Don't Look Up (2021) Netflix

[up_the_hampipe]

And the characters were, for me, too extreme for the satire, especially the chief of staff who was ludicrously vile.

Really? That was too extreme?

[TrenterPercenter]

Even Cate Blanchett, who was the best thing in it, strayed into too much exaggeration.

Yep she was by far the best thing in it (she is always excellent).

Really? That was too extreme?

I think @kalowski means extreme as in extremely exaggerated as to render it utterly stupid. 

Poochy levels of stupid.  Let's have the chief of staff as a wise crackin douchebag because it 's like totally the opposite right of how they would be, I know! right! Yo! I'm like a totally bad ass chief o' staff yo, tell ya momma!

This is CAB right? I haven't logged onto a Michel MCintrye appreciation site.  Sometimes I really do think there can be some very specific and over-egged criticism regarding comedy on here but this, this pile of detritus was paint by numbers comedy cancer (I'm exaggerating now ifor shits and giggles it was just a load of American meh, not the worst thing I've ever seen but trash all the same).

[kalowski]

I think @kalowski means extreme as in extremely exaggerated as to render it utterly stupid. 

Yes, this is exactly what I mean. Of course a republican chief of staff is a nasty piece of work, but he was just too stupidly nasty and so all I could hear was the writing.

[up_the_hampipe]

Yes, this is exactly what I mean. Of course a republican chief of staff is a nasty piece of work, but he was just too stupidly nasty and so all I could hear was the writing.

I don't know if you deliberately didn't pay attention to the Trump administration for your own sanity, but there were often quite stupidly nasty. Less intelligent and less tactful Veep characters come to life. Presumably, Jonah Hill's character was based on Trump Jnr. or any of the other Trump sons, just the stuff they've tweeted is almost more absurd than anything Hill's character said in this film.

These "too exaggerated" and "not subtle enough" criticisms just sound ridiculous to me. There's been so much satire in TV and film over the years that has been just as over the top, if not way way more, but it still worked. You just didn't find this one funny, I guess, and that's fine.

[TrenterPercenter]

He get hit in head with bottle, him head hurt bad.

[up_the_hampipe]

He get hit in head with bottle, him head hurt bad.

Sometimes I really do think there can be some very specific and over-egged criticism regarding comedy on here

[TrenterPercenter]

I don't know if you deliberately didn't pay attention to the Trump administration for your own sanity, but there were often quite stupidly nasty. Less intelligent and less tactful Veep characters come to life. Presumably, Jonah Hill's character was based on Trump Jnr. or any of the other Trump sons, just the stuff they've tweeted is almost more absurd than anything Hill's character said in this film.

These "too exaggerated" and "not subtle enough" criticisms just sound ridiculous to me. There's been so much satire in TV and film over the years that has been just as over the top, if not way way more, but it still worked. You just didn't find this one funny, I guess, and that's fine.

It screamed trying hard to make it's point when as you've pointed out these people don't actually need that much work to do this. It was repetitive and lacking in any comedic craft for me but also as parody of these people by making them so ridiculous it kind of helps them these kind of caricatures don't work well when they are so superficially constructed they ring hollow.

What is all this comparing things to other films as well? Seems a very weird defensive thing to do "other characters have been exaggerated in other things" yeah sometimes it works because of lots of other things Alan Partridge is exaggerated but it works.

[TrenterPercenter]

Adam McKay has got form here also he managed to even humanise somewhat Dick Cheney in his send up of him in Vice (another film that really wasn't that good).

Most people agree with the points it's just they are being told in a milquetoast guardianesque manner.  That would be my main criticism I want a better critique that is more real because the real characters are terrifying bizarre and idiotic enough without this comic book approach to representing them.  Making them this way and managing the topic in such a sense is a very safe way of dealing with it all.

[up_the_hampipe]

What is all thins comparing things to other films as well? Seems a very weird defensive thing to do "other characters have been exaggerated in other things" yeah sometimes it works because of lots of other things Alan Partridge is exaggerated but it work.

It's not defensive, it's a counter-argument. We're talking about comedy and I think it's a weird criticism to make about it. I don't think Adam McKay intended to make something subtle either.

Adam McKay has got form here also he managed to even humanise somewhat Dick Cheney in his send up of him in Vice (another film that really wasn't that good).

