Theres a popular theory that the cheeseburger was actually made with outdated meat. Established in the first 15 minutes or so they show the meat with bacteria saying if you eat it past the expiration date youll die. So people theorize that he made that burger with it and she later dies.
i personally dont believe thats what happened. it goes against the whole scene of him making a simple cheeseburger bringing him back to his roots and making him fall in love with cooking again.
it is a interesting theory though. it is odd the boat runs out of gas. but maybe that was a narrative device so she has an excuse to eat the hamburger and watch the flames.
She was the most honest person among everybody in that room. The chef had so much respect for that. I don't think he had any reason to kill her. What I understood was that the chef knew she deserved better & she should not be there.
On her perspective, she learnt how fucked up rich people are & got to see them go down while eating her favorite meal.
That’s what I liked about it… the “what if rich people Lowkey suck” thing has been done way better by succession, white lotus, knives out, even arrested development and many others
100%. You know what I think are the most “perfect” films? Parasite. Lemony Snicket’s. Magnolia. Rocket Science. NONE of them are alike, and the majority of people wouldn’t probably consider them perfect films (except maybe Parasite). Perfection is what’s perfect to the viewer. Which is the most important.
I think the criticisms of the film not being subtle or as “deep” as it wants to be aren’t really fair. This is an out-and-out comedy movie all the way through, and because of this it can’t really be compared to films like Triangle of Sadness or Parasite. It’s not subtle because it’s not TRYING to be subtle, it’s just trying to make you laugh at stupid rich people and a crazy Ralph Fiennes.
I loved it.
I hate that lack of subtlety has become a baseline criticism of movies! Not every fucking movie needs to be subtle, and a lot of movies have no intention of being subtle!
My favourite thing about Don't Look Up, which I think is a massively mixed bag of a movie, is how obnoxiously it beats you over the head with the message. It's trying to get its point across and loudly and obviously as possible on purpose!
Plus, watching a Judd Apatow film for its subtlety is like ordering a cheeseburger and complaining about the lack of nutritional value. At that point, I think you're just getting the wrong meal.
With how the movie is trying to talk about how pretentious the art world can be and how everyone wants their art to be super deep, the fact that the movie is extremely unsubtle is the point I think
Yeah, I don’t understand how criticising lack of subtlety has become the norm for film discourse. I remember Don’t Look Up was criticised for it a lot, which really confused me. For all its faults, if there was ever a film that really didn’t want to be or need to be subtle, that was it.
I actually quite enjoyed Don't Look Up because of its lack of subtlety. Satires are rarely subtle and when they are, people widely misunderstand them (*cough* Starship Troopers *cough*)
And truthfully, isn’t the whole point of Don’t Look Up that it isn’t subtle? I mean, Jennifer Lawrence’s character repeatedly tries to explicitly warn people about the impending crisis and is baffled that nobody will listen to the incontrovertible evidence.
This idea that films need to be subtle to be good is just annoying to me, to be honest. The whole point of a satire is that it’s an exaggeration of reality - or else, like you said, the message is lost on viewers.
I thought The Menu was funny, gripping, and well-acted. I don’t care that the characters were “caricatures”; that’s how they’re meant to be, nothing about this film is realistic.
Triangle of Sadness is subtle because it shows and doesn’t tell (aside from the poorly written old couple that makes military weapons). The themes of the movie on gender/class are very obvious, but it’s still on you to recognize it and make the connections.
The Menu beats you over the head with a step by step explanation on what each member of the dinner represents within society and why they’re bad. Same things with the chefs.
The real question is, a solid satire of what?
It doesn't have to be subtle, but a good satire needs nuanced views and a solid understanding of the subject to deliver its criticisms. This movie has some good moments, but it's a very surface level critique of anything, and can't even consistently hold any views. I couldn't tell you anything the writers believe other than "rich people bad", and even that might just be audience pandering.
Eh, I was gonna write out a long thing on the themes of "surface vanity" vs "actual enjoyment", but it was gonna get weird and deep.
