The first version of this film that was nominated for Best Picture was all the way back in 1930 at the third Academy Awards, the biggest difference being that in 1930, it won. But I think this film is far superior to its predecessor, not because of its production values, but because it has a more cohesive script. There was more of a linear story that was easier to follow. It gave more attention to character motivations and examined the plot from more diverse angles.
In fact, this is the third film adaptation of the story, the other being a made for TV version that was aired in 1979, which I have not seen. And granted, it has been a long while since I have seen the 1930 version, but I do remember the ending, which was very different than the one we got here in 2022. But I’ll get to that in a moment, though I will mention that it was the 1930 ending that more closely resembled the book of the same name that was published in 1929.
The story is about Paul Baumer, a young ordinary German man who signs up to fight in World War One along with his schoolmates, their heads full of patriotism, and dreaming of honor and glory. But it doesn’t take long for them to learn of the true horrors of trench warfare on the Western Front and death. As Paul and his comrades are put through battle after pointless battle, some dying, and all of them becoming emotionally scarred, their dreams of a glorious victory die, and are replaced by severely damaged spirits.
In contrast to the earlier versions of the story, here, Paul’s friends are given personalities and personal motivations, which is a good thing. It makes their deaths more impactful. In a few cases, we don’t even see their deaths. We are just shown things like a pair of special glasses or a bloody scarf, that indicate violent ends. Another difference in this film adaptation is that we are given scenes with the diplomats and generals who are in peace talks to end the bloody conflicts. When it is clear that Germany is losing the war, some of them sue for surrender and peace, while others, uncaring of the staggering number of deaths in the common soldiery, cannot accept defeat and surrender.
The actor playing Paul Baumer was Felix Kammerer, and boy was he put through the ringer. Oddly enough, there weren’t many intense battle sequences, though there were a few. But his most intense scenes were ones in which he learns of his friends dying, or when he kills a French soldier in terrible hand-to-hand combat. He is often shown with so much mud caked on his face that he looks like a zombie in a horror film, which was most certainly intentional. With his soul killed by his participation in the war, he becomes like a walking dead man.
Actors Aaron Hilmer, Moritz Klaus, Adrian Grünewald, and Edin Hasanovic, played his friends, Albert Kropp, Franz Müller, Ludwig Behm, and Tjaden Stackfleet, all of whom died in various ways, the most notable of which was Tjaden, who committed suicide rather that live the rest of his life as a cripple, by stabbing himself several times in the throat with a fork, a death which Paul witnesses.
But it was Paul’s best friend, Stanislaus “Kat” Katczinsky, played by Albrecht Schuch, who really stood out. Kat was a more seasoned soldier who Paul meets before his first battle, who becomes somewhat of a mentor to the new recruits. His acting stood out to me as incredible, especially during a scene where he tells Paul of his young son who had died of the pox. It was a moment of vulnerability that was very touching, and really allowed us to get to know him. And while his eventual death was different than in the 1929 novel and the 1930 movie, it was nonetheless just as poignant.
But it was the final battle that was the most heartbreaking. With only fifteen minutes to go before the end of the war, General Friedrichs, played by Devid Striesow, unwilling to accept a German surrender or defeat, orders his men to attack the French. If only the peace could have been maintained for those last few minutes, Paul would have survived. Instead, he is stabbed through the back by a bayonet seconds before the war ends, and a cease-fire is declared. His face is caked with so much dirt and dust, he looks like a ghost.
But I think the biggest difference between this movie and the source material is that final scene. In the novel, there is no last minute attack, no battle. Paul is killed on a peaceful, ordinary day. He has been so damaged by the war that he no longer feels like he has a place in the peaceful world, and his corpse is found with a calm expression on his face, as if he welcomed death. Here the ending was altered to emphasize the devastating waste and pointlessness of war, and the pathetic, petty reasons for forcing young men to die in battles fought for uncaring leaders. But one thing each adaptation of this story have in common, is that they are all strongly anti-war. They all show scenes of graphic violence and the horrific physical and emotional consequences of taking part in such conflicts.
The triangle of Sadness refers to the space between your eyebrows that wrinkles when one is unhappy. It is considered unattractive, and this movie is all about beauty. It is about those who are beautiful, and who use their beauty as currency. It is about the super-rich, and their callous, self-centered inability to care for themselves in any meaningful way. It is about the differences between those upper-class people, and the often unnoticed and neglected lower-class people who work for them. This movie examines that small, elite group of people, and portrays them in a light that isn’t always very kind. Mind you, it also pokes some fun at the lower-class a little, too.
It is a part of our global culture, where a person’s career, their means of making a living, is being an influencer, someone who by virtue of being attractive, posts pictures of themselves online, and receives money and free gifts from companies who want them to use their products. It is a culture I know next to nothing about, but apparently it is a thing. Honestly, this movie reminded me of another movie that came out within the last year called The Menu, which I actually enjoyed more.
