Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

The assertion here is that those who do not like "Everything..." and criticized it, are as stupid and deluded

I honestly don't feel that film appreciation or lack thereof has anything to do with intelligence. And I certainly don't feel if you don't like something you are deluded. I think people just have different things they want out of a story/film and this impacts if they like it or not.

Funny thing, I was watching a documentary about some of the most brilliant scientists in the world and this one scientist is giving a tour of this incredible underground facility and out of the blue, related to nothing at all he was discussing, he makes a joke about going to the bathroom. This is a brilliant guy but in terms of what he thought was funny...toilet humor and fart jokes. Now, if the guy was just out in a bar and not giving a tour of this amazing underground facility...people in the bar might think he was just some clown making potty jokes...when he is actually one of the most brilliant scientists working today.

You just can't gauge how smart someone is based on what entertains them.

 

[Josh Dial]

I honestly don't feel that film appreciation or lack thereof has anything to do with intelligence. And I certainly don't feel if you don't like something you are deluded.

I think that's generally true.

However, if someone confuses or misses a fundamental story beat (e.g. thinks the LOSTies were all dead the entire time), then I have to question whether that gap in understanding is directly influencing their opinion of the thing. It some cases, it's almost like they stepped out of the theatre for five minutes to go to the bathroom, and missed a crucial plot development. It's not their fault and they certainly aren't stupid for missing it. But when they say, "I didn't like that movie because it didn't make sense," I might conclude their opinion is a direct result of missing something.

That's why it's not always dismissive to say, "oh you didn't get it." Sometimes...they didn't!

Someone can dislike the ending to LOST. But if someone dislikes the ending and thinks they were dead the entire time, unfortunately (and there is no good way to say this) I have to discount that opinion as "you didn't get it."

Everything Everywhere is part experimental cinema, part art house, and part theatre of the absurd (and a bunch of other more mainstream parts). It's an A24 movie after all. These sorts of movies require more from their audience than most movies. Like Jake says in post #29, it's a challenging movie.

But when someone says the rock scene is "amateurish" I have to conclude they didn't get it (or the movie). That scene is widely acclaimed as the most heartfelt scene in the movie, and it's thematic centre. In my showing, I could hear people sobbing quietly.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think that's generally true.

However, if someone confuses or misses a fundamental story beat (e.g. thinks the LOSTies were all dead the entire time), then I have to question whether that gap in understanding is directly influencing their opinion of the thing. It some cases, it's almost like they stepped out of the theatre for five minutes to go to the bathroom, and missed a crucial plot development. It's not their fault and they certainly aren't stupid for missing it. But when they say, "I didn't like that movie because it didn't make sense," I might conclude their opinion is a direct result of missing something.

That's why it's not always dismissive to say, "oh you didn't get it." Sometimes...they didn't!

Someone can dislike the ending to LOST. But if someone dislikes the ending and thinks they were dead the entire time, unfortunately (and there is no good way to say this) I have to discount that opinion as "you didn't get it."

Everything Everywhere is part experimental cinema, part art house, and part theatre of the absurd (and a bunch of other more mainstream parts). It's an A24 movie after all. These sorts of movies require more from their audience than most movies. Like Jake says in post #29, it's a challenging movie.

But when someone says the rock scene is "amateurish" I have to conclude they didn't get it (or the movie). That scene is widely acclaimed as the most heartfelt scene in the movie, and it's thematic centre. In my showing, I could hear people sobbing quietly.

I have not seen Lost nor this film so can't comment specifically on what specifically happens in them.

I can say that I do believe that when people speak about how they interpret a film or show this is where it gets a bit more complicated.

I think if people miss something that is one thing but if they invent an interpretation of what happened there should be clear evidence supporting that interpretation in the show or film.

This is where I think things get silly. Using your Lost example, if people present an interpretation of the show where everybody is dead and so what happens take place in some sort of purgatory then there must be evidence of this presented in the show that supports that take.

This gets frustrating because people have different takes on interpretation. Some people seem to feel you can make anything about anything if that is how you choose to interpret it. I think you can do this if you want and if that is what you enjoy but it does add up to nonsense.

