[deleted]

Yeah, but it's set in the 50s.
If you account for the inflation of the dollar and the depreciation of Western Civilization, to say nothing of oceanic salinity and ebbing of the polar ice caps, this film truly is one of the greatest financial successes of all time, with enough left over to take the entire cast and crew out to dinner at the Red Lobster.


[none]

It got lots of Oscar nominations, so that matters more sometimes.

If anything, inability to recoup budget is a failure of the marketing department. Suggesting that a low gross speaks to the overall quality of this (or any other) film, though? That’s absurd. Whether or not the material speaks to you on a personal/aesthetic level, it’s hard to argue that Phantom Thread isn’t an incredibly well-made film.

Much like the lead character, Reynolds Woodcock, in the movie, the director of the movie, Paul Thomas Anderson, is an uncompromising artist... 😎

Remember the scene, where Reynolds has been told that an important client of his has gone to a more "fashionable" dressmaker... He doesn't worry about the cash, rather he asserts his vision to dress women according to his own sensibilities... With this movie Paul Thomas Anderson is asserting his own vision to make films according to his own sensibilities, regardless of the fashions of current industry and indie filmmaking... 😉

It's kinda beautiful when you think about it 😁

Are we shocked? It's a movie set in the 50's with an unbankable actor as the lead. Great movies like this often do not gain anything at the box office.

It costed? Who looks like a floppy fool now?

Who cares? Not the first time a great movie hasn't lit up the BO.