I really liked The Big Short.
I didn’t like Vice.
I *really* didn’t like Don’t Look Up.

One half earnest, overwrought, and patronizing. The other half broad, buckshot, and patronizing. The good bits were reeeeeeeally few and far between for me. I fear McKay’s compulsion to make “important movies” has completely compromised his ability to make good and/or effective movies.

I know some who really liked this, so maybe I’ll be alone here. But woof. A huge miss and a massive waste of talent for me. Easily Leo’s worst movie of the last decade and one of the worst of his career.

Something nice to say about it: Chalamet is easily the MVP. Dude has real comedic chops. He’s in, like, 4-5 scenes in a 150 minute movie, but still.

complete satire was still more serious than whatever goofy shit that matrix movie tried to be lol.

I agree with you that much of this movie, along with the bulk of the Wachowski catalog, is goofy as hell.

But while I enjoy needling him about it because I think there's some stanning involved there, the fact its there's somethkng about what they do that speaks to him on a deeper level. That's what a cult following is, and the Wachowskis (I do realize this is a Lana solo outing) have it in droves.

That said, I think th4se two films are much too different for the "you hate this but love THAT?" retort.

I think that works when lookimg at the framework of someone's overall sensibilities. I.e, Frank hasong shown a love for dumb popcorn fun in action movies. Not that this is how *he* sees Matrix 4, but it certainly sits more in that wheelhouse than the sort of send up attempted by Don't Look Up.

Right, I come across my Wachowski love earnestly. And I do think the Wachowskis at this point earn the merit badge of "cult director" after making several movies that haven't done well at the box office that just super-clicked with certain audiences. I'm happy to be in that cult, lol, but I also get why some of their stuff would be very much not for others.

And, as you pointed out, the Matrix sequel doesn't have anything to do with this movie, lol. Not the same in any sense, really.

It struggled to get going for the first 20 minutes or so but once it established it's tone and it's world it was interesting ride.

It's hard to do this kind of satire right now because of how batshit insane everything is. People may feel like this film is overreaching or pompous but it's really not far off from what we're dealing with now.

I thought McKay found subtle ways to make that point and really obvious ways too.

Like most of McKay's recent work this just leaves you with unease after. Most people don't want to watch films that do that so it will not appeal.

I thought the actors were able to keep it in their lanes and I actually thought this was one of Leo's best performances as far as just playing a "guy". That sounds easy to do but it's not for an actor of his stature. Matt Damon is probably the best of all the big name actors at doing it but I like when the top tier actors do it because it always serves the material and allows these types of movies to exist on a scale they probably wouldn't otherwise if at all.

They had every current archetype nailed from Meryl Streep as the President doing dumb Republican type shit to Mark Rylance playing the conglomerate CEO psuedo-liberal creep.

>It struggled to get going for the first 20 minutes or so but
>once it established it's tone and it's world it was
>interesting ride.
>
>It's hard to do this kind of satire right now because of how
>batshit insane everything is. People may feel like this film
>is overreaching or pompous but it's really not far off from
>what we're dealing with now.

This is why I liked Vice as well. Today's repugs and Cheney are such cartoonish villains that it's difficult to make "satire" in the traditional sense, so a lot of it feels like overkill and too on the nose in both Don't Look Up and Vice. But IMO McKay nailed it both times, and always does.

Everything just worked for me. The comedy, the commentary, the tone, EVERYTHING.

I love McKay’s stuff and I hope this isn’t preachy.

like, what? 15 or 20 minutes in?

it felt like it was supposed to be a comedy, but nothing was funny to me, and bad comedies are the worst ("am I supposed to be laughing right now?").

it had one strike against it from the jump when the credits listed it as "content" instead of "movie/film," but that's a personal criticism.

anyhow, I decided to cut my losses; nothing I saw made me feel it would improve. it's too bad cuz I was looking forward to seeing what Meryl Streep would do in it.

i see reviews calling it smug and patronizing, but they almost come off as not wanting to be seen siding with the 'hollywood elites' telling americans they're stupid.
I understand the instinct but i didn't find this movie smug and preachy a much as i just found it openly talking shit/clowning

i don't appreciate it as much as say, idiocracy or strangelove but it all worked for me.