I feel any interpretation of what is happening in a show/film REQUIRES supporting evidence and contextual backing in the show/film. You can't just say in response to something "Well, aliens did it." or "They must all be dead.", or "It was all a dream." unless there are things there in the story that support that. If there are not, then you are just making stuff up, which you are free to do, but this is not a valid interpretation of the work.

Pretty much in a show/film they are going to put things in the story that indicate what is going on. They may be obvious or they may not be very obvious...but they are there. Generally, people don't just write a bunch of nonsense for a laugh that makes no sense because they want to let the audience invent whatever they want to explain it.

I find this a bigger issue than someone just saying "Well, I did not understand that." because they may not have understood it for many reasons. They missed something, they were not paying attention, maybe the creator of the show/film did make a clue more difficult to find.

So, I think you are correct, sometimes people don't get it but there may be more than one explanation for why they did not. If someone is not enjoying watching something they may be more tuned out to what is happening than the person loving every second of it.

I admit, I am not a big fan of super hero films and so when I watch one, I doubt I am anywhere near as invested as a fan of one of these films. So, they may be seeing things that I am just missing. They probably see more than I do because they are really into what is going on. Plus they understand aspects of the "universe" I don't. They know more about the characters, the plot, the situations.

I once read this thing that you have to have the audience member fully invested in the first 15 minutes of your film and if you don't they will check out and end up not liking your picture. So, they have to grasp in that first 15, who the characters are, what they will be doing, and what their goal may be OR the minds of the audience will wander. At that point they will begin to not get things or misinterpret them.

If your story is more complex and it will take more than that first 15 to get them to grasp it...well...you are making a cult film, ha!

 

[Josh Dial]

I can say that I do believe that when people speak about how they interpret a film or show this is where it gets a bit more complicated.

Agreed. Interpretation of art is necessarily personal and subjective.

However, my larger point (and if I'm reading your post correctly, you agree) is that understanding plot elements is, to a great extent, objective. A viewer either understands the plot or they don't. And if someone doesn't understand a plot point, that can negatively impact their overall opinion. There are, as you write, invalid interpretations of plot.

A problem arises when there is a required overlap of understanding plot and understanding artistic devices. Where you have to understand why the creators did something artistically in order to understand the plot implications. That happens a lot in Everything Everywhere. A viewer can understand artistic devices (and not like them, which for the most part is fully defensible), but not understand related plot beats. This happens a lot in David Lynch productions, for example.

 

[TJPC]

I think that's generally true.

However, if someone confuses or misses a fundamental story beat (e.g. thinks the LOSTies were all dead the entire time), then I have to question whether that gap in understanding is directly influencing their opinion of the thing. It some cases, it's almost like they stepped out of the theatre for five minutes to go to the bathroom, and missed a crucial plot development. It's not their fault and they certainly aren't stupid for missing it. But when they say, "I didn't like that movie because it didn't make sense," I might conclude their opinion is a direct result of missing something.

That's why it's not always dismissive to say, "oh you didn't get it." Sometimes...they didn't!

Someone can dislike the ending to LOST. But if someone dislikes the ending and thinks they were dead the entire time, unfortunately (and there is no good way to say this) I have to discount that opinion as "you didn't get it."

Everything Everywhere is part experimental cinema, part art house, and part theatre of the absurd (and a bunch of other more mainstream parts). It's an A24 movie after all. These sorts of movies require more from their audience than most movies. Like Jake says in post #29, it's a challenging movie.

But when someone says the rock scene is "amateurish" I have to conclude they didn't get it (or the movie). That scene is widely acclaimed as the most heartfelt scene in the movie, and it's thematic centre. In my showing, I could hear people sobbing quietly.

Are you making a joke?

I think that's generally true.

However, if someone confuses or misses a fundamental story beat (e.g. thinks the LOSTies were all dead the entire time), then I have to question whether that gap in understanding is directly influencing their opinion of the thing. It some cases, it's almost like they stepped out of the theatre for five minutes to go to the bathroom, and missed a crucial plot development. It's not their fault and they certainly aren't stupid for missing it. But when they say, "I didn't like that movie because it didn't make sense," I might conclude their opinion is a direct result of missing something.

