Slick comedy thriller from Guy Richie, starring Jason Statham, Hugh Grant and Josh Hartnett. Really enjoyed it and flew through almost 2 hours.
Hugh Grant playing the shady arms dealer fitted him like a glove and Josh Hartnett was great as the Hollywood actor forced into the bait for the undercover operation. Statham was just his usual self but good nonetheless.
Well, I watched it yesterday, and I really liked it (the film). I also don't agree at all with that LA Times dude's comments that you quoted above.
I think they stretch out the final part a bit too long (the film really loses its pace there), but I also think it's a good thing it's not cynical or violent.
For me the issue is the film wants to put forward the message that love is the most powerful force people have, it has the ability to change everything because it’s so irrational(Especially the love of Michelle Yeoh character, who failures make her the universal subject).
Which is a cool idea and it’s pretty much the progressive Jesus message but the film never pushes this to the radical end point. That smelly hippie also said “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Love requires picking a side, it’s requires demands, its outcome can at least feel violent.
Yet for Everything Everywhere All at Once sees love as not wanting to feel bad, let’s stop fighting because it’s mean and scary. The end result is Yeoh love saves the universe but doesn’t change it. The “radical” love the film presents only enforces traditional family values that caused the crisis(There’s a lot of moving parts but it’s quite a old fashion Hollywood story).
It left me completely cold, like few other films (that are meant to have some heart or soul) have in a long time. I also thought it was quite ugly. It's one I really really didn't get the appeal for, but whatever.
For me the issue is the film wants to put forward the message that love is the most powerful force people have, it has the ability to change everything because it’s so irrational(Especially the love of Michelle Yeoh character, who failures make her the universal subject).
Which is a cool idea and it’s pretty much the progressive Jesus message but the film never pushes this to the radical end point. That smelly hippie also said “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Love requires picking a side, it’s requires demands, its outcome can at least feel violent.
Yet for Everything Everywhere All at Once sees love as not wanting to feel bad, let’s stop fighting because it’s mean and scary. The end result is Yeoh love saves the universe but doesn’t change it. The “radical” love the film presents only enforces traditional family values that caused the crisis(There’s a lot of moving parts but it’s quite a old fashion Hollywood story).
To me, and that's also the actual word used in the film, the final part is about being nice, as opposed to being bitter, frustrated, and angry. That links back to Evelyn being so frustrated about her life and thinking of all the ways she could have made different choices and would have been happier. (As indicated through her hobbies and the parallel universes.) All that frustration leads nowhere, but rather results in omnipresent anger that alienates everyone (as indicated by her husband and daughter). It's healthier and more generally better to accept your situation (which isn't the same as complacency), try to see the bright side, and take it from there.
I don't think that's a hippy message (which I'm generally pretty allergic to) and didn't get that vibe from the film at all. It's a pretty powerful idea actually, even if it's not expressed very deeply or strongly by the film. Still, I thought that was a good emotional message, also about the rapprochement with her daughter. I suppose that's relatable stuff to me though. (Even though my kids are still young and we have a great relationship so far.)
He gets a ''cool'' fight scene but overall the character is such a fecking nerd. There's been stereotype in Hollywood of the asian man who always plays the sidekick or the one who never gets the woman and
EEAAO by accident almost plays into this.
Not only is this on purpose, but surely it's meant to be subversive?
The classic Hollywood move nowadays is to portray the opposite of the stereotype. But this time, instead of saying "feck you for thinking that Asian men aren't masculine", they took a step back and examined the underlying toxicity. Man or woman: being empathic, cooperative, gentle and self-sacrificing can all be excellent qualities. And in some cases these qualities can project strength and dignity better than assertiveness and outward confidence. There is a very good video essay on YouTube about Waymond and how he's one of the better male role models in cinema. I kind of agree with this.
Destroys the IP, takes a beloved London copper and pits him against a global snuff-porn mastermind.
Absolute horror show of a production. If you love Luther, avoid this like the plague. Shocking script, predictable plot, not set in the real world - Unless it’s possible to drive a 1980’s Volvo from London to Scandinavia.
Really looked forward to that. Waste of time. More Netflix sh1te. Very annoyed.
Destroys the IP, takes a beloved London copper and pits him against a global snuff-porn mastermind.
Absolute horror show of a production. If you love Luther, avoid this like the plague. Shocking script, predictable plot, not set in the real world - Unless it’s possible to drive a 1980’s Volvo from London to Scandinavia.
Really looked forward to that. Waste of time. More Netflix sh1te. Very annoyed.
You surely know what M Night's deal is by now? Have you not been burned yet? None of his movies hold up, all of them fall apart by about the middle. His movies range from the laughable to the risible. The Village and Signs were two of the stupidest, most illogical films I've ever seen. Watching any M Night movie at this point is like going to a restaurant and getting insane food poisoning, then shitting and vomiting yourself dry.