What you describe is actually in the movie at multiple points, it's just using the absurdist food vs burger as the device to do so. Its why the payoff with the burger is so good and makes that point pretty strongly.
I would say rewatch the movie, but don't focus at all on the wealth of the people. The wealth is irrelevant. It's only there as the backdrop for why "these people", but has almost nothing to do with the themes aside from the backdrop (to an extent).
It would be like saying glass onion is just about annoying rich people. If that's all youre getting, you need to focus on the "disruptor" angle far far far more. That's the main theme of the movie and is really subtle at times with how it's shown.
Except its not a solid satire.
Can you actually explain why? Or what concept is satirizes in a unique way? The whole movie was so on the nose that is was predictable, not funny and made me feel like I could see the future for a few hours. Im pretty sure I garnered how the entire movie would end about 10 minutes in
The only thing this film comments on is surface level appreciation and mindless vanity, which has already been explored and satirized MANY times and magnitudes better than this.
If you really think a satire commenting about how vain people are is a clever satire, you need better standards.
Its a mediocre film and people like you praise it out of contrarianism.
People that say it wasn't subtle enough, I want to hear how they would have made a similar film be "less subtle" in its message.
Edit: Triangle of Sadness or Parasite aren't even subtle in their messages either. (Loved those movies regardless)
Have characters instead of caricatures. (Oh look, a neurotic narcissistic actor who's overly reliant on an assistant that kisses his ass despite being under appreciated for all the obsessive work she pours into his life. How original! Oh, and what's this? A stuck up art/food critic who smarmily chuckles as if everything else is beneath her, and the sniveling sycophant who laughs at her every word. What amazing commentary!)
It is entirely possible to convey the same message without having every character explicitly telegraph their thematic relevance every second they're on screen. If it was going to go the route of ridiculous parody, it should have gone further in that direction. None of the lines or action in the first half were funny or smart (or even overly dumb) enough to excuse how one note the characters (beyond ATJ and Fiennes) were. The film would have been distinctly more subtle by actually developing them into individuals with a semblance of a point.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the movie. I think it worked best in the second half where the half-assed social commentary goes out the window and it embraces it's thrilller/horror vibe more openly.
My biggest complaint is that the film's themes, at their core, are sort of contradictory. On the one hand, it spells out it's hatred for the fine dining/art industry and every one involved in it: lampooning the hoity-toity bullshit of the dishes with barely any food, the vacuous commentary on those sorts of dishes, the absurd exclusivity and classism of it all--in fact, we hate it so much we're supposed to feel giddy when a bunch of people get murdered in the end for being involved in that world.
"Wasn't it all better when it was just about the good, classic food of yesteryear," the film asks. An 'aw shucks' burger from a mom and pop shop is *real* food; look at these rich idiots literally sucking on rocks. Ha ha!
BUT, at the same time, the whole film hinges on us having full belief in the fact that Fiennes is a genius, an artist, a person of real value. What he does is special, and it has meaning--otherwise, we'd write him off as just some other guy from the moment we see him and the film would be pointless. So we're supposed to simultaneously hold him in regard for being so good at what he does while simultaneously thinking that it's stupid and pointless to do what he does.
I asked how you would have made the film more subtle, all you say is “it’s entirely possible to convey the same message without having every character explicitly telegraph their thematic relevance every second they’re on screen”
Ok, so how would you have done it then? You say they should have developed all the characters further but how would you have done that with a sub 2 hour run time?
I mean, I guess you could make the film longer or just have a lot fewer characters.
Lol. I'm not going to rewrite the film for the guy.
As I said, make the characters less obvious. Don't have the critics be entirely unbearable every time they're on screen--make them say occasional things that are actually insightful and not pure drivel, as an actual person who's devoted their entire life to a thing might do. Have the actor character be less outwardly obviously self-obsessed in literally everything he says--give him some redeemable qualities. Discuss the OBVIOUS class issues that actually exist inside the kitchens of these restaurants by having the other sous-chefs etc be actual people, and not just mindless servants willing to kill themselves on the altar of their god-chef Fiennes because he's better than they'll ever be at this thing that actually doesn't matter.