I think I'm the polar opposite of Frank on this.

I don't see anything remotely patronizing about it.

It's very on the nose and presents an all-too-real mirror to our own world. It was satire, however it was satire in a way that strongly resembles Tina Fey's Palin "bit" on SNL.

While it doesn't parrot, word for word, beat by beat, any specific event, it gave us an only slightly exaggerated depiction of the selfish, narcissistic inclinations of our society, right wing politics in particular.

What's the problem?

This was cathartic, if you ask me. Therapeutic.

We got our would-be heroes dealing with their increasing disbelief and terror, as they watched a selfish, feckless, government- in bed with big tech- drive us straight into a world-ending cataclysm.

Again, what's the problem?

I contend that this simply hits too close to home. It's a little to real.

Ditto the thoroughly aloof news media.

And we saw DiCaprio finally snap, quite literally screaming at the world, trying to get them to pay attention to an imminent, inarguable, and empirically settled problem.

Again... what's the problem?

This works well beyond the hyper-meta MAGA/climate change denier/antivax/etc commentary. Anyone dealing with grossly inept, uncaring or just flatout reckless leadership in any capacity, particularly in the workplace, can relate because that's a lot like this.

I don't really see any problems with any of the actors, but I have to say I find it surprising to call Chalamet the MVP. His character was entirely forgettable and provided nothing of any real worth to the film. You could write this without him and immediately improve the flow of the film by shortening it by few minutes, and lose absolutely nothing of note.

He was basically Shawn from Boy Meets World.

The prayer was whatever. It's believable, to be sure, but that moment would have been infinitely more moving had it been given by a character who didn't believe in a god. Frankly- pun unintended- I thought it presented one of the most mundane choices in the entire film. Had that prayer been given by either Mindy or Dibiaske, it would have had some weight to hear them muddle through a heartfelt yet half hearted foxhole prayer.

I don't see the buckshot either. While there was a bit of broad, across the board ignorance on display, such as the sheer shallow awfulness of Ariana Grande's character this shit was largely focused on the Fox/MAGA/GOP crowd.

This thing offered an awful lot of good, and a lot to chew on.

The ending was a fantastic choice too. The lil epilogue scene was whatever, but letting the whole thing get blown to hell was the right move IMO. There was no saving that world, not with the people in charge being who and what they were. Maybe there's no saving ours either, but time will tell.

Always nice to get that kind of feedback, lol

made, but you already said everything I was thinking.

because we're already living in the onion

the palin/snl comparison is pretty good since there's not much in here that i couldn't see actually happening in many ways already is.
this was written pre-pandemic but a lot of it seems could apply to covid as much as climate change (can't trust take this rushed vaccine, but lets run to the feed shop)

>because we're already living in the onion
>
>the palin/snl comparison is pretty good since there's not much
>in here that i couldn't see actually happening in many ways
>already is.
>this was written pre-pandemic but a lot of it seems could
>apply to covid as much as climate change (can't trust take
>this rushed vaccine, but lets run to the feed shop)
>


Dont look up: dont wear a mask etc..this shit is scary close as it was written before the pandemic

I think this was brutally close to home and, whether overtly or not, that lead to a fair amount of the distaste many have for it.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ivanka-trump-reportedly-begged-putin-to-order-her-dad-to-stop-capitol-attack

... last nite before realizing it was "satire." And I only realized it because of the link to another satirical piece that had the headline "Trump's Taxes Reveal He Claimed Ted Cruz as a Dependent". Which is only slightly less believable than the above.

news that was almost to the same level:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ivanka-trump-capitol-riot-cheney-b1985832.html

Ivanka twice told Trump to ‘stop the violence’ at Capitol riot but was ignored, witness confirms to Jan 6 committee

drives home how mush we are ACTUALLY living in real life satire...all the doublespeak of GOP officials who were literally in danger on that day, some of which specifically acknowledged it at the time, but now talk as if 1/6 was a nothing-burger that liberals/the media keep bringing up for "political" reasons...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/582966-the-gops-post-1-6-playbook-is-clear-and-its-dangerous

The GOP's post-1/6 playbook is clear — and it's dangerous

History repeats itself, or so they say. But this isn’t quite accurate. It would be more precise to say that we allow history to repeat.