And then going back to that restaurant for dessert.
It's healthier and more generally better to accept your situation (which isn't the same as complacency), try to see the bright side, and take it from there.
It's a pretty powerful idea actually, even if it's not expressed very deeply or strongly by the film.
I just don’t get how accepting your current shit situation(Yeoh character is rightly correct at feeling pissed off) can be a powerful idea. If the core message of the film is it’s better to be nice because you don’t have even the agency to change your own life then it seems more like a dystopian film than anything uplifting.
Not only is this on purpose, but surely it's meant to be subversive?
The classic Hollywood move nowadays is to portray the opposite of the stereotype. But this time, instead of saying "feck you for thinking that Asian men aren't masculine", they took a step back and examined the underlying toxicity.
What does that mean though ? The film seems to view any agency or anger from its characters as of form of toxicity. The criticism the film wants to level at toxic masculinity(A ever increasing meaningless term)is just about manners.
Waymond appears more “beta” because his character is the type who would have cried at Obama getting elected and would say less homopbic slurs behind his daughters back but guy is living the conservative husband dream. He fecks around at work while his wife does all the labour(Including the cooking and cleaning)and then for what can only be a form of deliberate mental torture against her, bakes cookies for the IRS lady trying to destroy the family business. The final kicker, Waymond never needed to changed because it turns out he was right all along and Michelle Yeoh should have listened to him in the first place.
Somehow the Daniels have manage to make a film that agrees both with the right wing criticism of men(They are nerdy losers who don’t have their own agency) and also agrees with the right on the social position of women. For all the bells and whistles, it’s quite a conservative film.
Man or woman: being empathic, cooperative, gentle and self-sacrificing can all be excellent qualities. And in some cases these qualities can project strength and dignity better than assertiveness and outward confidence.
Agree that’s what the film going for(Although there’s really no self sacrificing apart from Michelle Yeoh character)but I’m not sure it makes for interesting art.
Hmm, we seem to have left the movie theatre with very different impressions. I've only seen the film once and it's been half a year at least, so I can't go into much detail. But I don't think that I could articulate my feelings better than this guy:
Hmm, we seem to have left the movie theatre with very different impressions. I've only seen the film once and it's been half a year at least, so I can't go into much detail. But I don't think that I could articulate my feelings better than this guy:
I just don’t get how accepting your current shit situation(Yeoh character is rightly correct at feeling pissed off) can be a powerful idea. If the core message of the film is it’s better to be nice because you don’t have even the agency to change your own life then it seems more like a dystopian film than anything uplifting.
What does that mean though ? The film seems to view any agency or anger from its characters as of form of toxicity. The criticism the film wants to level at toxic masculinity(A ever increasing meaningless term)is just about manners.
Waymond appears more “beta” because his character is the type who would have cried at Obama getting elected and would say less homopbic slurs behind his daughters back but guy is living the conservative husband dream. He fecks around at work while his wife does all the labour(Including the cooking and cleaning)and then for what can only be a form of deliberate mental torture against her, bakes cookies for the IRS lady trying to destroy the family business. The final kicker, Waymond never needed to changed because it turns out he was right all along and Michelle Yeoh should have listened to him in the first place.
Somehow the Daniels have manage to make a film that agrees both with the right wing criticism of men(They are nerdy losers who don’t have their own agency) and also agrees with the right on the social position of women. For all the bells and whistles, it’s quite a conservative film.
Agree that’s what the film going for(Although there’s really no self sacrificing apart from Michelle Yeoh character)but I’m not sure it makes for interesting art.
I dont think it was aiming for interesting art. I think at its core it was a feel good family movie. Nearly goonies territory for me.
It was an odd choice for oscars and the rave reviews. But if goonies was released for the first time tomorrow i think people would rave madly about that too. Stranger Things isn't high art but its one of the more notable tv series of the last decade. Its a bit of a phase or fashion i guess?
I didn't read the movie the way you did. It felt more like the stressful, tedious miserable life she had was worth it because she had her family and the love they shared. Love made it tolerable, more tolerable than being a movie star that didn't have Waymond or a reality as a superhero who didn't have her daughter.
Jamie Lee Curtis and the wider IRS office being burnt out, miserable, unloved bureaucrats defeated with the power of love felt ... chessy and silly and nice. That side of life as an antagonist kind of makes sense in the context of the movie. And i adored Jamie Lee Curtis' performance to be honest and the physicality she brought in the role, im totally fine with her oscar, it was a great comedy performance imo.
I just don’t get how accepting your current shit situation(Yeoh character is rightly correct at feeling pissed off) can be a powerful idea. If the core message of the film is it’s better to be nice because you don’t have even the agency to change your own life then it seems more like a dystopian film than anything uplifting.