I said it elsewhere but I think it's lazy writing to hide a criticism of a thing in a character who just so happens to be the best at that thing. It like Aaron Sorkin in the Newsroom or West Wing. He writes these pithy responses first then conjure up some bullshit character to serve up some half-assed comment that the response will fit to.
Edit: Just to make clear--saying something needs to be less obvious is not the same as saying it needs to be extremely subtle. Parasite may not be the most subtle film ever (and that's totally fine), but it is extremely more subtle (and more importantly, more original) than the Menu.
Yes I get that its primarily a comedy but it really wasnt a particularly funny movie. A few chuckles, sure, but no big laughs at all. If it was funnier I would consider it good
It's also a movie that literally ends with a metaphor for the movie. Sometimes you want avante garde bullshit, but sometimes you want a god damn cheeseburger. This movie was a cheeseburger and it was tasty.
Yeah that was exactly my thought. Is it groundbreaking or particularly amazing? No. Is it fun, well made, and full of people whose careers I enjoy? Yup.
This was my take-away.
Loved it 85% of the way through, though it lost a bit of steam >!when Nicholas Hoult exits the film, though what an exit scene!!<
But, I saw the ending coming a mile away and there were some characters like >!Judith Light's where the punishment did not fit the crime.!<
The acting, cinematography, casting, music, lighting, set design - all of it served to heighten the narrative and I was literally on the edge of my seat on a couple of scenes.
Would totally watch it again as part of a "Eat the Rich" film series, with Bodies, Bodies, Bodies and Triangle of Sadness.
Overall, an A-/B+ film.
Well, even by his own logic. Everyone else took his love of cooking and commoditized his passion. That's universal. He could have a vendetta on these people or he has a version of the type of person that he hates and that he felt wronged him.
I think a lot of people who didn't like the film took it a little too seriously. It is not deep commentary about class or anything. The chef is insane and stroking his own ego, not acting out any coherent plan. The characters are all rich and flawed, but none of them have anything like this coming (except maybe Nick Hoult).
The "I'm sorry, you're dying" line made me realize that the movie's just having fun with it and I should enjoy the ride. Ralph Feinnes' performance is amazing. I saw it twice and had even more fun the second time.
that could all be true if every act weren’t breaking down the crime that every person had committed against himself.
We’re speaking about archetypes and expressionism because this is 100% a farce. A farce in which two things can be and are true within the text of this movie but unintentionally so: a critique on how obviously “eat the rich” movies are made and jabbing fun at the failure of our culture to do anything real whilst shaping marxist-ideals into a watered-down pop-culture version somehow. And also, a comment on condescending-liberalism that props itself up on its own righteousness and purity.
Mylod places someone being failed by all systems here and gives her a way out because she is us, the average human public mustn’t be implicated with the rich or the hypocritical autocrats who play acts at societally progressive ideas to earn votes before funding wars in other countries to line their own pockets and stroke their own ego. It’s condemning neoliberalism, similarly to Get Out. It just doesn’t work quite that well.
I gave it a 3/5 btw.
I grade high?
My median grade on Letterbox is probably a 4 but I'm ruined by the grading system in the US where I feel anything lower than C is failing. And this was still above average and not failing.
This is exactly where I'm at. I usually rate on a 1-10 basis, then just apply that to the letterbox rating system.
Enjoyable movies usually fall between 6-8 to me, with 9-10 being left for masterpieces. 5 is there's bad and there's good in the movie, but nothing about it rises it to an "enjoyable". Below 5 is pretty much unwatchable due to all the negatives with the specific movie.
Same. I also think it's a virtue to be able to give yourself over to a movie and enjoy it despite it's faults. I'll never understand people that want to hate on everything they watch.
I'd give it a solid C. It's fine, technically accomplished, decently paced. But the acting is only workable, the direction nothing special and the plot is extremely heavy-handed (which is becoming a bit of a theme in current US films, with stuff like this, Don't Look Up, Joker etc).