But that’s not to say I didn’t enjoy this film. Wikipedia lists Triangle of Sadness as a satirical black comedy, which, finally, I think applies to the film rather well. It satirizes the wealthy and the beautiful, and it makes fun of them in a way that actually had some real humor. I think that I don’t get most movies that are categorized as black comedies. Maybe I’m too fixated on the word comedy. If something isn’t funny enough to make me laugh, how can it be a comedy? In most movies of this genre, we are supposed to laugh at things that aren’t really funny because of their ridiculousness. But I don’t usually find those things funny. I find them sad and disturbing, but not humorous, probably because they resemble reality a little too closely.
But this movie actually had me laughing a few times. The story starts out following the relationship between Carl and Yaya, played by Harris Dickinson and Charlbi Dean. They are both models. He loves her, but she only likes him. She is only with him because it makes her look good to be with an attractive man. They get a free trip on an exclusive cruise, where things start off swimmingly. But everything starts to go horribly wrong when one of the other guests, Vera, played by Sunnyl Melles, bored with her life and her inattentive husband, Dimitry, played by Zlatko Buric, forces one of the serving staff to join her in the hot-tub, and demands that all the working-class staff, including the kitchen staff, go swimming. This starts off a little chain of events that has unexpected results.
The food at the Captain’s dinner is not prepared properly, and everyone has a vomiting party. The Captain, played by Woody Harrelson, is a drunkard who delays the traditional dinner until a violent storm comes upon the boat. After a night of sickness and being tossed around like rag-dolls, both the crew and the guests are weak and shaky. Then a group of pirates attack the yacht and sink it. The survivors are washed up on the shore of a nearby island. Only three crew-members are there. There is Paula, the head concierge, played by Vicki Berlin, Abigail, one of the cleaning staff, played by Dolly de Leon, and Nelson, played by Jean-Christophe Folly, who worked in the engine room.
Abigail quickly takes a tyrannical hold over the entire group since she is the only one who can start a fire or catch fish for food. She uses these things to force everyone to serve her and treat her as a leader. She also coerces Carl into becoming her lover in exchange for food. The film ends with Abigail and Yaya discovering that the island they are on is actually the rear of an exclusive luxury resort. But rather than allowing the end of her little kingdom, Abigail decides to murder Yaya. She almost abandons this endeavor until Yaya says that when they are off the island, she will help Abigail by allowing her to work as her assistant.
But the movie did have its funny moments. Seeing the rich people throwing up at the Captain’s dinner was pretty amusing, though even that scenario has been done before, and in a much funnier way, in the hilarious 1999 film, Drop Dead Gorgeous. And during the storm, while Vera is being tossed about her bathroom, sliding back and forth in her own vomit, Dimitry and the Captain get extremely drunk and have a lively debate over the ship’s loud-speaker about the differences between Communism and Capitalism. And then there was the characters of Clementine and Winston, played by Amanda Walker and Oliver Ford Davies, who amassed their fortune making hand-grenades, and are killed when the pirates toss a hand-grenade onto the yacht. And lest I forget, the character of Jarmo, who I liked, played by Henrik Dorsin, a wealthy, kind-hearted man who is terribly lonely. The way he cried after killing the wild donkey for food, was sad and a little endearing.
It was a strange movie, and I understand the keen social commentary. But was it enough in my book to warrant a Best Picture nomination? Honestly, no, I don’t think so. The film was enjoyable, but I didn’t find it especially gripping or powerful. It was good, there’s no denying that. But I wouldn’t call it great. I don’t mind that it was nominated for Best Picture, I suppose, but I’m glad it didn’t win.
Well, this movie is about exactly what the title says. The entire movie only has one significant male character who even has any lines. The rest of the movie was a group of women gathered in a barn – talking. It brings up images in my mind of the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men. Now, what made the movie interesting was what they were talking about, of course. It was a horrifying subject that was made even more sickening because it was based on a true story. But I think that it was both this movie’s greatest strength, and at the same time, its biggest failing.
Now, what I mean by that statement is this: Having an intimate little story without much action, really allows the characters to be developed. The script was beautifully written. Each woman had a very distinct and believable personality. The dialogue and the interactions between the different characters was spot-on. But beyond that, it was just talking. The pacing was glacial, and ultimately, the movie was a little boring to my modern sensibilities. But I don’t see how else the story could have been told. The movie wasn’t really about the horror that the women were living in. It was about their reaction and response to that horror.
And what was that horror? Well, the story takes place in 2010 in a Mennonite community. They are a strongly religious people who make the practicing of their faith an active part of their every-day lives. But the community has a dirty little secret that it goes out of its way to hide. The men of the community regularly rape the women by sedating them with cow tranquilizer while they are sleeping, so that multiple attackers can sexually molest them on a regular basis. The women would just wake up every now and then with bloody sheets, knowing that they had been violated in the most horrific way. And to make it even worse, the abuse would sometimes begin with girls as young as eight years old.