What does that mean though ? The film seems to view any agency or anger from its characters as of form of toxicity. The criticism the film wants to level at toxic masculinity(A ever increasing meaningless term)is just about manners.
Waymond appears more “beta” because his character is the type who would have cried at Obama getting elected and would say less homopbic slurs behind his daughters back but guy is living the conservative husband dream. He fecks around at work while his wife does all the labour(Including the cooking and cleaning)and then for what can only be a form of deliberate mental torture against her, bakes cookies for the IRS lady trying to destroy the family business. The final kicker, Waymond never needed to changed because it turns out he was right all along and Michelle Yeoh should have listened to him in the first place.
Somehow the Daniels have manage to make a film that agrees both with the right wing criticism of men(They are nerdy losers who don’t have their own agency) and also agrees with the right on the social position of women. For all the bells and whistles, it’s quite a conservative film.
Agree that’s what the film going for(Although there’s really no self sacrificing apart from Michelle Yeoh character)but I’m not sure it makes for interesting art.
I think in all these cases, you're trying too hard to fit the film into thematic boxes that don't have to exist as such.
For instance, I never said Evelyn doesn't have agency. And also didn't mean that she just has to accept things and that's it. But there's a lot of space between constantly angrily acting out on your frustration with your past and being completely resigned to your fate. That's angerbgets you nowhere and is also bad for yourself and everyone around you that you lash out to. But not looking at your life only in frustration doesn't mean accepting it for what it is, you can also aim for change from the position of a positive/optimistic mindset.
There are also various versions of Waymond in the film, and none of them don't help with their business. Also, the IRS lady isn't trying to destroy the business, she's just anal about her work and being nice to that kind of people is generally an excellent idea to get things done.
How you shoehorn that into rightwing positions I don't quite know. (Not saying it's a leftist film, but conservative seems an awkward label here.) Also, you'll have to define what 'art' means, cause I'm not sure your idea of it is very interesting in the context of this particular film.
I can’t even get across it as either. The script was awful. The jump-cuts schlocky. The complete transplantation of real-world Luther into fantasy Netflix nonsense was galling.
Idris was solid. Serkis as the Villain was incredible for the first 30 or so.
It’s an absolute mess though. Felt like nonsensical Netflix algorithmic nonsense in totality.
You surely know what M Night's deal is by now? Have you not been burned yet? None of his movies hold up, all of them fall apart by about the middle. His movies range from the laughable to the risible. The Village and Signs were two of the stupidest, most illogical films I've ever seen. Watching any M Night movie at this point is like going to a restaurant and getting insane food poisoning, then shitting and vomiting yourself dry.
And then going back to that restaurant for dessert.
I dont think it was aiming for interesting art. I think at its core it was a feel good family movie. Nearly goonies territory for me.
It was an odd choice for oscars and the rave reviews. But if goonies was released for the first time tomorrow i think people would rave madly about that too. Stranger Things isn't high art but its one of the more notable tv series of the last decade. Its a bit of a phase or fashion i guess?
Yeah I expect your right about the goonies point. It just seems like people have kind of lost it a bit, maybe because it came out after the pandemic but for whatever reason, it's one of the top rated films of all time and just won a ton of oscars, yet when whenever I've seen praise for the film it's people breaking down in tears and repeating the words Live, Laugh and Love.
I didn't read the movie the way you did. It felt more like the stressful, tedious miserable life she had was worth it because she had her family and the love they shared. Love made it tolerable, more tolerable than being a movie star that didn't have Waymond or a reality as a superhero who didn't have her daughter.
I think it also shows how pitches happen and are bought in Hollywood. M Night comes in, sets up some interesting premise, presents a couple cool images to go with the premise, and they buy it. Seems like they never ask for the resolution in the pitch meetings. "Why would aliens come to a water planet, if water kills them? How did they not know about rain?" etc. And in M Night's defense, people still watch his stupid shit and his movies make money, so he's right and I'm wrong.
Slick comedy thriller from Guy Richie, starring Jason Statham, Hugh Grant and Josh Hartnett. Really enjoyed it and flew through almost 2 hours.
Hugh Grant playing the shady arms dealer fitted him like a glove and Josh Hartnett was great as the Hollywood actor forced into the bait for the undercover operation. Statham was just his usual self but good nonetheless.
I'd echo the 7/10. I thought it was an enjoyable film for what it was. Obviously not Oscar stuff but a really fun movie that I am glad I watched on a cool Sunday afternoon.
Yeah I expect your right about the goonies point. It just seems like people have kind of lost it a bit, maybe because it came out after the pandemic but for whatever reason, it's one of the top rated films of all time and just won a ton of oscars, yet when whenever I've seen praise for the film it's people breaking down in tears and repeating the words Live, Laugh and Love.