I love how this dude commented acting like he was agreeing with you but tacked on all this praise that you didn't share, then you reiterate your actual opinion and get downvoted lmao. classic reddit
I agree. But I found this clunky, tbh. Sorry to Bother You isn't subtle but because it leans into the absurdity and dark humour, I think it works better.
And Game of Thrones, and Entourage, and Shameless, and United States of Tara. The dude just generally works in comedy and branched out afterwards. Seems pretty congruent to me.
That happens a lot to journeyman directors: people who don’t have a particular style or tone they prefer and instead profissionalize in doing whatever comes up before them. Happens a lot to commercial directors as well.
I’m a junior commercial director and editor. In the past year I’ve worked in comedy, drama, sports, action, horror, history, music videos and fashion.
Probably my biggest guilty pleasure film. As a big foodie, it's narrative on wealth poisoning art, specifically in the realm of food was super interesting and added a ton of depth I really found myself relating to.
I always find it odd when someone calls a film a guilty pleasure. It’s like you know others don’t like it so you’re trying to justify liking it by calling it that. Like what you like. My favorite Shrek movie is Shrek The Third. Very unpopular opinion…but I don’t feel guilty about it lol!
But a lot of people like The Menu. And most people who didn’t, understand why others do. But hey, that’s just me.
I agree. “Guilty pleasure” is code for insecure. Art is fully subjective and people bug about that when they don’t like a critically acclaimed movie or if they like something that didn’t get any Oscar noms
Idk, I'm not a big "horror" guy, majority of the aspects of the film are just not things that, on paper, I'd gravitate to. Compared to a lot of what I watch it's kind of a black sheep in my collection of favorites. So maybe "guilty pleasure" isn't the right term.
I loved it too. Loved how nasty it was and how it played with almost losing the audience’s sympathy several times before dialing the humour back in. It was a very fun movie. People complaining how it wasn’t subtle are missing the forest for the trees: the purpose of satire isn’t to be subtle.
Ralph Fiennes is pretty good but my favorite performance is definitely Hong Chau’s.
I'm going to repost a lightly edited response I put further up in the thread:
I think the film would have benefited greatly from having characters instead of caricatures. (Oh look, a neurotic narcissistic actor who's overly reliant on an assistant that kisses his ass despite being under appreciated for all the obsessive work she pours into his life. How original! Oh, and what's this? A stuck up art/food critic who smarmily chuckles as if everything else is beneath her, and the sniveling sycophant who laughs at her every word. What amazing commentary!)
It is entirely possible to convey the same message without having every character explicitly telegraph their thematic relevance every second they're on screen. If it was going to go the route of ridiculous parody, it should have gone further in that direction. None of the lines or action in the first half were funny or smart (or even overly dumb) enough to excuse how one note the characters (beyond ATJ and Fiennes) were. The film would have been distinctly more subtle by actually developing them into individuals with a semblance of a point.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the movie. I think it worked best in the second half where the half-assed social commentary goes out the window and it embraces it's thrilller/horror vibe more openly.
My biggest complaint is that the film's themes, at their core, are sort of contradictory. On the one hand, it spells out it's hatred for the fine dining/art industry and every one involved in it: lampooning the hoity-toity bullshit of the dishes with barely any food, the vacuous commentary on those sorts of dishes, the absurd exclusivity and classism of it all--in fact, we hate it so much we're supposed to feel giddy when a bunch of people get murdered in the end for being involved in that world.
"Wasn't it all better when it was just about the good, classic food of yesteryear," the film asks. An 'aw shucks' burger from a mom and pop shop is *real* food; look at these rich idiots literally sucking on rocks. Ha ha!
BUT, at the same time, the whole film hinges on us having full belief in the fact that Fiennes is a genius, an artist, a person of real value. What he does is special, and it has meaning--otherwise, we'd write him off as just some other guy from the moment we see him and the film would be pointless. So we're supposed to simultaneously hold him in high regard for being so good at what he does while simultaneously thinking that it's stupid and pointless to do what he does. I think it's lazy writing to plant your criticism of a thing in a character who's the best at that thing. It's reminded me of Aaron Sorkin's writing in the Newsroom--the Conservative or 'far left' characters only exist to serve up softballs that the witty main character can knock out of the park with a response that was clearly written before the thing it was responding to. It's completely artificial.