We all witnessed the horror that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. We now understand the insurrection as part of a larger, well-coordinated effort to overturn the will of the people, an effort that continues to this day. And we recognize that, unless we face the realities and ramifications of that day, Jan. 6 will repeat itself again and again.

Yet, in the wake of Jan. 6 and in the lead-up to the 2022 midterms, a dangerous playbook is being deployed by the leaders of the MAGA-dominated Republican Party. Their message is clear: It's time to move on.

ADVERTISEMENT
The playbook is a three-step dance. First, dismiss insurrections and white supremacists as a few bad apples on the fringe of the Republican Party. “It doesn't look like an armed insurrection when you have people that breach the Capitol — and I don't condone it — but they're staying within the rope lines in the Rotunda,” offered Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

Democrats “want to try to besmirch, smear, demean all conservatives in the name of a handful of people who did the wrong thing on Jan. 6,” said Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.).

Or as Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) put it, “If you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January 6, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”

Next, minimize the insurrection by pointing to the apparent strength of American institutions. “The shock of January 6 was that the guardrails collapsed for a brief moment in time after holding for years on end,” writes Ben Shapiro in his new book, “The Authoritarian Moment: How the Left Weaponized America's Institutions Against Dissent.” “And then the guardrails were re-erected, including by some of Trump’s erstwhile allies.”

This argument misses some key details. First, the insurrection was a coordinated effort planned months in advance, and the guardrails were already weakened by a concerted misinformation campaign led by the former president. Also missing from this revisionist narrative: Just hours after the insurrectionists were cleared from the Capitol compound — while a staff of mostly Black and Brown men and women were still sweeping away the broken glass and removing the graffiti — six Republican senators and 121 House Republicans supported an objection to Arizona's electoral votes. They did so despite the violence that had just emerged from this lie, the lie they continued to promote, that the election had been stolen.

ADVERTISEMENT
The final step is to deflect. House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) wanted to discuss “all kinds of political violence.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) — who led the charge among Senate election objectors and raised a fist in solidarity with the crowd on the morning of the insurrection — has blamed Housr Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), suggesting falsely that she turned down requests for National Guard support before the insurrection.

And Shapiro shifts focus from American institutions holding to what he sees as the much greater threat of the illiberal left.

The playbook is riddled with holes. It doesn’t allow for conversation about the Arizona objection, the obstruction of the work of the Jan. 6 select committee, or the fact that Senate Republicans blocked the initial proposal for a bipartisan, independent Jan. 6 commission modeled on the 9/11 commission. The playbook doesn’t discuss the impact of the 63 lawsuits contesting election processes waged by former President Trump’s campaign across the country, ignores the countless conservative elected officials who still refuse to name Joe Biden as the rightfully elected president, and fails to mention the bogus Arizona vote audit — and the ones that follow. It skirts the subject of the 33 laws enacted in 19 states that would restrict voting access and empower partisans to overturn the will of the people.

Conservative leaders have adopted this strategy because it allows them to move on from Jan. 6 without ever having to truly acknowledge and reckon with what happened on Jan. 6. They also use it because it’s good politics for them. A new Quinnipiac University poll shows that 66 percent of Republicans don’t view the storming of the Capitol as an attack on the government and 74 percent say that enough is already known about that day. Republican leaders have said it’s time to move on, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and their supporters are doing just that.

Responding appropriately to the 2020 election and Jan. 6 insurrection is an imperative for our democracy. We must give serious consideration to the Freedom to Vote Act, a good-faith voting rights compromise led by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). We must update the Electoral Count Act to avoid uncertainty and future constitutional crises. We must grapple with disinformation on social media platforms and within our political processes, finding a way to elevate fact over fiction. And finally, we need conservatives like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger who are brave enough not to look away or deflect, who will face the crisis in their party head on.

The next presidential election isn’t so far away, and efforts to undermine our democracy are only ramping up. We cannot downplay, deflect and dismiss these threats to our democracy and our national security. If we do, history may repeat itself on Jan. 6, 2025.

Jamie Neikrie is a legislative affairs associate with Issue One, the leading crosspartisan political reform group in DC.