That's why it's not always dismissive to say, "oh you didn't get it." Sometimes...they didn't!

Someone can dislike the ending to LOST. But if someone dislikes the ending and thinks they were dead the entire time, unfortunately (and there is no good way to say this) I have to discount that opinion as "you didn't get it."

Everything Everywhere is part experimental cinema, part art house, and part theatre of the absurd (and a bunch of other more mainstream parts). It's an A24 movie after all. These sorts of movies require more from their audience than most movies. Like Jake says in post #29, it's a challenging movie.

But when someone says the rock scene is "amateurish" I have to conclude they didn't get it (or the movie). That scene is widely acclaimed as the most heartfelt scene in the movie, and it's thematic centre. In my showing, I could hear people sobbing quietly.

You are serious? I did not have any difficulty understanding the plot what so ever, but basically found some of the execution stupid. The idea that a rock turns and has google eyes made people sob and not guffaw strain’s credulity. There is so much trouble in the world and someone cries at this point?!
Also, I never heard of an “A24” movie.

 

[Malcolm R]

Also, I never heard of an “A24” movie.

A24 is the studio that turns out many "unusual" films. If you don't like one, you should probably stay away from others that they produce.

 

[TJPC]

We will look for that in the future and avoid it. I enjoy his work, but
we avoid Wes Anderson movies for the same reason.

For a number of years we belonged to a film society in our town that showed SERIOUS movies culled mostly from the Toronto film festival. We did not renew as films became more depressing, experimental, incomprehensible and as we say more “artsy fartsy”
I remember one in particular taking place among the Inuet with ghosts etc. that was the last draw.

 

[Josh Dial]

Did you like Swiss Army Man? Based on the reviews, I'm probably seeing Everything... either way but I really hated Swiss Army Man so I'm just curious if you're a fan of their previous movie.

Oops, sorry, Travis. I didn't mean to ignore your question. I did like Swiss Army Man.

Swiss Army Man and Everything Everywhere share some absurdist qualities, but they are thematically different. Everything Everywhere also has a more pointed sci-fi genre bent than Swiss Army Man (one way to look at it is Swiss Army Man roots its storytelling in its absurdity, whereas Everything Everywhere roots its absurdity in its sci-fi).

I think Everything Everywhere is even more experimental than Swiss Army Man.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

A24 is the studio that turns out many "unusual" films. If you don't like one, you should probably stay away from others that they produce.

Or vice versa, if you like one check out others. They are basically one of the more interesting production companies backing pictures right now. It seems like, if you have an idea that is not right down the middle of the road, this is where to take it.

They have backed a whole bunch of different types of films, horror, comedy, drama made by directors and writers with some cool ideas.

It is kind of funny, I read a lot of comments on the interwebs that seem to almost refer to A24 as its own genre. It's really just a company that seems to want to allow filmmakers to try some different things or let their freak flag fly. I'm all for that.

A24

The company behind Everything Everywhere All At Once, Talk to Me, Uncut Gems, Midsommar, Lady Bird, Moonlight, HBO's Euphoria, Netflix's Beef, & more.

a24films.com

 

[benbess]

Saw this today with A-list. Clearly this movie is divisive, but I liked it. Quite surreal, but ultimately meaningful from my pov. My rating: B

 

[Wayne_j]

The ending of LOST wasn't helped by the network adding footage of the plane wreckage over the end credits. It was very well explained in the show that everyone was not dead the entire show.

And yes, Everything Everywhere All At Once definitely isn't for everyone as is the case with most A24 movies.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Paul Schrader weighs in on this picture...

EVERYTHING IS EVERYWHERE. Saw this after receiving several commendations. It’s ingenious, impressive and occassionaly moving, but I appreciated it more than I enjoyed it. I think you need to have grown up in fractured media society to feel at home with it. In other words, it made me feel as old as time itself.