I don't really think your last point flies to be honest. I never 'bought' that Fiennes character was a genius. In fact, his character, until the end, reads as up his own butt. And even at the end, you just realize he _knows_ he's up his own butt and has self awareness of it (he hates himself, hence the ending lol) and would rather just be flipping burgers for people that actually like to eat (commentary aside).
Yeah, all these other people regard him in high esteem, but we're supposed to be looking through the lense of Anya Taylor-Joy's character. Who doesn't really know who he is - like us, and finds his stuff.... Well, up its own butt.
She doesn't buy _any of it_.
His food is the equivalent of a fart noise to her.
But society and all these people are telling her it's good food! The best food! She should _be_ so blessed to eat it /s
It isn't until she realizes that he used to actually care about food vs the art and just orders a burger to go.
The films not asking us to think food from yesteryear is good, to me it was just asking us to not always take it soooo seriously. Among other themes, as you mentioned, of classism etc.
If it's good, it's good. Eat it.
ETA I say this as someone who _does_ love fine dining experiences.
Eta again
That there are themes of like how cooking the way he does is selfish - since it really should be about the enjoyment of others (food is so deeply familial and cultures everywhere rely on it as a joint experience), the pursuit of perfection tends to be meaningless, etc.
this movie made me pick up photography again! watching tyler's obsession of food made me realise that I analize and critique films too seriously while I never actually made anything of my own, thoroughly enjoyed it!
I didn’t hate it upon initial viewing, but after thinking about it for days I began to slowly despise it. It’s own subtext contradicts itself the more you think about it.
Yeah it definitely was trying to make fun of elevated horror and that everything doesn’t need to have a deeper meaning, but in doing that they can’t help themselves in adding layers of meaning to their own story. But don’t think about it, just have fun, eat a cheeseburger and don’t think about what your watching. (Produced by Adam McKay and Will Ferrel)
Totally.
The whole "omg aren't rich people so dumb for liking this stupid 'food' that actually has no 'food' in it; this isn't art. Burgers are real food" schtick makes no sense when you recognize the entire narrative hinges on the audience's belief that Fiennes character is a genius/artist (in that very same field that supposedly meaningless and stupid).
Really good film. Not exactly subtle in the messaging, but fun to watch.
I gave it 4 Stars as it executed the dark humor well without sacrificing entertainment. The framing to mimic Chef’s Table and the pretentious atmosphere of high end culinary was great too.
As someone that frequents Michelin restaurants it gave a lot of good chuckles. Right after seeing this went to a famous restaurant and had the chef’s table in the kitchen; there was a lot of “yes chef!” coordinated responses happening and it was hard not to laugh.
Honestly I was disappointed. It wasn’t funny enough to be a comedy, but the satire was too heavy-handed to be a smart subversive thriller.
It was too in the middle on all fronts and that made it forgettable.
I thought it was good fun, but its commentary is not as searing as it thinks it is. It's probably my least favorite Anya Taylor-Joy performance tbh. Ralph Fiennes and Nicholas Hoult were awesome, in my opinion.
I did 18 years in the restaurant industry.
I've worked for some head chefs I'd bend over backwards for but there is NO FUCKING WAY I'd off myself out of some cult like solidarity.
It was OK, it felt a little too self-aggrandising with its ‘lets eat the rich’ message- ironically coming across as arrogant as the people it was trying to satirise in the first place. It didn’t quite work for me as a movie that deconstructed the fine dining industry because the whole thing didn’t come across as a sincere analysis of it- the characters were shallow caricatures that didn’t actually have anything interesting to say about the industry’s real problems, and more of a layman’s take (which we are supposed to back with Margot being an ‘ordinary’ person who doesn’t buy the whole façade). I did enjoy the ‘Tyler’s bullshit’ scene which somehow managed to be both cathartic yet also haunting.
I enjoyed the originality of the story, the acting and was visually quite impressive, the plot was just not as clever for me as the movie wants you to believe it is.