In the beginning, a voice-over makes it clear that the men have been telling the abused women that it was nothing more than ghosts, and that they just had to accept what was happening to them. They would have to endure the pain and pregnancies without complaint. But one day when some men are caught in the act. They are arrested and taken to trial in a nearby city. As all the men in the community go to help post the bail, the women have two days to reach a decision.
They have three choices. They can do nothing and forgive their attackers. They can stay and fight, or they can refuse to forgive the men, and leave the community. This last choice, according to the men, has the added result of making the women unfit for the kingdom of Heaven. This is where the film actually begins, as the women meet in a barn to debate what they must do. They discuss the pros and cons of each choice and go into detail over the nature of forgiveness. They also talk about when forgiveness is appropriate, and when it is not.
And that’s about it. That’s about the whole movie. The women talk, and talk, and talk some more. And while the debates are sometimes spiritual, sometimes heated, and sometimes tearful, they bring the women to the most inevitable conclusion. They vote to leave, for their own safety, and the safety of their daughters. It was the right decision, but a hard one, knowing that they would likely never see their husbands or brothers again, and would go out into a world, woefully unprepared. It was made even worse because they were never allowed to go to school or learn to read. But in that situation, staying just wasn’t an option.
As you might imagine, the acting in this film was incredibly good. The actresses had a very good and dramatic script to work with. Though the film really had an ensemble cast, Rooney Mara arguably played the lead, Ona, a girl who has been impregnated by the rapes. Her sister Mariche is played by Jessie Buckley, and their mother, Greta, is played by Sheila McCarthy. Another woman is Salome, played by Claire Foy, who is angry enough to kill the men for their abuse, and to protect her little daughter from further harm. Her mother, Agata, is played by Judith Ivey. Michelle McLeod played Mejal, Greta’s niece. They all did a fine job, but I think that Shiela McCarthy and Judith Ivey both stood out as really great actresses.
And I have to mention the transgender man, Melvin, played by August Winter, who, after being raped, stopped pretending to be a woman, and stopped speaking to anyone but the children. And then there was the only significant male character, August, played by Ben Whishaw, a community teacher. He is asked to attend the meeting to take the minutes. He has romantic feelings for Ona. They both did a fine job, but their characters seemed almost unnecessary.
And Oh yeah, the ads made a big deal of Frances McDormand being in the movie, but I think she had a total amount of about three minutes of screen time in the entire film. She was great, but I wish there had been more of her. It was a good movie, but I think it would have been better if the pacing had been a bit faster. There was just so much talking, and not much else. I mean really. That was the whole movie. Women talking themselves into leaving their homes forever to protect themselves and their children. Powerful, yes, but slow.
This was a really good movie. Not only was the acting top-notch, but it was socially relevant, exploring issues that are significant to the times in which we live. The drama was deep and engaging, and the script was incredibly intelligent. It deals with themes of women in male dominated roles, power and the abuse of that power, and the effects of cancel culture in our society. It was a movie that made me think about whether I agreed with what happened in the story, and what characters could have or should have done differently to change the outcome. It also made me think about how celebrities have to deal with similar circumstances.
It always amazes me when I hear about a celebrity behaving in a manner that is morally, ethically, or even physically reprehensible. With all the infamous downfalls of well-known people in the public eye who have had their lives and careers ruined because of wildly inappropriate behavior, how can it be that they think they will not get caught, and will not have to suffer the terrible consequences of their actions. But in this film, the lifestyle and behavior of the prestigious orchestra conductor Lydia Tár, played by Kate Blanchett, is the cause of her downfall.
Through talent, skill, and knowledge, she has attained a high-profile position as the conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic. She is brilliantly intelligent, well-spoken, and charming. But she has a habit of showing favoritism to women to whom she is sexually attracted. It is implied that her predatory behavior might also include sexual affairs and conquests, though it is never explicitly stated.
The film revolves around Lydia’s behavior towards a female cellist named Olga, played by Sophie Kauer, though it is evident that this is just her current fascination. It is clear that showing professional favoritism towards certain women is a pattern that is continually repeating itself. Her wife, Sharon, played by Nina Hoss, is the principal violinist of the orchestra, her personal assistant, Francesca, played by Noemie Merlant, is obviously in love with her. And there is a subplot about a former professional colleague named Krista, who has fallen out of favor with the Maestro, who has committed suicide.
As Lydia’s stress and troubles mount, she begins losing her grip on the reigns of her life and her sanity. Her obsessive attentions towards Olga are noticed by other people in her professional circle, causing offense to some and indignities to others. Her legal troubles, caused by Krista’s parents who are suing her over their daughter’s death, take an emotional toll. Her wife leaves her and prevents her from having any contact with their daughter, Petra, played by young actress Mila Bogojevic. And eventually, despite all her brilliance as a conductor, she is forced to step down as the head of the orchestra. In the end she is reduced to taking what work she can, conducting in Southeast Asia, playing video game music for an audience full of cosplayers.