 

[Josh Dial]

Paul Schrader weighs in on this picture...

EVERYTHING IS EVERYWHERE. Saw this after receiving several commendations. It’s ingenious, impressive and occassionaly moving, but I appreciated it more than I enjoyed it. I think you need to have grown up in fractured media society to feel at home with it. In other words, it made me feel as old as time itself.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what he's trying to say. I'm a late Gen X-er (basically the same age as the Stranger Things kids) and I loved it. Not sure I grew up with a "fractured media society" (whatever that means--I suspect it means nothing).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I’ve been holding back on commenting on this film because I’m concerned that whatever I say will sound negative when that’s not my intent. I enjoyed the film. However, there’s nothing about it that I found groundbreaking or challenging. The multiverse concept isn’t new, and is having a bit of a moment in pop culture (with Star Trek, Marvel and other big properties exploring similar themes).

I thought it was very well done for what it was, with some really great performances, and also some terrific uses of variable aspect ratios to effectively convey changes in tone and genre. The pacing seemed a little off - I checked my watch a few times throughout, which generally is a cue for me that the editing isn’t as tight as it could be.

The thing is, I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else and I don’t think I have some extra special magic understanding of film appreciation compared with everyone here. So I guess I’m struggling with understanding why the film is being heralded as groundbreaking, or criticized as being difficult. I didn’t find it to be either of those things. To me, it was basically just another movie - something well done that delivered on the promises made by the trailer, something that I enjoyed watching, but not anything that changed my life or that I’d feel compelled to own.

 

[jayembee]

That's why it's not always dismissive to say, "oh you didn't get it." Sometimes...they didn't!

Sometimes, it's for reasons that aren't obvious. Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but some years back, my sister went on a tear about how The Big Bang Theory was stupid and unfunny. I suggested that it might be that, not being a comics and science fiction fan, as well as not being too well versed in science, she didn't get a lot of the jokes. My nephew got on my case about that, thinking that I was saying his mother was stupid.

I brought up something a dear friend (long since passed away) who came up with a concept she called "Specific Knowledge Gap". It had nothing to do with general intelligence, but with specific things that someone might know or not know. As an example, I brought up the Pixar movie Cars. Neither my wife nor I liked it overmuch, but she appreciated it more than I did. The reason for that was that the movie was full of NASCAR references. If you know nothing about NASCAR, you won't get the references. My wife was a NASCAR fan, and she got and enjoyed all the references; I'm not, and I didn't.

On the other hand, one fairly obscure reference in the movie involved Paul Newman's character "Doc Hudson". His design was for a car make/model from the 1950s, the Hudson Hornet. I knew this because when I was a child, my father owned one. My wife, on the other hand, didn't know about that model car, and didn't get the reference. Neither of us was stupid for not knowing one thing or another. It's all a matter of what we've been exposed to and are familiar with.

On the other hand, when my wife and I watched the Aardman film, Early Man, we knew just enough about "football" to get some of the jokes, but little enough to be sure that there were many more that we didn't get.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Honestly, I'm not really sure what he's trying to say. I'm a late Gen X-er (basically the same age as the Stranger Things kids) and I loved it. Not sure I grew up with a "fractured media society" (whatever that means--I suspect it means nothing).

Well, having not seen the film yet, I am not certain what he means outside of he liked it. I think by fractured media society he probably means the many ways we now interact with media. Which is fairly different than when he (or I even) were young.

 

[jayembee]

A24 is the studio that turns out many "unusual" films. If you don't like one, you should probably stay away from others that they produce.

I've found that A24 is like pretty much every other studio: some of their films I like, some of them I don't like, and some of them I'm completely perplexed by. What makes them different from pretty much every other studio is that they lean toward the more artistic and cerebral films than the popular blockbuster type of films.

In fact, just the other night, I watched one of their films: Midsommer. I appreciated what Ari Aster was trying to do with the film, but ultimately, I thought it failed.

 

[Josh Dial]

The thing is, I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else and I don’t think I have some extra special magic understanding of film appreciation compared with everyone here.