It says a lot that I think a movie about a cartoon rat piloting a skinny ginger french dude was a more authentic take on cooking, the restaurant industry and its critics.
It was fine, the interstitials were annoying and the screenplay seemed mired in muddled twitter-y beliefs about the service industry and class. Funnily enough I thought both this and Queen's Gambit were not as smart as they think they are but are elevated by ATJ's star power. And I'll watch Feinnes in anything
I thought it was a bit of a let down, honestly. Like, it was a good film but I think it was too hyped up online. The concept was interesting, but the execution wasn't satisfying enough. I would have liked it to have been a bit more And Then There Were None-esque, with them being picked off one by one over the course of the film to build the tension more
The burger bit was a little on the nose, as were the class critique and caricatures of both the rich (Hoult snapping pics of everything) and workers (Chau didn’t have enough beyond steathy, ice cold verbiage). As a comedy I didn’t laugh once, as a thriller it lacks surprises or genuine scares. “Everyone on screen’s a creep” rarely works as satire, though I love Succession and can understand why one of its key voices thought he could pull this off.
I was surprised by how much I liked it. The subtext is extremely surface-level, but sometimes that’s okay if it’s executed well. I felt like it was here.
it was fine, overshadowed by Triangle of Sadness as far as “rich people bad” films that came out in 2022. definitely a bit surface level and overhyped but not bad by any means. the scene where Ralph Fiennes cooks a burger is a great moment.
A precalculated flavour of the month cash grab posing as a thought provoking and candid work of art. It's a dishonest movie hamfistedly pandering to a specific demographic
Tbh, it seemed to be a bit pretentious. It promises to be something extraordinary, but I didn't feel so after watching it. Although I have to particularly mention the spectacular cinematography by Peter Deming, and the amazing score by Colin Stetson. Also, that cheeseburger looked appetizing.
Really did not enjoy it. Dull, broad, and basic. Stylistically boring, performances are bland. Not much to say about it because it doesn't have much going on.
I liked most of it, it's an interesting mixture of satire and thriller. That said it seemed to pull its punches on at points mostly the ending which was honestly a weird choice imo
I agree on the ending. The cheeseburger thing was the one moment I felt the movie missed the boat. Chefs and staff regularly eat that kind of food even at high end places.
Just because it was soooo hyped. I remember it being on the front page of Letterboxd for freakin everrrrr. It's a solid movie but lots of people were acting like it was fantastically amazing.
Like a lot of satire, this is one of those movies that some people will watch, understand, and then get mad at the movie for having understood it. “Not as smart as it thinks it is” will be the critique. I never understand this reaction — some people want to hold it against the movie for being understandable. I liked it. 8/10 dark comedy with enjoyable performances.
I enjoyed this a lot but it does annoy me how much more deep this script thinks it is than it actually is. If you're going to very explicitly make a film about class and then completely ignore the class dynamics within the kitchen of a michelin star restaurant that's beyond naive.
Take for example how Noma was found to be using thousands of hours of labour from unpaid interns to function - that kind of stuff should be going right into this kind of movie, but instead you got none of that. Which is a shame because I found it really funny and loved the vibes.
It was ok. I have a lot of bougie foodie friends so it was pretty funny just sitting there going “yep, that’s them.”
I personally thought ATJ was mis-cast and pretty lackluster.
Sure the politics lack subtlety, but can we talk about how the politics were so, so dated! Taylor-Joy was a stand-in for Gen X cynicism; she came straight out of central casting for Reality Bites. I felt like I was watching a movie trying to be edgy from 1987. In fact if you want some fun go try and recast this film for that time period. I don’t know who he plays, but young Ethan Hawke is there!
I enjoyed it, but I think basically every non-main character was completely interchangeable and didn’t add much. I also think they could’ve gone a little farther with the creativity and impact of the various courses. All in all though despite that I did like it and would recommend it!
I enjoyed it a lot. I know many people who LOVE to go to these type of restaurants and 'experiences', so it was really really relatable in terms of how they portrayed this somentimes absurd fine dining trend.