Really? I went into that film knowing Dick Cheney was horrendous, and came away thinking that he must be one of the most evil men in American history.

[TrenterPercenter]

It's not defensive, it's a counter-argument. We're talking about comedy and I think it's a weird criticism to make about it. I don't think Adam McKay intended to make something subtle either.

It is a poor counter argument.  Just because other things have exaggerated characters that work doesn't mean these exaggerated characters work.  That isn't how comedy works.

Really? I went into that film knowing Dick Cheney was horrendous, and came away thinking that he must be one of the most evil men in American history.

Yes I think this is McKays strength he manages to present things in a way that some people find more appealing.  As my friend said today he loved the Big Short because it made learning about the financial crash interesting.

He deserves credit here, a muse for people not really interested in important things, just seems this is kindof part of the problem that Don't Look Up is identifying.

[Blue Jam]

Is this Adam McKay the same one who is heavily involved in Succession?

I love The Big Short and Anchorman, only watched Vice once but remember massively enjoying it so may give this a go regardless.

[up_the_hampipe]

It is a poor counter argument.  Just because other things have exaggerated characters that work doesn't mean these exaggerated characters work.  That isn't how comedy works.

I didn't say it has to work, I said that's a bad reason to criticise a comedy because that's the basis of a lot of comedy. It's just not funny or well-written enough, for you.

[TrenterPercenter]

I didn't say it has to work, I said that's a bad reason to criticise a comedy because that's the basis of a lot of comedy. It's just not funny or well-written enough, for you.

Yes...and the main reason for that is the characters are too exaggerated and superficial to carry the comedy.  It's not balanced and because of this it is a poor satire.  These are my criticisms, it thinks it is clever yet it seems woefully unaware of its own shortcomings.

It may on the other hand have reached some people regarding climate change that wouldn't normally be engaged with other formats - which I've recognised and applauded.  My concern would be here that whilst it might have brokered some thoughts it doesn't suggest any meaningful solutions because these would require a level of reality and non-superficiality that are not in this toolbox (for various reasons) and this is counter to the professed message.

[TrenterPercenter]

Is this Adam McKay the same one who is heavily involved in Succession?

He is a producer I think.  It's nothing like Succession it's much more like his other films.
He is of course head writer for SNL which has brilliance and not so good stuff and it very much feels like DLU is an extension of this. 

I love The Big Short and Anchorman, only watched Vice once but remember massively enjoying it so may give this a go regardless.

I reckon you will like it BJ and worth giving it a go.  Btw I loved the Big Short, thought Anchorman was OK, Vice (meh meh meh meh). 

[chveik]

Adam McKay has got form here also he managed to even humanise somewhat Dick Cheney in his send up of him in Vice (another film that really wasn't that good).

Vice is shite. (american) liberals can't comprehend that imperialism is a structural feature of the US so they have to convince themselves that all these atrocities are ultimately the result of a few individuals that fooled everyone (presenting colin powell as a principled guy is just idiotic). and the psychologization is disgusting (same with clint's hoover biopic, zero dark thirty etc.). but the worse thing is the victims are just basically statistics compared to the struggle for american's soul or whatever the fuck. plus the editing and directing is sub-scorsese garbage.

[TrenterPercenter]

but the worse thing is the victims are just basically statistics compared to the struggle for american's soul or whatever the fuck.

Part I

Yes I have similar feelings.  Baudrillard (hold this thought) spoke about the use of the banal to excuse imperialist crimes and whether intentionally or not that is what films like Vice tend to do.  The film apparently upgraded him from horrendous person to "the most evil man in American history" according to UTHP (not to single this poster out because this is representative of a wider view), presumably acquiring that title for his role creating a war that has killed around 500,000 people, displaced 10s of millions and caused previously stable countries to collapse in the Middle East (causing further untold misery and death).  So what do we do? Make a comedy-drama about the guy, explaining his humble beginnings and amusing heart attacks, then we say "what an important film, this man was bad, let's give it an Oscar, we care".  It's banal.  It's what Baudrillard was talking about.  We level a city and kill the children in it but we'll make a darkly-comedic film about it as a form of confession-therapy to deal with the reality of it all.

