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

[Josh Dial]

Interesting discussion, Colin and Jerry. Reminds me of The Death of the Author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

 

[DaveF]

I'm certainly not claiming/endorsing the theory I mentioned, but it seemed possible as I watched.

Two reasons I felt that way:

Spoiler

1. Evelyn only accesses the multiverse at her lowest point. Everything's going wrong in her life - it's a coincidence that she suddenly gains understanding of all these different possibilities right then?

2. "Raccacoony"! In "our world", Evelyn goofily believes "Ratatouille" is called "Raccacoony" and the main character is a raccoon, not a rat. There's supposed to be another world where the events of "Raccacoony" actually happened?

Now maybe the movie posits that there are infinite universes so basically all possibilities are real.

Still seems strange to me that something as silly as Evelyn's misinterpretation of "Ratatouille" would actually exist.

Anyway, I might be wholly wrong. Just saw some potential indicators, that's all!

I can best say that EEAAO is very clearly a multi-verse movie to me. The multi-verse is a strange and wonderful place. It has Raccacoonies and Hot Dog Fingers.

 

[Kent K H]

I’m someone who felt about Swiss Army Man the way Paul Schrader felt about this movie, but this movie I enjoyed a lot. Yes, it’s a bit of an assault on the senses, but for those of us who grew up on comics, Futurama and Douglas Adams, the concepts themselves aren’t that hard to grasp. I also felt a twinge of Dave Made a Maze, but I’m sure that’s coincidence.

 

[Mark Booth]

It was like watching a train wreck. I was fascinated and horrified at the same time and I couldn't look away.

Mark

 

[JoeStemme]

I suppose all movies or most could be taken that way, but I didn’t see any evidence or context clues to suggest that would be the case. Given the absurdist nature of the filmmakers’ prior work, I think their intention is for us to take everything at face value.

Yes, on the old imdb messageboards, there was a whole cottage industry of folks who would come up with theories about just any offbeat movie that such and such a character was "dead" all along - or, didn't exist at all.

 

[jayembee]

Yes, on the old imdb messageboards, there was a whole cottage industry of folks who would come up with theories about just any offbeat movie that such and such a character was "dead" all along - or, didn't exist at all.

The Sixth Sense has a lot to answer for...

Funny...but just last night, a friend and I were having a discussion that at one point involved the nature of the fantastic elements of Hamlet and Macbeth. Specifically, whether the ghost in the former was "real" or "imaginary", and whether the witches in the latter really had supernatural powers (and whether Banquo's ghost was "real"). We ultimately agreed that (a) Hamlet's father's ghost was "real", as the guards had seen him, too, (b) the witches were "real", as they'd made predictions that came true, and (c) Banquo's ghost might've been "real", but was just as likely a product of Macbeth's guilt.

 

[Joe Wong]

Finally saw this yesterday...

Thought it was wild and wildly inventive. But the ending scenes (the various will they-won't they scenarios, including 1. will Evelyn go into the bagel, and 2. will Joy reconcile with Evelyn?) took a little too long. 20 minutes less would have made it a tighter film.

But applause for what the Daniels achieved on what I assume is a smaller budget.

 

[Patrick Sun]

The budget has been reported as being around $25 million.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Finally saw this last night at a small local theater in the Adirondacks. I was captivated the entire time.

Utterly inventive.

The sheer amount of cinematic creativity packed into 2 hours and 20 minutes cannot be overstated, creativity unbound by standards of decency and good taste, tone, and internal consistency. Nearly every second threw something new at the audience.

They also could have trimmed 15 minutes from the run time.

One of the most common comments I heard coming out of my showing was that it felt a lot longer than it was. I think this is due to the way the movie thwarts our expectations of story and structure. Part I is basically feature-length in and of itself, Part II is probably half that, and Part III is only a couple minutes long.

If you feel like the movie is over when the credits roll the first time, then everything after that will feel like an elongation that really distorts your sense of how long you've been in the theater for.

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 agree that the film takes great pains to be accessible; there is plenty of exposition to tell you what's going on Evelyn's experience evolves. At the same time, I can definitely see why a casual viewer would find the sheer excess of the film and the wild extremes that it touches upon overwhelming.

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.

I personally felt that it worked really well on that personal level: Jobu Tupaki is a villain who has laid waste to countless universes only because she is a scared young woman who, faced with circumstances and a perspective beyond human capability, wants the familiar comfort of her mother. At the same time, the experience forced upon Evelyn a sort of immense empathy which allowed her to better appreciate those around her -- even the IRS agent who was making her life hell -- and to bridge the schism of culture and personal prejudices that had come between her and her daughter. I found myself caring about all of those relationships.

Also noteworthy is that any faintly clever notion will be repeated and repeated -- so it's safe to take refreshment breaks.

To me it was less repetition than a kind of poetry, with each iteration of each concept rhyming with those before them, while making new points or illuminating new facets of those concepts.

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.

A straight family drama about a woman who owns a laundromat who is disappointed with her life, frustrated with her unmanly husband, and estranged from both her judgmental father and lesbian daughter could have been made with this cast, and it could have even been a really great movie. But it wouldn't be this movie. The everything plus the kitchen sink ethos is likely the driving force that got this movie made in the first place.

I guess, because it was so stupid I. actually forgot the raccoon! This, to me was another example of poor execution. We had a very obvious stuffed animal, not a la “Guardians of the Galaxy”.