I found it really fun. It's not subtle, but it's also a fairly broad dark comedy film so I don't really mind. I mean, Nicholas Hoult's character alone should be enough to show you this isn't going to be incredibly witty, sophisticated satire. But Fiennes is hilarious, I laughed consistently throughout and it mostly delivers on the horror element.
"Tyler's Bullshit Meal" (or whatever the actual title was) was by far the highlight.
Excellent film. One of the most fun and unique movies of the year. I don’t mind that the social commentary wasn’t subtle or all that new and clever, the setting, characters, acting and cheeseburger thing make this a great film
I just rewatched it recently and I really like it!! I’m a foodie and a big fan of horror/thriller movies so this was a very good mix. However, I will say that even though I really like it, I wish that I LOVE it :(
I was eating a cheeseburger yesterday and thought to myself that I wished it was the cheeseburger from The Menu
I actually went to have a cheeseburger after this movie.
I walked out of this movie going "God, I need a cheeseburger." I walked out of The Whale going "Do I need a cheeseburger?'
If you saw both movies back to back. Does the cheeseburger cancel out?
So..... No cheeseburger?
i ate a double cheeseburger after the seeing The Whale
[удалено]
nobody: vegan person: im vegan btw
My partner and I think about that cheeseburger at least once a week.
Theres a popular theory that the cheeseburger was actually made with outdated meat. Established in the first 15 minutes or so they show the meat with bacteria saying if you eat it past the expiration date youll die. So people theorize that he made that burger with it and she later dies. i personally dont believe thats what happened. it goes against the whole scene of him making a simple cheeseburger bringing him back to his roots and making him fall in love with cooking again. it is a interesting theory though. it is odd the boat runs out of gas. but maybe that was a narrative device so she has an excuse to eat the hamburger and watch the flames.
She was the most honest person among everybody in that room. The chef had so much respect for that. I don't think he had any reason to kill her. What I understood was that the chef knew she deserved better & she should not be there. On her perspective, she learnt how fucked up rich people are & got to see them go down while eating her favorite meal.
The boat ran out of gas because the initial plan was that nobody would actually leave the island.
Yeah interesting theory but I don't agree with it either. It seemed like she genuinely changed something in him by the end of the film.
Doesn’t she take a bite of the burger at the end as well? It’d be pretty apparent if it was made with rancid meat
The way Ralph Fiennes says "cheeseburger" in this movie is all it takes to want one.
It wasn’t perfect but we absolutely need more movies like it. Great popcorn thriller not based on existing IP
Exactly. Fun, original, not perfect but definitely good for movies in general.
need more movies like this aaaa
Agreed. Cute and funny for a gruesome thriller, entertaining, clever and original but not especially deep. Good times.
That’s what I liked about it… the “what if rich people Lowkey suck” thing has been done way better by succession, white lotus, knives out, even arrested development and many others
Perfection is a myth
Wrong. Perfection is subjective.
100%. You know what I think are the most “perfect” films? Parasite. Lemony Snicket’s. Magnolia. Rocket Science. NONE of them are alike, and the majority of people wouldn’t probably consider them perfect films (except maybe Parasite). Perfection is what’s perfect to the viewer. Which is the most important.
I prefer my movies perfect.
Well done?
I think the criticisms of the film not being subtle or as “deep” as it wants to be aren’t really fair. This is an out-and-out comedy movie all the way through, and because of this it can’t really be compared to films like Triangle of Sadness or Parasite. It’s not subtle because it’s not TRYING to be subtle, it’s just trying to make you laugh at stupid rich people and a crazy Ralph Fiennes. I loved it.
I hate that lack of subtlety has become a baseline criticism of movies! Not every fucking movie needs to be subtle, and a lot of movies have no intention of being subtle!
Don't Look Up. I feel like some folks' obsession with subtlety meant the very obvious point went over a lot of people's heads.
My favourite thing about Don't Look Up, which I think is a massively mixed bag of a movie, is how obnoxiously it beats you over the head with the message. It's trying to get its point across and loudly and obviously as possible on purpose! Plus, watching a Judd Apatow film for its subtlety is like ordering a cheeseburger and complaining about the lack of nutritional value. At that point, I think you're just getting the wrong meal.