While the entire cast did a fantastic job, Blanchett’s acting was phenomenal. This roll could not have been played without a fundamental knowledge of music and orchestral conducting. I am an amateur musician, myself, and have sung with orchestras for many years. I can tell when a movie conductor knows what they are doing, and Blanchett most certainly did. Not only that, but there were a few scenes in which she had to play the piano, and she clearly “did her own stunts.” And as we have come to expect from the actress, she absolutely nailed the dramatic scenes. I might even go as far as to say, this must be a contender for one of the most powerful performances of her career, and that’s saying a lot. She was amazing!
But you can’t please everyone. There were a small number of critics who didn’t like the movie. To quote Wikipedia, “In an interview with The Sunday Times, conductor Marin Alsop shared her dislike of the film, calling it ‘anti-woman’, saying ‘I was offended: I was offended as a woman, I was offended as a conductor, I was offended as a lesbian. To have an opportunity to portray a woman in that role and to make her an abuser – for me that was heartbreaking.” But to that I say, if a story like this could be told about a predatory man, why couldn’t it be told about a woman, and be taken just as seriously? The movie wasn’t about a female lesbian conductor. It was about a conductor who happened to be a female and a lesbian. It was about a person in a position of power who abused that power and was eventually forced to deal with the consequences of their behavior. And where is the drama in a movie about a person who does nothing wrong, and simply performs her job competently? That would be a pretty dull film, don’t you think?
Tár was a very good movie that made me think, and that is never a bad thing. It was a glimpse into a world that few people really know, and it was handled with care and sensitivity. But the themes it explored could easily be applied to other careers and other situations. It doesn’t matter what kind of status you have achieved, it will not, nor should it, protect you from the consequences of being a predator of any kind, professional, social, or even sexual. Behavior like that is never acceptable, and while cancel culture is usually viewed as a negative thing, if it puts a stop to abusive behavior, maybe there is some value in it.
So here is the first movie where the core members of the Avengers are brought together. The game plan for the franchise was genius. You start off getting audiences to love each of your characters individually, in their own movies. Now those movies all have to be good enough to stand on their own, so that when you bring them together, you don’t have to devote any time to introducing the characters. We all know who they are already. That way you can get right to the story-telling and the action. But that takes time and patience, both of which the MCU has proven to have.
So that core group is made up of Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, The Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye. Now granted, the only time we have even met Hawkeye was in Thor, and we only met Black Widow in Iron Man 2. But at least they were not complete strangers. We had already met the villain Loki, so that was good, too. But the cannon-fodder bad guys, the Chitauri, were new. That’s ok. We don’t really need to know much about them. They are just there to give the good guys someone to fight.
Chris Evans as Captain America is always awesome. He is so good and noble that I an always drawn to him. He’s the kind of guy we all wish we were friends with. And his super-soldier enhanced fighting skills are amazing. This is also the first time we got to see Mark Ruffalo playing the part of the Hulk, and I honestly think that though Edward Norton did a good job, I Ruffalo was better. Norton’s performance, his approach to the character of Banner, had a harder edge that didn’t work as well for a man who makes a practice of being calm. Ruffalo was more at ease when he was at ease. Black Widow, played by Scarlet Johansson, was sexy and dangerous all at the same time. The only Avenger who I think needed more back story and development was Hawkeye, played by Jeremy Renner. But then again, like Black Widow, he didn’t have any super powers. He was just a guy with unmatched archery skills, so I guess he didn’t need as much of a history as the rest of his teammates. I just want to know where he gets all his trick arrows from. Did S.H.I.E.L.D. make them for him?
So there we have our team of six fighting against Loki, who was brilliantly played by Tom Hiddleston. He was so smarmy, so arrogant. He has personality for days, making us love him, even though he is the bad guy, the God of Mischief. It never really occurred to him that his plans might fail, until the very end, when all six of the Avengers have him beaten and cornered.
But part of what made the movie so good was the script. You see, the core group didn’t really come together as a team until the final battle. Before that, they were all at odds with each other, trying to fight the bad guys on their own. They didn’t know how to cooperate with each other as a team. And who was it that brought them all together? It was Samuel L. Jackson, playing the awesome character of Nick Fury. Jackson is so cool! Sure, he used a combination of coercion and manipulation to get them to work together, but it worked, and the world was saved from Loki and his Chitauri army.
There were so many things that this movie got right, from the pacing to the cinematography, from the directing to the costume and set design. So many details were given great attention. And the various personalities of all of the heroes and villains were so well-written. And the actors really did a great job staying true to the characters established in the previous movies. My personal favorites are Thor and Iron Man. Seriously, Chris Hemsworth and Robert Downey Jr. were born to play these roles. Hemsworth has just the right blend of arrogance and nobility to bring the God of Thunder to live. And Robert Downey Jr. is so witty and narcissistic that you can’t help but like him. Who am I kidding? I like them all!
Top 10 Favorite Parts
Loki’s arrival and the destruction of the research facility.
Cap and Iron Man capture Loki in Stuttgart.
