses tension. The upside-down car beat, the daughter in the bushes - did anyone think she’d shoot her father? The stakes felt diminished.
Danny:
I read the climax differently: the crash and chase are the peak. The villains are intentionally stupid, lonely fascists - a race to the bottom. The real question in the end is: Does the daughter live to carry the fight? The world doesn’t change; it arguably gets worse over ~20 years. The point is: we keep going. Leo remains a loser on the couch, but the spark passes on. That’s the win.
John:
For me, it wasn’t on the screen in a way that landed. We can agree to disagree.
Protagonist vs. Antagonist
John:
So, who’s the protagonist?
Danny:
Leo, a bumbly, flawed loser.
John:
Antagonist?
Danny:
Sean Penn, broadly the state, power structures,yes, Sean Penn.
John:
In many defining films, Star Wars is an easy example, the climax is the force of good vs. the force of evil, whether physical or ideological. If we’re talking “defining of the 21st century,” I wanted a more direct, climactic collision over the film’s soul.
More “Defining” Contenders
John:
Two films I’d argue are more defining of the 21st century:
The Dark Knight - reshaped the superhero genre; Shakespearean scope; visionary formal choices.
No Country for Old Men - thematically richer, novel-backed clarity; the coin-flip scene alone is a masterclass in existential dread.
Danny:
I love No Country, and I think There Will Be Blood is right there too, maybe even more important. The Dark Knight is defining in some ways, but tonally and thematically I think it can lean a bit… let’s say ambiguously authoritarian.
Closing
Danny:
Bottom line: I love One Battle After Another. To me, it’s about not giving up against the unrelenting, idiotic forces that run the world. I don’t think another recent film has played with these themes at this scale.
John:
I think it’s an amazing action-drama, but not the defining film of the 21st century. What matters is what you think.
Both:
Tell us your take! If you’ve seen One Battle After Another, hit us at Kinolime.com or on Instagram, Facebook, X, anywhere you find us. What’s your defining film of the 21st century?
John:
Danny, always a pleasure. And Ron, when you edit this, please zoom in on Danny’s face when he gets heated.
Danny:
From everyone here at Kinolime, much love. Goodbye.