I also don't get why it won so many oscars. I feel like a large part of it might be trying to hold up a mirror to the various superhero franchises out there right now: 'see, you can successfully make a messy action film with a ton of visual effects for $15M and have it have a heart as well'. I get the praise for editing/montage and some of the acting, but best film (and a few others) seems highly exaggerated.
I also don't get why it won so many oscars. I feel like a large part of it might be trying to hold up a mirror to the various superhero franchises out there right now: 'see, you can successfully make a messy action film with a ton of visual effects for $15M and have it have a heart as well'. I get the praise for editing/montage and some of the acting, but best film (and a few others) seems highly exaggerated.
Does it have to have more to say? What's the message of most action films and family dramedies? (Such an awful word btw.)
Fair points. Yeah it doesn't have to say anything more, if the Daniels goal was to make a wacky family comedy then they've done decent enough. It's just that the insane praise it's got has to be for something more but maybe it isn't.
Also agree you on with the awfulness of the term dramedies.
Enjoyable. Fight scenes are spot on as usual. Hard not to sympathise with Jonathan Majors character in this one and I liked that rather than the usual cartoon baddie (like Drago in the prequel). Looks like Jordan was taking notes from his own role in Black Panther maybe.
There wasn't much competition this year, covid backlog and all. Banshees is probably a more traditional oscar film but it wasn't so strong that you'd expect it to walk away with 6 oscars either. And the choice of oscars is always weird and bad. Its whichever film did the best press junket basically, isn't it?
The Oscars are doomed to fail anyways. It's impossible to appeal to the picky watcher with these award shows. The Oscars are to film what SNL is to comedy. The moment a joke has gone from original meme all the way to SNL, the joke is officially dead and uncool. A film could theoretically be adored by picky watchers and critics but the moment it gets a Best Picture nomination the very same people will immediately start to question their initial positive reaction. That's how lame the academy is.
But they can't really appeal to the mainstream like they did in the 90's and 00's either, because the mainstream only watch trash films nowadays. The academy members would (understandably) rather die than to see a comic book film win best picture.
That's why I was kind of happy to see EEAAO win it this year. In terms of overall vibe and execution, it's the closest thing we've had to an "audience smash hit" since Slumdog Miillionare( ). And that was 15 years ago! It's not high art and the jokes aren't that funny, but it's a solid film.
Fair points. Yeah it doesn't have to say anything more, if the Daniels goal was to make a wacky family comedy then they've done decent enough. It's just that the insane praise it's got has to be for something more but maybe it isn't.
Also agree you on with the awfulness of the term dramedies.
I haven't seen much of the insane praise, but I don't follow that closely. Reviews I read generally describe it as a fun ride with a drama heart and some flaws in terms of overall conception and pacing.
Edit: reading this again, it sounds so much like my own opinion that this simply must be my selective memory playing tricks on me!
There wasn't much competition this year, covid backlog and all. Banshees is probably a more traditional oscar film but it wasn't so strong that you'd expect it to walk away with 6 oscars either. And the choice of oscars is always weird and bad. Its whichever film did the best press junket basically, isn't it?
The Oscars are doomed to fail anyways. It's impossible to appeal to the picky watcher with these award shows. The Oscars are to film what SNL is to comedy. The moment a joke has gone from original meme all the way to SNL, the joke is officially dead and uncool. A film could theoretically be adored by picky watchers and critics but the moment it gets a Best Picture nomination the very same people will immediately start to question their initial positive reaction. That's how lame the academy is.
But they can't really appeal to the mainstream like they did in the 90's and 00's either, because the mainstream only watch trash films nowadays. The academy members would (understandably) rather die than to see a comic book film win best picture.
That's why I was kind of happy to see EEAAO win it this year. In terms of overall vibe and execution, it's the closest thing we've had to an "audience smash hit" since Slumdog Miillionare( ). And that was 15 years ago! It's not high art and the jokes aren't that funny, but it's a solid film.
Yeah, the Oscars are not really a measure of much except 'OK, so that film might be worth spending the time to watch' (for the major categories, anyway).
EEAAO wasn't such a huge hit btw; or at least, Wikipedia has its box office at just over $100M, and a list I found now puts it at #37 for 2022 - even below A Man Called Otto in fact! (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2022/). But yeah, there isn't much above EEAAO in that list that tries to dig deeper or is more artistically focused. Nope stands out to me in that respect (on both counts actually) at #27 though.
Awful. Flimsy plot with lots of common sense fails and terrible screenplay. Neither the action scenes nor the emotional content delivered. Couple that with some bad graphics (blurry background and dinosaurs only in dark) it really was frustrating to watch.
Absolute horror show of a production. If you love Luther, avoid this like the plague. Shocking script, predictable plot, not set in the real world - Unless it’s possible to drive a 1980’s Volvo from London to Scandinavia.
Ahh right. I've left that life behind. Sometimes I still go on the torrent sites... scroll through all the stuff I would normally get and a tear rolls down me cheek.