Thor tries to take Loki and fights Cap and Iron Man
The Helicarrier is revealed. So cool!
Stark breaks into S.H.I.E.L.D. security.
Barton and Loki (and the Hulk) nearly destroy the Helicarrier
The Avengers defend New York from the Chitauri
Banner changes into the Hulk and punches down one of the giant Chitauri creatures.
The Hulk completely trounces Loki by grabbing his feet and slamming him into the floor several times. “Puny god.”
Iron Man takes the nuclear missile to the Chitauri mother ship and falls back into the rift.
I have to admit, when this movie was first nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, I had really low expectations. After all, I remember watching the first Top Gun film way back in the day, and I was not all that impressed. That bias was only reinforced when I re-watched that 1986 movie, just so I would have a better context with which to understand Top Gun: Maverick. The original wasn’t a very good movie. The script was juvenile, the soundtrack was ridiculously repetitive, and the acting was, in some cases, barely passable.
But I was so incredibly wrong about Maverick. This was a good movie that had depth, character development, a plausible narrative, very good acting, and a thrilling climax. This is one of those cases where I was quite happy to be proven wrong. Not only was this a great film, it is one I wouldn’t mind seeing again. So, to be sure, this was a sequel done right. It took the main character from the first film, and developed him, moved him forward in his arc, and made him more experienced, more mature. The drama was good, and the action was exciting!
First off, I have to talk about Tom Cruise. That isn’t usually a name I associate with Oscars, though he certainly isn’t a stranger to the Academy Awards with movies like Born on the Fourth of July and Jerry Maguire. Let’s face it. Despite what you might think about Cruise as a celebrity or a personality, he’s just a darn good actor. When he plays a part, no matter what the part is, he commits to it one hundred percent. He gives each character everything he’s got, and it shows.
And that’s what he did here. One thing that many action films fall short in is drama, but Cruise took the juvenile character of Maverick and gave him a sense of maturity that naturally comes with age, all-the-while staying true to the character. He was fantastic, proving that he still has what it takes to be a leading man.
Here they paired him with Jennifer Connoly, who is a talented actress in her own right. She played Penny, his love interest, who is also a single mom, and the woman waiting for him to come home from his dangerous mission. She still looks incredible, and she had great chemistry with Cruise on the screen.
And of course, we are introduced to the new generation of daredevil Top Gun pilots, all of whom are mostly referred to by their call signs. There was Glen Powell as Hangman, Lewis Pullman as Bob, Monica Barbaro as Phoenix, Jay Ellis as Payback, Danny Ramirez as Fanboy, Greg Tarzan Davis as Coyote, and others. And lest we forget, the upper brass who continually waffle back and forth between trusting and not trusting Maverick over the course of the film. There was John Hamm as Cyclone, Maverick’s main adversary, Ed Harris as Hammer, Val Kilmer reprising his role as Iceman, though now he is an admiral, Charles Parnell as Warlock, and Bashir Salahuddin as Hondo.
And the most important new pilot was actually in the first Top Gun film, at least the character was. Goose, who was originally played by Anthony Edwards, died in the first movie, and his son, Bradley, is now grown up, and is one of the best fighter pilots in the Top Gun School. His call sign is Rooster, played by Miles Teller. Part of the drama of this new movie was how neither Maverick nor Rooster had been able to get past feeling the guilt of losing Goose all those years ago. And in order to protect Rooster, Maverick held back his training by several years, claiming he was not ready for the prestigious training school.
But let’s not forget that though Top Gun Maverick had some pretty amazing dramatic content, it was, first and foremost, and action film. The amazing aerial flying sequences were phenomenal! This movie made stunt piloting look cool again! And from what little reading I have done about the making of the film, I have learned that virtually all of the flying sequences were real, not CGI. The actors were actually in real airplanes that were piloted by professional Navy pilots. They experienced all the g-forces that real pilots have to deal with, adding to the realism of the action sequences. Let’s hear it for those practical effects!
The main drive of the film’s action sequences was a mission to destroy an unnamed country’s underground bunker, in which traces of uranium are detected, indicating the production of nuclear weapons. The had to speed their way through a winding canyon at a very low altitude, scale a steep mountain, flip over its peak, and dive-bomb a small target in two waves, and then perform a ten-g ascent, after which, they are vulnerable to attack from anti-aircraft missiles and technologically advanced enemy fighter jets. It was a thrilling ride, and exciting to watch!
So yeah, I can see why Top Gun: Maverick was praised so much by both audiences and critics alike. It was just a good movie, and an incredible sequel. And as I said, it was a sequel done right. It didn’t rely on the tropes and plot points of the first film. It advanced the characters and the story. And yet, it remained true to the spirit of its predecessor. In fact, it was so successful, I read that in certain circles, another Top Gun movie is being discussed, following the character of Rooster. If that ever gets made, it is sure to be just as thrilling as Top Gun: Maverick.
