Kubrick's misses (IMO: "Lolita", "Killers Kiss", "Spartacus", "Eyes Wide Shut" - "Fear And Desire" gets something of a pass, being as it was his first directorial effort) are better than most mainstream directors hits, and I'll fight anyone who says "2001: A Space Odyssey" is not one of the greatest pure cinema experiences in the history of filmmaking.

I agree with your assessment of Streep and Hill, but otherwise thought the movie did a really good job of capturing the absurdity of our current culture.

"it fails to find the right balance between comedy and disaster"

I thought the tonal shifts were very jarring, and that is a great reflection of our present reality.

Who among us in the past few years has not going through unbalanced cycles of depression, anger, fear, stress, and incomprehension interspersed with seemingly inexplicable bouts of happiness and laughter because we needed to find something good to cling to?

Finally I don't see anything wrong with not telling us anything new. The movie is supposed to be a mirror, not a crystal ball.

"Paths of Glory" is certainly great Kubrick.

Totally disagree. From the first watch I thought this film was brilliant and I keep watching it because it's getting so many bad reviews because people simply refuse to acknowledge this is EXACTLY what this country IS. Meryl Streep as the Trumpian president is awesome because she is so virulently anti-Trump.

And this film isn't about Trump. This film is about how vacuous and stupid and greedy and short sighted humanity is, with our country being the MOST of all of those things. This country WOULD literally allow its tech companies and greedy, vacuous, out of touch politicians let the planet be destroyed for a chance at making more money and more stuff. A CHANCE.

The reason the movie is so brilliant and the reason (I think) so many people hate it is because it is 100% A MIRROR. LOOK AT US. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE. It's not satire. The film isn't making fun of how absurd our culture COULD BE, it is making fun of how incomprehensible fucked up our culture IS.

And the post credits (mid credits actually) scene is the ultimate statement regarding how we don't deserve another planet. We don't deserve another chance. Humanity deserves what it gets. It has known forever. It has been warned. It continues to be warned. It refuses to acknowledge reality. Ah well. I'll be long dead and gone when it finally happens, but it is clearly going to happen far sooner than later, despite all protestations to the contrary.

Anyone remember that '90s film Reality Bites where Ethan Hawke says there is no secret handshake but there is an IQ prerequisite? This film is the new litmus test, the new IQ prerequisite. People who hate this film or don't understand what this film is are clearly are not my people.

While I enjoyed the film for the witty, cutting farce that it was, I was most annoyed with the script having everyone repeatedly say "comet," when the astronomical object clearly described in dialog (and depicted in CGI) was an asteroid. A comet is a ball of gas and dust, and a very large and very lucky comet might actually get to "nuke" a major city, but an extinction-level planetary-disaster event requires a solid rock the size of a mountain. (There's also nothing of commercial value to extract from a comet, as the material tends to be water ice, frozen methane, solid carbon dioxide, and other stuff we can get cheaply or for free, right here on earth.)

And the shot of the indigenous person performing a ritual in the face of the onrushing "comet" ran counterpart to one of a right-wing bozo impotently emptying a clip through his automatic rifle at the same object. Each man fulfills his own solemn religious duty, and each man achieves exactly the same result.

Enjoyable. Xina's right on Meryl Streep. The movie is formalistic on multiple levels.

Your analysis lost all credibility the moment you wrote “Kubrick really only made two worthy films…”

@7 This is correct. Kubrick was a genius.

Charles has a way of positioning himself quite awkwardly around anything remotely climate-change adjacent. Like he doesn't have an emotional stake in the crisis and it prevents his full breadth of understanding. Still can't quite put my finger on it. But needless to say, I was not surprised by this review.

@4:

I know many intelligent, culturally and politically aware people who absolutely loathe this film (I haven't seen it yet myself), although a great deal of their negative response isn't necessarily about the message, but rather about the manner in which its presented. Here's a portion of one friend's (longer) review:

"Satire is just about my favorite form when it kills. To be a great satire you need to subvert our views of the things we expect, AND once we think we know the plot pull the rug out from under us again. And again, if you can manage it—to take us through the looking glass to see in a new way how absurd what we knew always was.