It was supposed to be completely ridiculous. The idea being that in a truly infinite multiverse, there would even be a universe where the misremembered plot of a Pixar movie is the reality. Would an expensive visual effect have sold that concept any better than what we got? Personally, I don't think so.

If you wish there were more old-school, campy kung-fu movies like Sammo Hung used to make, this is it.

If you miss the mid-budget scifi movies of the late ‘90s early ’00s before Marvel took over the world, this is it.

If you fundamentally want a movie that makes you *feel” through earned emotions and unexpected experiences, this is it.

Agreed on all points.

It’s curious how Everything Everywhere All At Once and Turning Red came out the same year. Kinda the same core idea, but wildly different executions and perspectives.

It's interesting that you make that comparison, because the family stories being told are remarkably similar and yet I really connected with this movie emotionally, whereas Turning Red left me completely cold.

And I enjoyed watching the actors having a ball with the the material, cinematic joy is hard to find, so embrace it when the universe(s) manifests it into existence.

Amen.

That kinda seems like a copout. They're saying it really happened or it didn't - you figure it out?

They're saying it is what it is, and doesn't require an outside explanation to be deciphered.

 

[JoeStemme]

Finally saw this last night at a small local theater in the Adirondacks. I was captivated the entire time.

... At the same time, the experience forced upon Evelyn a sort of immense empathy which allowed her to better appreciate those around her -- even the IRS agent who was making her life hell -- and to bridge the schism of culture and personal prejudices that had come between her and her daughter. I found myself caring about all of those relationships.


A straight family drama about a woman who owns a laundromat who is disappointed with her life, frustrated with her unmanly husband, and estranged from both her judgmental father and lesbian daughter could have been made with this cast, and it could have even been a really great movie. But it wouldn't be this movie. The everything plus the kitchen sink ethos is likely the driving force that got this movie made in the first place.

For my part of the quoted, I would say that the ends could have been arrived at with just some genuine conversation. Even as a sci-fi film, a few "verses" would have achieved the same harvest (IE Spiderman 8 and Sliding Doors). Here, it becomes a multi-car pileup.
And, yes, when it finally gets to the finale, the homily could have fit on a dinner napkin.

 

[TJPC]

Sorry, but I still feel “Is everyone nuts?”. How can there be a serious discussion of this dreck? It was, as I said earlier, one of worst experiences in a movie theatre I have ever had. It even beats the time a person getting in the seat behind me spilled his entire large heavily buttered popcorn over my shirt ruining it with butter stains!

 

[Jake Lipson]

How can there be a serious discussion of this dreck?

Because art is subjective.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Sorry, but I still feel “Is everyone nuts?”. How can there be a serious discussion of this dreck? It was, as I said earlier, one of worst experiences in a movie theatre I have ever had. It even beats the time a person getting in the seat behind me spilled his entire large heavily buttered popcorn over my shirt ruining it with butter stains!

So people are nuts because they don't share your POV about this movie. Got it!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Sorry, but I still feel “Is everyone nuts?”. How can there be a serious discussion of this dreck? It was, as I said earlier, one of worst experiences in a movie theatre I have ever had. It even beats the time a person getting in the seat behind me spilled his entire large heavily buttered popcorn over my shirt ruining it with butter stains!

Time to look through a list of your favorite movies so we can call you stupid/insane because you like some of them...

 

[TJPC]

It is so hard to indicate intent and mood in an entry like this. I meant no serious criticism here. I am a very flippant person. We use "is everyone nuts" in our family as a joking phrase used when we find that our opinions do not jibe with the majority. Another example could be that everyone is praising say "cheezwiz" you say "Is everyone nuts?" The origin of this is lost in our family lore, but I think it might have come from "Seinfeld" when Elaine saw people eating chocolate bars with a knife and fork.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

A knife and fork? Seriously, is everyone nuts?
(better put a smiley there so you know I'm just joking )

Anyway, it sounds like a movie right up my alley, weird, strange and dividing opinions. I'll buy it unseen.

 

[TheBat]

the real question is has Ron Epstein seen it? I want to hear what he has to say about it.
I saw it twice in the theatre. I understood more the second time actually. Such a beautiful film.
I wonder what its chance at the Oscars? Certainly better then dr strange 2.

Jacob

 

[sleroi]

Some of the ideas are embarrassingly stupid (hot dogs!?) and others are very amateurish (rocks?!).

I loved the hot dogs and especially the rocks. It was the dildos that I found amateurishly stupid. They didn't fit in with the rest of the film.

I thought the first act could have lost a few minutes, but other than that I thought this was a really fun take on the multiverse without a superhero or advanced sci-fi mumbo jumbo.

And the acting was fantastic. I really thought Ke Huy Quan was terrific. And I didn't realize James Hong was in it. He's great in everything he's in.

While I don't think this took place inside Evelyn's head, my take is that since every decision she made or didn't make caused a branch from the alphaverse, that this takes place in her own personal multiverse. And since everyone makes decisions, everyone has a multiverse they are the center of. But we all exist on earth, so we all exist in each other's multiverses. With billions of alphaverses and multiverses crossing all of the time. And now my head is going to explode.

 

[Alex...]

Returning to theaters July 29th.

 

[jayembee]

Of course. I just got the UHD a few days ago.