Finally! Finally the Academy had the guts to award the Oscar for Best Picture to a science fiction film. And if you ask me, it was a worthy winner. But this movie was so much more than just a good sci-fi movie. It was a drama, with some awesome dramatic moments, a comedy with some hilarious comedic moments, an action film with some thrilling action moments, and a philosophical movie that really made you think about some deep concepts. It had all of this, and still maintained a really well-crafted story. It was an incredible film. On top of all that, it had a phenomenal cast, some really great acting, the sets were fantastic, the costumes were bold and wild, and the visual effects were top-notch.
There is so much to cover! The first thing that comes to mind is one of my favorite things about the movie. It was smart. It was intelligent. Some of my favorite movies of all time are movies that make you use your brain, movies that make you really pay attention to the story to understand them. You see, if this is done right, then everything about the films makes a certain amount of sense, at least according to the concept and mythology of the narrative. That means that the film has to follow its own rules. This movie did that. It is a fantastical movie about a multiverse, and characters using made-up technologies to access skills and memories from alternate versions of themselves, in order to use those abilities at will. But they have to perform random and bizarre actions in order to trigger them.
In more ways than one, the concept reminded me of The Matrix movies, but was different enough that I wouldn’t call it stealing. In the Matrix, characters could be given skills by downloading them from a data disk. Here they can gain the same abilities by borrowing them from themselves in other realities. The action was highly martial-arts based, with a lot of kung-fu-style fighting.
Interesting note: In early drafts of the script, the main protagonist was supposed to be Jackie Chan. However, when the lead character was changed to a woman, Who else could they get but Michelle Yeoh? The reason for the gender switch was because the directors thought the drama would be relatable to more people.
Another interesting note: A fun fact I found on IMDB about Everything Everywhere All at Once is that all the VFX for this film were done by nine people, including the two directors, with the majority of the shots being done by a core group of five people. None of the VFX team went to school for VFX. They were all friends who taught themselves with tutorials they found online for free.
So in order to understand the film, let me give a brief synopsis, as best I can. Evelyn, played by Michelle Yeoh, and her husband Waymond, played by Ke Huy Quan, are Chinese American immigrants. Their marriage is in danger, and Waymond is trying to find the right moment to serve Evelyn with divorce papers, as a way to force her to pay more attention to their relationship. They have a depressed lesbian daughter named Joy, played by Stephani Hsu. The family owns a laundry business that is undergoing a tax audit. At the IRS building, Deirdre Beaubeirdre, the IRS inspector, played by Jamie Lee Curtis is threatening to seize their business.
On their way to the audit meeting, Evelyn is contacted by Waymond from a different universe, as he takes over the body of her husband, to tell her that a villain is threatening to destroy the entire multiverse. He says that Evelyn is the only one who can stop her, and he gives her instructions to follow that will set her on the path to defeating the evil Jobu Tupaki.
After that, the chaos begins, and Waymond, after chewing on an entire stick of chap-stick, begins displaying superhuman abilities that he could not possibly possess, like near magical kung-fu fighting skills. As the family is attacked by Deirdre and a group of security guards, the new Waymond begins teaching Evelyn to access similar abilities by connecting with her counterparts in other realities and using their skills and abilities. Evelyn’s mind is stretched, bent, and nearly broken, as she experiences multiple versions of herself from different universes. But she eventually learns that Jobu Tupaki is actually her daughter Joy, who, in another reality has become so depressed that she has found a way to destroy every universe in existence.
But the whole crazy adventure that Evelyin embarks on is just a metaphor for her strained relationship with her daughter. And after a lot of action, a lot of absurdist imagery, and more than a little philosophical debate, the multiverse is saved as the mother and daughter reconcile and find a kind of peace and understanding with each other. And in the process, Evelyn’s nearly ending relationship with Waymond is repaired, as well. That’s where the main drama of the film is really explored.
But that’s just the bare bones of the story. The movie was so much more than that. There were the visuals. The film took the concept of accessing different realities to the extreme, from the mundane, where Evelyn became a celebrated movie actress or a sign twirler on a street corner, to the more absurd and fantastical, like an earth where human beings had hot-dogs for fingers, or an earth where Evelyn and her daughter were nothing more than piñatas. They even spend considerable time in the existential arena, where life never developed on earth, and the two women were nothing more than stones on a barren landscape, discussing the peaceful meaninglessness of existence. I actually really liked those sequences. The hot-dog fingers were amusing, but if you think about it, why couldn’t that have been the dominant trait that survived the evolution of our species?
And then there were the strange and sometimes disturbing triggers that characters had to perform in order to access their counterparts in other realities. At one point, Waymond had to give himself paper cuts between his fingers, or Evelyn had to proclaim her love for another person. At one point Evelyn has to put her shoes on the wrong feet. And not all the triggers were so benign.