Instead of a satire of our times, it feels like a movie made under the influence of our times—a piece whose politics are obvious and facile, that telegraphs its every move so nothing surprising has room to happen, and does this at a ponderous pace. The movie isn’t really taking itself that seriously—it’s tremendously slack, with a long running time deeply unsupported by what is actually going on. It states and restates and then restates again its position, then states it a few more times…then, in case you missed it, again. Then somehow after a genuinely affecting ending (the dinner table scene) it undercuts all of that by not ending…and instead has a few more endings, including letting the rich and powerful escape our collective judgment, but then Meryl Streep’s face gets eaten, oh and I guess it’s done, wait no it’s Jonah Hill in what might be one of his worst one-note roles emerging from a presidential shelter…and then it just runs out of gas and stops."

Despite comments like this and others I've read, I'll probably still watch it, but I'm not going to have very high expectations for it; and I'm certainly not going to judge anyone for either liking or disliking it. It may not be Kubrick or even Mike Judge-level satire, but so long as I get to the end feeling like I didn't just lose a couple of hours of my life I'll never get back, I guess that will have to be good enough.

@5:

Comets may not have much valuable as far as resource extraction for terrestrial use, but they would be invaluable resources for space-faring capabilities. All those volatiles you mention: water, methane, carbon dioxide - plus ammonia, simple carbon-based organics and others, can be used for making potable water, oxygen, fuel, even food, medicine and structural components.
(https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/comet.mining.html)

Yes, I’m not going to watch it. Get the drift. None of those performers engage me. And don’t need to be hit over the head with what’s going on, all too obvious to me, as it has been for decades. Spew toxic fumes, Etc, into the Air, Land & Ocean & things are going to go wrong.
Impressed with California banning putting food wastes in ordinary rubbish/ trash.
/ Charles, is this disqus format taking over The Stranger? Because if it is say goodbye to conversations, because that format discourages it. It is a mess. No chronology , no chance for a chin wag.
Who has pushed for this? Some tech kid? Because it will kill traffic here, as I imagine it has done on SL .
Why this fear giving people a chance to have a conversation? Has cancel culture cancelled that too?

It’s still ‘21 there.. already seven hours into ‘22, and it’s raining. Cat 2 / at the moment/ cyclone moving off shore down our east coast, from the tropical Nth. Heading my way. So far just big surfs are predicted..
How’s Musk’s form, one of his whatever’s floating round in space nearly hit The Chinese space station. This guy may be smart but he’s not hooked up.
Capitalism, here meet Our modern power hitters.

@ FFS, Veronica, you used to have a sense of humor.

I am not going to cut people out of my life who don't like the film. In fact a friend of mine "doesn't get it" and thought the ending was "anti-climactic."

The film isn't a satire. That was the entire point of my comment.

Anywho...here's to 2022...it has to be better, right? My intention for the year is to no longer comment on things I read on the internet. Pretty sure it's going to improve my life exponentially.

My comment is for @10

Pretty sure that's not a Native American, Tope (she/her). The pattern on the pants leads me to surmise it is someone from Tibet/Nepal/Bhutan.

Maybe it's not Racism?

@10: "Comets may not have much valuable as far as resource extraction for terrestrial use, but they would be invaluable resources for space-faring capabilities."

Possibly, but a major plot point in "Don't Look Up" is that the 'comet' contains metric tonnes of rare-earth minerals which could be extracted for use on earth. That makes it an asteroid, not a comet, and having the scientist characters repeatedly use the wrong word throughout the film really grated on me.

As for the possible use of cometary material in space exploration, that reduces to a "make vs. buy" question: bring those materials with you when you go, and thus be sure of having them, or take the risk of using large amounts of fuel to chase and capture them, with rather severe penalties for both fuel exhaustion and lacking the material.

I agree that the film is more 'real' than 'farce' and that's why the world, rather than capitalism, ends.

That's where our world is going, but to billionaire warlord water-hoarding city states shutting out the serfs, rather than a few billionaires fleeing an exploding planet to a goldilocks planet with a high burnoff rate

‘Don’t Look Up’ Movie ‘Mistake’: Film Crew Visible in Scene

https://www.snopes.com/articles/387459/dont-look-up-mistake/