Phantom Thread (2017)

On the surface, this is an impossibly elegant film. Set in 1950s London, every frame is composed as precisely as a hand-stitched dress, for two straight hours. But look underneath, and it isn’t a love story — it’s an unsettling power struggle between two people trying to tame each other. My rating is ★5.0. It’s a rare film that paints the most twisted of relationships in the most beautiful images.

What it’s about

Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a renowned dressmaker sought after by London society. His days are scheduled to the minute, and that order is coldly managed by his sister Cyril (Lesley Manville). When Alma (Vicky Krieps), a waitress from a country restaurant, enters his life as his muse and lover, cracks appear in the perfectly controlled “House of Woodcock.” It also carries weight as the film Daniel Day-Lewis made after announcing his retirement.

What’s good

The first impression is precision. The scenes, the costumes, the sets, the smallest gestures, even the music — nothing is placed carelessly. Fittingly for a film about clothes made by hand, the movie itself is built like a bespoke suit.

The acting goes without saying. Day-Lewis is flawless as an obsessive genius trapped in his own world. Manville builds a chilling weight out of just a few lines, and the relatively lesser-known Vicky Krieps holds her own without giving an inch among these giants. The balance of the three performances carries the film.

The music matters just as much. Jonny Greenwood’s elegant piano and strings run through the whole film, laying a strange unease beneath the beautiful melodies. The screen is gorgeous yet keeps you quietly on edge — and honestly, half of that feeling comes from the score.

The real subject is control, not love

It looks like a romance, but underneath it’s a fight over who controls whom. At first, everything runs by Reynolds’s rules. He’s so obsessive about his order that even the small sound of someone scraping toast at breakfast sets him off. But Alma refuses to comply. She pours water slowly on purpose to grate on him, and eventually resorts to a dangerous, perverse method of breaking him down so that he depends on her.

Each tiny action becomes a move in a power game, and Paul Thomas Anderson carries this uncomfortable tug-of-war without big incidents or explosions — purely through mood and detail. That’s why the film stays taut even while it’s quiet.

It divides people

Honestly, this isn’t a film for everyone. The pace is slow, there’s almost no dramatic event, and neither lead is likable. One is a fussy man who cares only about himself; the other plays a dangerous game in the name of love. If you go in expecting catharsis or warm comfort, “boring” and “I can’t relate” are natural reactions — which is exactly why opinions on it split so sharply.

Ratings & reception

The film was well received by critics. It holds 7.4/10 on IMDb, a 91% Tomatometer from 358 reviews, and a Metacritic score of 90 (“universal acclaim”). At the Academy Awards it earned six nominations — including Best Picture, Director, Actor (Daniel Day-Lewis) and Supporting Actress (Lesley Manville) — and won Best Costume Design. Audiences, however, are sharply split, largely over the slow pace and the deliberately unlikable characters.

Why ★5.0

For me, that discomfort is the appeal. It hides the most twisted of relationships inside the most elegant images and pushes that contradiction all the way to the end. Instead of dressing love up as something sweet, it stares straight at the darker truth of control and dependence. Divisiveness included, this is clearly a film by someone who knows how to make one and tells the story exactly the way they want. Hence ★5.0.

Recommended for

• Fans of Paul Thomas Anderson’s quiet, dense filmmaking
• Viewers who prefer the dark side of relationships over sweet romance
• Anyone who wants to see Daniel Day-Lewis at full power