There was an absurd combat scene where two men had to shove large plugs into their butts to become master martial-arts fighters. The first man confuses everyone by slowly taking his pants off, then attempting to sit on the object. There is a brief struggle as Evelyn fights to prevent the… insertion. But then a second fighter leaps in from out of nowhere with no pants on at all, soars through the air with his knees held to his chest, and lands squarely on the plug. Suddenly, he was able to spar with Evelyn as a kung-fu master… with the device dangling from his rear end. Then the first combatant finds something else to shove into himself, and Evelyn is forced to battle two opponents. She wins the fight by yanking both of the anal plugs out of the men while they are in mid-air. I don’t think I’ll ever watch an action sequence quite like this one again.
And I have to talk about the bagel. The omnicidal Jobu Tupaki says, “I got bored one day, and I put everything on a bagel. Everything. All my hopes and dreams, my old report cards, every breed of dog, every last personal ad on Craigslist, sesame, poppy seed, salt… and it collapsed in on itself, ‘cause you see, when you really put everything on a bagel, it becomes this: The truth.” In response, Evelyn asks, “What is the truth?” and Jobu Tupaki’s answer is, “Nothing matters.” And when Evelyn says, “No, Joy, You don’t believe that,” I loved the fatalistic response. “Feels nice, doesn’t it? If nothing matters, then all the pain and guilt you feel from making nothing of your life goes away.” So she builds a great cosmic bagel, which, after she herself steps into it, will consume all existence in all universes.
And I think that it was another metaphor for Joy’s desire to commit suicide. And the whole conflict of the film is twofold. One is that she doesn’t want to destroy herself thinking that she is alone. She wants her mother to be there with her. And the other is that she is hoping that her mother can find a way to save her from her growing nihilism. It left me with the impression that the movie’s overall message is that the universe is so vast that nothing we do matters, and our lives are ultimately meaningless.
But of course, Evelyn breaks through Joy’s depression and her desire for eternal non-existence, and convinces her that she is not a lost cause, and that despite the fact that she has not made a complete success of her life, whatever that means, love is a good enough reason to continue living. And just to put a wonderfully touching bow on that gift, it is Waymond who teaches her what love is, and what it can mean, no matter what reality you inhabit. It was a beautifully crafted message. I’m sure there are many more things that can be drawn from the philosophical concepts explored in this movie, but that was what rose to the surface for me when I watched it.
But let’s not forget the comedic moments in this movie. There were some actual laugh-out-loud moments that were shocking and hilarious, like the scene where Jobu Tupaki beads a man to death with a pair of giant dildos, or the scene where a chef is revealed to have a sentient raccoon on his head, controlling his cooking, as in Disney’s animated 2007 film Ratatouille. When the obviously mechanical rodent is revealed, put into a cage, and is driven away, I found myself with real laughter in my throat. Or the Butt-plug fight. Or the pinky fingers of fury scene. Or the googly eyes on the rock. There were a lot of genuinely funny moments, and I loved them all. Again, such a great script!
Now, I’d like to talk about the cast and the acting. Right away, I need to mention that Michelle Yeoh won the Best Actress award. Ke Huy Quan won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and Jami Lee Curtis won for Best Supporting Actress. Stephani Hsu was also nominated for Best Supporting actress, only losing to Curtis. And though I have not yet seen all the performances in those categories, I think I’m safe in saying the awards were very well-deserved. They were all incredibly good! I liked all their performances. Michelle Yeoh was incredible as she always is, but I think Ke Huy Quan really stood out as phenomenal. He was so good! He had several incredibly dramatic scenes that were so profound and impactful to the story. Well done Quan!
And of course, Jami Lee Curtis was wonderful. I have never seen her in a role like this one. Not only did she play the part of an over-weight, overworked IRS employee, she also had to do a bit of fighting herself, which, in this kind of a movie, meant a bit of wire-work. Not bad for an actress in her sixties. And she handled it all beautifully, proving that she was more than qualified for the difficult role.
There were some great supporting cast members in smaller roles, who were still perfectly cast, and really added to the greatness of the film. James Hong, who has been around forever as a fantastic character actor, played Gong Gong, Evelyn’s demanding father, Harry Shum Jr. as a teppanyaki chef in one of Evelyn’s alternate realities, and Jenny Slate as Debbie the Dog Mom, a laundromat customer, and one of Evelyn’s opponents, who uses her dog on its leash as a rope dart weapon. And I have to give special props for Andy and Brian Le, brothers who performed the butt-plug fight scene. The entire cast did a fantastic job, and there were no weak links.
The whole film was such a great success, from its cast to is visual effects, from its sets and costumes to its choreography. It was a masterpiece in filmmaking. But all that greatness had to come from somewhere. And for that, we have to look to its directors, who were also the script-writers. Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, otherwise known as the Daniels, really did an unbelievable job in putting together a script that was not only fun, funny, action-packed, and engaging, but smart, as well. It is a movie that made me think, not just about what was happening on the screen, but also about the philosophical concepts the narrative explored. As I’ve said before, I do love movies that are epic in nature, and this was certainly that.