That being said, who is doing anything about Cheney anyway? No one. Isn't the film then actually bringing to focus this individual?  Isn't this banal attention important attention all the same.  Yes, I can't see how it isn't, that doesn't however mean that these films are beyond criticism, keep making them, but make them better.  The problem is that anything too radical just won't get made and if it did, it wouldn't be easy viewing and people would find it uncomfortable to watch.  I think McKay does deserve recognition here for providing "something" (it's likely he probably would agree with this).  So we are stuck, banality is the limit of expression regarding these things but these things are clearly important to have made the effort to make an banal expression of them - so it would seem to me people that don't really pay attention to the world as to not already know how utterly terrible someone like Dick Cheney is needs to keep watching these films and people that don't require this format to engage with such topics need to keep being critical of them.  That I guess is progress.

Part II

Where I think problems come in with things like DLU (and similar socio-political and cultural artifices) is the rejection of criticism of them. Usually trying to apply constructive discourse around these things like the work of Baudrillard is on one hand evidence of an "over-thinking fun-suck of the material" but on the other hand non-sophisticated criticisms are not considered mature and are just the reactive knee-jerks of an angry mind.  We just want to watch our trash in peace please, save us the moral sermon on how Vice or Don't Look Up translate to real world positive change, we just want the fluff and not to feel like we are complicit in any of the bad stuff.  These jumps trouble me, DLU is just one thing but this attitude is rife in lots of popular culture and it's dangerous.  I'm sure I've said this before but it is the I'm Lovin it effect.  In the early 2000s a well known fast-food restaurant was having a PR nightmare due to it treatment of workers, deforestation and their food as suggested by people like Morgan Spurlock (problematic sure) contributing to poor health and obesity.  this led them to rebrand, that rebrand was "I'm Lovin It".  This was some weapons grade psychological propaganda otherwise known as PR (it's no different from another piece of highly effective marketing propaganda L'Oreal's "Because I'm worth it") now all criticisms could be answered with this self-sustaining affirmation, but "I'm Lovin It", why would you want to take people's love away from them? What are you suggesting? that an individual is responsible for any of the bad stuff? they are just "Lovin It", I want to keep "Lovin it" it's happy and safe, hey don't you dare bring me down and make me feel bad about my decisions all decisions are individual, personal and subjective - I'm. Lovin. It.  None of the issues went away we just changed the way we looked at them.

Some people might feel more invested in issues than you are willing to be and that's OK, its'a good thing, people shouldn't be shamed into not having a reasoned opinion about something, it's what the actual film DLU is about even.  For those of us that don't need a dark-comedy to explain the atrocities of Dick Cheney we probably just don't see such films as authentic enough to the issues the are representing (for the reasons explained above), and authenticity is a key component in comedy.  This likely frames the way in which the DLU is seen with one side just seeing a lot of self-masturbatory guff around a serious issue and require better comedy to get over this deficit.  I was told at great lengths about Vice by a friend who said "I needed" to see it, but why, I've read about Cheney for decades and now I'm having to listen to someone wax lyrical about how incredible and bad it all is because they watched a comedy drama about him.  I put it to the court that this might be part of the problem, that the eventual retelling of systemic problems in the lite-comedy individualist hero narrative is the the after glow of the problem that DLU states to illuminate.

Anyway SFCs for DLU is me being OTT myself but we are allowed to have different opinions on things and these opinions are not defacto bah humbug, the whole point is to think about these things especially when a film puts itself into the socio-political arena.


Aaaaaaand fuck it post!

[thugler]

Really don't see how making a movie about Cheney's crimes means he's suggesting that imperialism was fine until he came along. It's not a great movie though.

This new one though I think like the big short takes a reasonable stab at satire that is entertaining and appealing to a wide audience while not pulling it's punches at it's many targets.

[shoulders]

Bottom line: it feels as if the writers of the film thought it was much cleverer and funnier than it actually was.

Can't agree, I don't think it goes even close to giving off those vibes, if anything it leans towards a mainstream 'this'll do' level of limited ambition in terms of its message.

If anything, that gives the film a lighthanded quality that, deliberate or otherwise, definitely works in its favour when analysing tone and rhythm.

There's a relatively narrow scope and it goes for relatively simple targets to aim at which it generally succeeds at. There isn't a single 'Ooh did we just blow your tiny little minds' piece of smuggery in there I can think of.