I must disagree. I've read and enjoyed thousands of your posts these many years. I think you do have a higher degree of film (and TV) appreciation over many others. There are HTF members whose reviews/comments I read and consider carefully, and there are members whose reviews I do not. You are squarely in the first category, my friend

As to the comments about the movie being challenging, I won't speak for Jake, of course, but in my opinion the challenging parts of the movie include the artistic use of absurdity and symbolism, and the unspoken contrast of existential nihilism as an optimistic way to live ones life, against the (wrongly labelled in our pop culture) "nihilism" in the pejorative sense.

The creatives are asking the audience to look past the absurdity of hotdog fingers, a bonkers performance from Jamie Lee Curtis (who was clearly having a ton of fun), and an everything bagel as a destructive force. If a viewer can't (or are unwilling) to accept the absurd then they probably won't like the movie. That's the risk artists make when doing anything remotely absurd. As an aside, my spouse is an actress. In university she was in a production that took place in a warehouse here in town. It was a crazy mashup of commedia dell'arte and theatre of the absurd. I'm not sure the director quite had a grasp on things, but I got what he was going for. Most of the audience (all friends and relatives of the cast and crew) hated it. Any time you dip your toes into the absurd you are inviting danger.

If absurd cinema isn't challenging, then I'm not sure what is.

For me, "challenging" means that the creatives require the audience to take a step back and ask themselves, "why is the director (or writer, or actor, or whatever) doing this particular thing?"

Here's a clip from Twin Peaks: The Return. There are no spoilers in this clip for anyone who hasn't seen the show.



Why is this happening? Why is Ruby (the woman) crawling on the floor? Why does she start screaming? The show literally never explains it. The viewer has to ask themselves "why?" (and also ask themselves whether it's a question worth answering). For me, that's what it means for something to be challenging.

(wicked song by the way)

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I must disagree. I've read and enjoyed thousands of your posts these many years. I think you do have a higher degree of film (and TV) appreciation over many others. There are HTF members whose reviews/comments I read and consider carefully, and there are members whose reviews I do not. You are squarely in the first category, my friend

Well, gee. It’s not often that I’m speechless. I may have to print that out and stick it on the wall and every time I think my writing is crap, take a look up at that. It’s genuinely one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me.

The creatives are asking the audience to look past the absurdity of hotdog fingers, a bonkers performance from Jamie Lee Curtis (who was clearly having a ton of fun), and an everything bagel as a destructive force. If a viewer can't (or are unwilling) to accept the absurd then they probably won't like the movie. That's the risk artists make when doing anything remotely absurd.

That’s totally fair - I guess I just wasn’t thinking of it in those terms.

Here’s why I didn’t see this movie as a challenge. This may be where having everything i seem to read or watch take it’s turn doing a multiverse story left me very prepared for a film like this. If you accept the multiverse theory, that anything and everything that can happen does happen, then nothing is too surprising or shocking. (Side note: I also thought Jamie Lee Curtis was utterly fantastic. And I loved the little riff on Dawn of Man from “2001” in explaining how humans evolved differently, my biggest laugh in this film.) But because the film laid out pretty early what the premise was going to be, none of the variations in worlds challenged me as a viewer because I had been led to expect that we’d see everything from the known and expected to the unknown and highly implausible. The method for leaping from one universe to another reminded me a bit of the Infinite Improbability Drive from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Because this film was essentially a hodgepodge of ideas and themes that have been explored in so much of the art I’ve consumed in my life, it felt (dare I say it?) logical.

Of all the films I’ve seen in recent years, the one that was most challenging for me might be “The Last Jedi” - but not for the reasons you might think. Star Wars films had very rigid stylistic and structural choices that remained consistent for basically Episodes 1-7, and then Episode 8 (Last Jedi) basically breaks that mold by doing things no other Star Wars film had done. Part of my enjoyment of Star Wars is derived from its adherence to said structure, and while in theory I’m open to breaking free of that to jolt the audience, so many of the things that broke precedent didn’t really seem to add up to anything other than being different for difference’s sake. It’s the only Star Wars movie that begins immediately where the last one ended, and the only one at that point to actually show flashbacks. It’s the only middle chapter in the three trilogies that doesn’t really set up a concluding chapter in any meaningful way. It didn’t really function the way all Star Wars films prior to it did. But those deviations didn’t really add up to anything. That, for me, was the challenge. (The things other people seemed to hate, like Luke Skywalker’s arc, didn’t bother me in the slightest and actually were the best parts of the film for me.)

