Hollywood often faces scrutiny for its political leanings, but few voice their opinions as bluntly as Bret Easton Ellis. In a recent episode of his podcast, the acclaimed author of “American Psycho” directed his critical lens toward the latest cinematic endeavor, “One Battle After Another.” Released on September 26 and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, the film has achieved remarkable critical acclaim, boasting a 95 percent rating from critics and an impressive 85 percent from fans on Rotten Tomatoes. It earned $22.4 million in its opening weekend and has totaled $114 million so far, making it Anderson’s first movie to surpass the $100 million mark. Yet, despite these numbers, Ellis questions the merit behind its success.
Ellis argues that the film’s accolades stem less from its artistic quality and more from its alignment with liberal ideology. “It’s kind of shocking to see these kinds of accolades for — I’m sorry, it’s not a very good movie — because of its political ideology,” he stated, suggesting that the enthusiasm for the film can be attributed to its “leftist sensibility.” This perspective raises questions about the criteria by which films are celebrated in contemporary society. Are audiences reacting to the filmmaking itself, or are they swayed by the political climate?
His remarks dig deeper into the cultural backdrop that shapes much of today’s cinema. According to Ellis, “One Battle After Another” feels like “a kind of musty relic of the post-Kamala Harris era,” a film that is praised not for genuine substance but as a symbol of ideological alignment. “There’s a liberal mustiness to this movie that already feels very dated by October 2025,” he said. This stark assessment implies that the film does not resonate with the broader American experience but instead caters to a niche audience, one that he feels is out of touch with the reality facing the nation.
This notion of films as political artifacts rather than pure entertainment is echoed by other critics as well. Armond White from National Review agrees with Ellis, tying the film’s themes to current events and noting the “macabre coincidence” of its release following the assassination of conservative debater Charlie Kirk. He suggests that the film “romanticizes political assassination,” thus framing it as something more than mere fiction. These insights provide context for understanding how cinema can reflect or distort social and political sentiment.
Ellis’s comments challenge both filmmakers and audiences to reconsider the motivations behind their celebrations and critiques. When critics label a film as “important,” Ellis retorted, “No, it is not,” emphasizing a disconnect between the film and the American public. In this exchange, he highlights a broader concern: the risk of valuing films based on their alignment with certain ideologies rather than their storytelling capabilities and artistic merit.
This discourse highlights a tension in the film industry, where political narratives may overshadow the very essence of storytelling. Are movies becoming platforms for ideological expression rather than avenues for genuine artistic exploration? Ellis seems to believe so, and his critique resonates amid a backdrop of increasing polarization in both politics and culture.
In examining the success of “One Battle After Another,” the conversation prompts further inquiry into how movies are marketed and received. Are filmmakers aware of this trend? Do they consciously create works that cater to specific political sentiments, or are they simply responding to prevailing cultural winds? As Ellis clearly points out, the disconnect between such films and society at large raises critical questions about authenticity in both art and the progressive narratives they often propagate.
In summary, Bret Easton Ellis’s critical stance against “One Battle After Another” is more than just a comment on one film; it signifies a larger cultural critique about Hollywood’s relationship with politics. By labeling the film a product of its political ideology rather than a standalone work of art, he points to a vital conversation within the film community about the true purpose of cinema today. As audiences continue to grapple with these themes, filmmakers might find themselves at a crossroads, where the demand for authenticity clashes with the allure of political appeasement.
"*" indicates required fields