Tonally it reminds me of The Campaign which took a similar approach, both unambitious but reasonably focused on the material and ultimately effective at what it was trying to do, neither a triumph or one film that will stick out in the memory.

[Mobbd]

Can't agree, I don't think it goes even close to giving off those vibes, if anything it leans towards a mainstream 'this'll do' level of limited ambition in terms of its message.

If anything, that gives the film a lighthanded quality that, deliberate or otherwise, definitely works in its favour when analysing tone and rhythm.

There's a relatively narrow scope and it goes for relatively simple targets to aim at which it generally succeeds at. There isn't a single 'Ooh did we just blow your tiny little minds' piece of smuggery in there I can think of.

This nails it so far as I'm concerned. It was good enough (and I picked out some of the positives in my main contribution to this thread) but accusations of smuggery just aren't something I detected at all. It just isn't that highfalutin a film.

EDIT: I should just mention that it's not just some CaBbers who have said it was self-satisfied or smug. Some reviews in press have made similar charges. I usually see what the critics mean even if I don't agree but with this I thought "were we even watching the same film?"

[TrenterPercenter]

Really don't see how making a movie about Cheney's crimes means he's suggesting that imperialism was fine until he came along. It's not a great movie though.

That is ridiculous I said people that were more familiar with Cheney and invested in his crime are more sensitive to how he is to be dealt with.  The exact point is not to make moral inferences on consumers, but that this should work both ways.

[shoulders]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/01/lighten-up-satire-tall-order-life-out-crazying-even-science-fiction

I guess this is only partly a review of the film but the praise is a bit ott in my view.

It seems as though many people need to have a strong positive or negative reaction to this film, which itself is playing into a theme the film itself observes.

[Dex Sawash]

JK Rowling though

[thugler]

That is ridiculous I said people that were more familiar with Cheney and invested in his crime are more sensitive to how he is to be dealt with.  The exact point is not to make moral inferences on consumers, but that this should work both ways.

Was responding to cveick's post rather than yours.

[TrenterPercenter]

Was responding to cveick's post rather than yours.

Ah sorry my mistake

[bakabaka]

I'm with Shoulders on this one - a light satire on a dark subject. It's a subject that was crying out for it and it could have been so much worse, whether through polemic or heavy-handed comedy (it teetered on the edge in the Ron Perlman scenes for me). It's not great and I can't see me rewatching it at any point, but it was an enjoyable way to end the year.

I was surprised how much I enjoyed Ariana Grande's song:
"What he's really trying to say
Is get your head out of your ass
And listen to the goddamn qualified scientists
We really fucked it up, fucked it up this time"

and her ad-libbed bit:
"Just look up
Turn off that shit box news
Cause you're about to die soon everybody!"

Also really enjoying all the youtube recommendations for videos called stuff like "Just Look Up - the real science" which are all about comets. It's as if no-one on youtube understands the concept of allegory.

[thecuriousorange]

More watery soup after Death to 2021, or whatever is was called.

[poodlefaker]

I  still find Leo too young-looking - he seemed about the same age as his sons in this to me.

[TrenterPercenter]

It seems as though many people need to have a strong positive or negative reaction to this film, which itself is playing into a theme the film itself observes.

I not convinced that the film isn't trying to not provoke this with its exaggerated characters.  This is part of the smelling your own farts/the adults in the room criticism.

More watery soup after Death to 2021, or whatever is was called.

Yep I watched that the other day too.  It wasn't great either.  Thing is I agree with all of it I'm a mad lefty but there is something that just rings hollow with it all.  Again I'm struggling to reconcile the what isn't for me with what I ultimately feel is appealing but flawed in reach to others.  Dunno good comedy about this kind of stuff should feel better than each of these attempts. 

It's seems more about how we got into this mess rather than any way out but maybe the way in is indistinguishable from the way out at this stage (if that makes any sense).

[Dr Rock]

It was ok.

I thought I spotted a Chris Evans cameo, and just checked and I was correct. Maybe it was obvious.

[ZoyzaSorris]

I'm with shoulders. I enjoyed it and thought it was deliberately low brow and quasi-half-arsed as part of the vibe. Kinda worked for me. Seems to be getting quite a bit of live anecdotally from people I know in real life.