In other words, I found The Last Jedi challenging because it was a Star Wars movie that eschewed forty years of established structure and style formatting. It didn’t follow the established ground rules for how those stories are told. By contrast, I didn’t find Everything challenging because it did follow the rules that it had established for itself. I found it fun because it really stuck to its guns and explored to the maximum possible degree in a finite running time what every possibility of everything could be like.

Why is this happening? Why is Ruby (the woman) crawling on the floor? Why does she start screaming? The show literally never explains it. The viewer has to ask themselves "why?" (and also ask themselves whether it's a question worth answering). For me, that's what it means for something to be challenging.

(wicked song by the way)

Yeah, I absolutely love that sequence - it’s one of the best moments of that season even though it doesn’t seem to directly relate to the plot threads being followed at that point.

I unashamedly love David Lynch (even though I don’t actually love all of his films) and especially Twin Peaks. I’ve been asked a lot over the years to explain this or that element from Twin Peaks, whether in my personal life, publicly on this forum and in private messages. The only thing I can really offer people in those situations is to say, “I do feel like I understand Twin Peaks but I can’t explain it.” It’s one of those things where you either connect with it on its wavelength and just feel it, and understand it in a way that goes beyond words, or you don’t. If you can feel it, I don’t have to explain it; if you can’t feel it, no amount of me trying to explain it will make you feel it.

What I’m trying to say is, while I never found that moment “challenging” by my usage of the word, I now understand what you’re saying when you use it.

Now that was a challenge!

 

[JoeStemme]

If nothing else, Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (collectively Daniels) certainly must be credited with a truth in titling nod for their movie - It certainly (and repeatedly) lives up to its moniker.

Scraping away all of the noise, EVERYTHING actually has a very basic premise which could have resulted in some poignancy. A Chinese-American couple, Evelyn (Michelle Yeoh) and Waymond (Ke Huy Quan), are having marital issues which extend to communicating with their daughter Joy (Stephanie Hsu). Adding to the discord are a crusty IRS Agent (an almost unrecognizable Jamie Lee Curtis) who has the family business under audit, and Evelyn's father Gong (James Hong; a fine presence here) -- who she also has parental issues with.

Unfortunately, Daniels have piled on a Multi-verse plot which combines elements of THE MATRIX, SLIDING DOORS and the recent SPIDERMAN: FAR FROM HOME. Instead of having three Spidermen, we seemingly have dozens of iterations of Evelyn. What the Daniels don't bring are a clear clean narrative, genuine insight or a semblance of drama (something the other three pictures all had). Certainly, Daniels get points for a few amusing bits and pieces along the way, but no matter how many hot dogs, bagels, pet rocks and raccoons that are fetishized here, the characters get lost in the sound and fury. Also noteworthy is that any faintly clever notion will be repeated and repeated -- so it's safe to take refreshment breaks. It's like an old Warner Brothers cartoon, except that Chuck Jones and Tex Avery could express their craziness in a tidy 7 minutes, not the elephantine 132 here (a couple of times, audience members got up thinking it was over; and, at the end there was audible sighs of relief that it actually was).

The cast is game (dozens of Michelle Yeohs isn't a bad thing) and the effects are quite good for a fairly modestly budgeted effects extravaganza. As noted at the outset, there is an actual family story to be told here (and, eventually, does), but for all of Daniels' fancy tricks, the ending could much more cogently been arrived at with little if any of the sound and fury. After all the convoluted metaphysical happenings the big takeaway is the simplest of homilies. Indeed, one could eliminate almost the entirety of the almost two hour SFX sideshow and arrive at the very same life lesson with only a couple of 'verses' - or, even just one.