Between being pro-Matrix sequel, anti-this, and very neutral on the Spider-Man sequel, I’ve certainly felt on an island during December 2021, lol.

I’m glad people are digging this, as it’s always more fun to love a movie than hate it. I’m sadly not in that camp, but hey, God bless.

lol, stop being so damn civil. As passionate as you are about this medium, roll up your sleeves and dig into the discussion with the rest of us.

Do you and all, but there's so much meat to chew on. You doubtless have well-reasoned counterpoints to all this. Why not fully engage with that?

>Between being pro-Matrix sequel, anti-this, and very neutral
>on the Spider-Man sequel, I’ve certainly felt on an island
>during December 2021, lol.
>
>I’m glad people are digging this, as it’s always more fun
>to love a movie than hate it. I’m sadly not in that camp,
>but hey, God bless.

goddamnit this just makes me sad lmao

I know the feeling too well.

I enjoyed Movie 43. I'm pretty sure I am, as close to literally as humanely possible, the only person who liked that movie. It does not get any lonelier than that particlar island lmao.

But yeah, 'twas not the season for you.

Did you see Sing 2 yet? I'm waiting to catch that one with my daughter.

Idiocracy is free on YouTube with Ads, I ended up thinking about it and rewatching it a few days later. Didn't really hold up as well as I thought it would

I generally don’t like heavy-handed stuff, and I wasn’t a huge fan of Vice, but I this worked for me because the online and real-life responses were pretty realistic. Someone going on TV and screaming “we’re all gonna die” WOULD get meme’d to death before the day was over, regardless of how solid the evidence they were presenting was. A handsome man going on TV and calmly explaining the same danger WOULD be reduced to “Science Bae” or some shit. I think McKay could’ve made it clearer that everyone is guilty of this shit and not just Republicans, but that’s a small gripe.

I didn’t even find it THAT heavy-handed to be honest. They didn’t go full idiocracy here, cause this is about the present and not the future.

I also laughed a lot more than I was expecting to based on the responses. The General charging them for snacks, Ron Perlman being “from a different time,” and the absurdity of the administration and the eccentric billionaire characters were all great recurring bits. There were also plenty of good throwaway bits like “Jackpot Fiancé” and the President forgetting her son.

>I don't really see any problems with any of the actors, but I
>have to say I find it surprising to call Chalamet the MVP. His
>character was entirely forgettable and provided nothing of any
>real worth to the film. You could write this without him and
>immediately improve the flow of the film by shortening it by
>few minutes, and lose absolutely nothing of note.

^^^ definitely. I was disappointed when he continued beyond just the convenience store scene, and agree that he added next to nothing to the film.

Don't agree with this tho ...


>He was basically Shawn from Boy Meets World.

Shawn was the fucking man.

I say that loosely, because we're nothing alike in terms of personality.

But in terms of our family lives and friendship roles, I was definitely the Shawn to a few Cory's here and there, so I could relate to that.

*however* because I so closely identify to those basic elements, I've definitely been put off by the Shawn trope over the years.

I'm very sure the tonal whiplash was very intentional, but I think sometimes he was just going too hard with scale when it came to some of the montages around the world and some of the subplots. I get that he's telling this huge story where we also can't stop distracting ourselves with our tiny dramas in the face of massive catastrophe but there's just so much of it. Leo and Cate most prominently just felt like a sidebar to give those two some more screentime together but it wasn't exactly The Aviator.

I really had a problem with Streep. I haven't seen her since probably Doubt but she just seemed confused about what movie she was in or what this role was. I just didn't get it. Rylance also annoyed me, he felt like a cartoon character and not even Jonah Hill's "popped a molly now we launchin'" chief of staff felt that out of place.

The biggest laugh this movie gave me was when Chalamet was in the backseat with Leo and Jen on the way to get groceries. Don't Look Up has some really spastic editing that feels broken as often as it works, but that was perfect. Also just dropping his Twitch handle - great callback to Chalamet being an XBox controller modder on stream before he made it acting.


I liked it but don't know why, really, in the same way I disliked Power of the Dog and felt like I was missing something in doing so.



~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

>Rylance also annoyed me, he felt like a cartoon character

Musk is one of the most cartoonish villains the world has ever seen. There's literally no other way to portray him or any of his ilk (Bezos et al)

Thought the performance was cool.