I can’t even imagine what kind of a logistical nightmare this movie must have been to film and put together, but they handled it perfectly, and I find myself wondering what other films they have made. They did a fantastic job, and they really deserve all the recognition this wonderful movie has brought them. The movie was nominated for eleven Oscars, taking home seven. It won for Best Picture, of course, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Film Editing. That actually makes the movie the highest winning film since Slumdog Millionaire in 2014. Pretty impressive.
And the fact that it was a science-fiction film, thrills me to no end. It is about time that the Academy recognizes that a movie doesn’t have to be a drama to be good. Now, I know I’m generalizing, but just look at the history of Best Picture winners. This was the 95th Academy Awards, and of the ninety-five winners, around seventy of the winners have been dramas. This movie was so well thought out and so well put together. I think it deserved every Oscer it took home. Beautifully done, everyone! Beautifully done!
On the one hand, this is a Stephen Spielberg movie, so it is inherently good. It is well-written, well-constructed, well-cast, well-acted, and well-presented. Add to that another incredible John Williams score, and you have a shoe-in for a good movie. But on the other hand, the movie was a little slow, and even though it might have been somewhat cathartic for the famous director, it felt slightly self-indulgent. That being said, with all the incredible films under his belt, I think he should be allowed a passion proj ect or two. But all that is a very minor complaint, and in any case, is my only real criticism of the film at all. This was a very good movie. I may not have nominated it for Best Picture, but it was quite entertaining.
The film was a sort of slightly fictionalized autobiography of Stephen Spielberg, himself. It told of how, as a child, he was introduced to, and became fascinated with cinema. It showed how his passion was embraced by his mother, and dismissed as nothing more than a hobby by his father. It showed how his love for the art form was developed and how the young director honed his skills.
But there were also several keen dramatic elements to the film, like the terrible anti-Semitic bullying he faced in school, the infidelity of his mother, which led to his parents getting divorced. And it was these things, I believe, that earned the film its Oscar nomination. And it didn’t hurt, of course, that the voting Academy is a sucker for films that are about films and filmmaking. That’s why they loved movies like The Artist, which won Best Picture in 2011, and Hugo, which was also nominated for the top prize in 2011.
The cast was incredibly good. Here’s a quick run through of the key players. Gabriel LaBelle played Sammy Fabelman. Michelle Williams and Paul Dano played his parents, Mitzi and Burt. Seth Rogan played Benny, Mitzi’s lover. A couple of other notable names show up in smaller roles, names like Judd Hirsch, Greg Grunberg, and David Lynch. The entire cast did a fantastic job, but special props have to be given to Williams and Dano. For me, the acting skills of these two really seemed a cut above the rest. The first movie I remember seeing Michelle Williams in, in which she proved herself to be an outstanding dramatic actress was 2016’s Manchester By the Sea. The role of Mitzy wasn’t quite as intense as that one, but it was still beautifully performed.
But really, it was Paul Dano that caught my attention. He was just so believable in the part of Burt Fabelman. He was smarter than all of the people around him, certainly more so than his son and his wife. I think He was somewhat aware of his wife’s affair, and continued to treat her with love and kindness. But in the end, she left him to be with Benny, taking their three daughters with her. When Burt saw a photograph of Mitzy in her new home with a smile on her face that he had never been able to give her, his private emotions came to the surface. Dano was so good in that moment. But even then, his main concern was for his son, Sammy, who was going through a difficult time of his own.
And then I have to mention Seth Rogan. The character of Uncle Benny could very easily have been a bit of a throw-away character. But I really liked the way Rogan played the part. In particular, I liked the scene where he bought the camera for Sammy. It became clear that despite having an affair with a married woman, he was actually a good man who not only loved Mitzy, but Burt as well, and by extension, their children. He loved Mitzy enough to back away and end the affair, and because of both the way the character was written, and Rogan’s performance, I ended up liking Uncle Benny, despite his faults.
The other dramatic subplot of the movie was one that I was not expecting. It was the bullying Sammy had to endure because of the anti-Jew behavior of the other kids at the school. But it was handled fairly well, I think. It was intriguing, because even the girl who showed romantic interest in Sammy was anti-Semitic. One of the only reasons she initially wanted to go out with him was so that she could convert him to Christianity. She was almost more offensive than the bullies because she so easily assumed that he had an innate desire to become a Christian. The thought never even occurred to her that he had any desire to remain a Jew. I was offended on Sammy’s behalf!
And one final scene that I found fascinating was the one in which the school jock, the chief bully, grew both angry and strangely sympathetic toward Sammy for making him look like a superstar to the rest of the school, despite that way he had treated him all year. It was almost a touching scene, by the end of which, the two boys developed something like mutual respect or even understanding, knowing that they were still not friends, but no longer enemies.
This was a Spielberg movie that didn’t feel like one. It had a smaller scale and a subtlety that I’m not used to seeing from him. It was good, though I wouldn’t call it great. It was enjoyable to watch, though it’s not the kind of film I need to see again any time soon.