All over the place, painfully on the nose, wasteful of its talent and just kind of boring through the middle 45 minutes or so.

I actually think it would’ve been way more persuasive if it were a straight up comedy. Go full Team America. This isn’t very good.

>Go full Team America.

*shrugs*

>>Go full Team America.
>
>*shrugs*

but "full" means the cartoon, the musical- FUCK YEAH! The Extra.

I think that would have been a fun watch, but I also think that this being so on the nose and grounded in our current reality was what made this really hit hard, and I think this may well have been a lesser film if they went that direction.

But in terms of the messaging, the winking reality, the timely nature of it all? I think this slots in well next to Team America.

More approiately though, this works better as a companion to Idiocracy.

>but "full" means the cartoon, the musical- FUCK YEAH! The
>Extra.
>
>I think that would have been a fun watch, but I also think
>that this being so on the nose and grounded in our current
>reality was what made this really hit hard, and I think this
>may well have been a lesser film if they went that direction.

Tyler Perry was good as Michael Strahan too. They had Leo screaming a bit too much, but that gave it a campy, Soylent Green vibe. Meryl Streep was spot on creepy.

Would have never made it off the shelf in old Hollywood...but it's a perfect Netflix joint.

More please.

I think people are split on this movie mainly based on whether they found the film preachy. I did not. Mainly for two reasons.

1. I didn't know it was supposed to be about Climate Change. I hear there is critical backlash about the film because the creators said it was a metaphor for climate change and critics thought it beat the message over the audience's head like we are stupid.

But personally, I watched the whole movie and didn't connect it to climate change specifically. Like folks have said, its equally applicable to COVID, Jan. 6. and other big problems that we seemed unwilling to address. BTW, I think McKay limits himself by saying its about Climate Change.

2. I think another reason why people found the film preachy is because people found it to be over the top. I just don't think so. Donald Trump was President. I hated Jonah Hill the way I hate Donald Trump Jr. And the MVP has got to be Mark Rylance. He invented a totally new type of movie villain (who at the same time seemed remarkably real); the nebbish soft spoken technocrat who can be blown over by a light breeze but is also a ruthless self-interested sociopath Bond Villian who would sacrifice billions of people for their own bottom line and god complex. That he was able to roll up Musk, Bezos, Job, Zuckerberg and Cook into one person was amazing.

Think it isn't real read this article about how the Rich plan to survive the apocalypse.

https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1



I just really see the US handling an asteroid coming towards us in the exact same way and because I didn't think the film was over the top, I didn't find the film that preachy.


I 100% everything ColdTruth said. I really didn't plan on liking this movie but I thought it was great. The fact that it has people divided makes me think its even better than I initially thought.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>1. I didn't know it was supposed to be about Climate Change.
>I hear there is critical backlash about the film because the
>creators said it was a metaphor for climate change and critics
>thought it beat the message over the audience's head like we
>are stupid.
>
>But personally, I watched the whole movie and didn't connect
>it to climate change specifically. Like folks have said, its
>equally applicable to COVID, Jan. 6. and other big problems
>that we seemed unwilling to address. BTW, I think McKay
>limits himself by saying its about Climate Change.

Good actors, JH was funny as "Fyre fest human person" / Don JR, overall easy & good entertainment

the allegory around climate change was perfect and spot on

i liked how on the nose it is...perfect for these times

some of it was a bit hokey but that didn't take away from the enjoyment for me. I give a film alot of latitude if it holds my interest...i appreciated the quirks

my favorite bit was JLaw being so consistently obsessed with how dude charged her for free snacks..made me chuckle every time she brought it up cuz yeah, that was weird as fuck LOL

d

"I don't speak to provoke. I speak because I think our time on Earth is short and each moment that we are not our truest selves, each moment we say what we do not mean because we imagine that is what somebody what's us to say, then we are wasting our time

There’s a lot of my gripes in this post so I’ll refrain from regurgitating them but…too long, too bloated, and really hard to get behind the conceit. I “got” it…but really just felt like A Listers chewing scenery for 2.25 hours.

Some good. Mostly meh. I’ll never watch it again.