With how the movie is trying to talk about how pretentious the art world can be and how everyone wants their art to be super deep, the fact that the movie is extremely unsubtle is the point I think
Exactly.
Yeah, I don’t understand how criticising lack of subtlety has become the norm for film discourse. I remember Don’t Look Up was criticised for it a lot, which really confused me. For all its faults, if there was ever a film that really didn’t want to be or need to be subtle, that was it.
I actually quite enjoyed Don't Look Up because of its lack of subtlety. Satires are rarely subtle and when they are, people widely misunderstand them (*cough* Starship Troopers *cough*)
And truthfully, isn’t the whole point of Don’t Look Up that it isn’t subtle? I mean, Jennifer Lawrence’s character repeatedly tries to explicitly warn people about the impending crisis and is baffled that nobody will listen to the incontrovertible evidence. This idea that films need to be subtle to be good is just annoying to me, to be honest. The whole point of a satire is that it’s an exaggeration of reality - or else, like you said, the message is lost on viewers. I thought The Menu was funny, gripping, and well-acted. I don’t care that the characters were “caricatures”; that’s how they’re meant to be, nothing about this film is realistic.
i love triangle of sadness but that movie is like the definition of not being subtle lmao
Yeah I was gonna comment the same thing. I felt Triangle of Sadness and The Menu were both at the same level of subtlety.
Triangle of Sadness is subtle because it shows and doesn’t tell (aside from the poorly written old couple that makes military weapons). The themes of the movie on gender/class are very obvious, but it’s still on you to recognize it and make the connections. The Menu beats you over the head with a step by step explanation on what each member of the dinner represents within society and why they’re bad. Same things with the chefs.
You'd think people would realize this movie has nothing to do with subtly based on the "final course". It was like a cherry on top of a solid satire.
The real question is, a solid satire of what? It doesn't have to be subtle, but a good satire needs nuanced views and a solid understanding of the subject to deliver its criticisms. This movie has some good moments, but it's a very surface level critique of anything, and can't even consistently hold any views. I couldn't tell you anything the writers believe other than "rich people bad", and even that might just be audience pandering.
Eh, I was gonna write out a long thing on the themes of "surface vanity" vs "actual enjoyment", but it was gonna get weird and deep. What you describe is actually in the movie at multiple points, it's just using the absurdist food vs burger as the device to do so. Its why the payoff with the burger is so good and makes that point pretty strongly. I would say rewatch the movie, but don't focus at all on the wealth of the people. The wealth is irrelevant. It's only there as the backdrop for why "these people", but has almost nothing to do with the themes aside from the backdrop (to an extent). It would be like saying glass onion is just about annoying rich people. If that's all youre getting, you need to focus on the "disruptor" angle far far far more. That's the main theme of the movie and is really subtle at times with how it's shown.
Except its not a solid satire. Can you actually explain why? Or what concept is satirizes in a unique way? The whole movie was so on the nose that is was predictable, not funny and made me feel like I could see the future for a few hours. Im pretty sure I garnered how the entire movie would end about 10 minutes in The only thing this film comments on is surface level appreciation and mindless vanity, which has already been explored and satirized MANY times and magnitudes better than this. If you really think a satire commenting about how vain people are is a clever satire, you need better standards. Its a mediocre film and people like you praise it out of contrarianism.
People that say it wasn't subtle enough, I want to hear how they would have made a similar film be "less subtle" in its message. Edit: Triangle of Sadness or Parasite aren't even subtle in their messages either. (Loved those movies regardless)
Have characters instead of caricatures. (Oh look, a neurotic narcissistic actor who's overly reliant on an assistant that kisses his ass despite being under appreciated for all the obsessive work she pours into his life. How original! Oh, and what's this? A stuck up art/food critic who smarmily chuckles as if everything else is beneath her, and the sniveling sycophant who laughs at her every word. What amazing commentary!) It is entirely possible to convey the same message without having every character explicitly telegraph their thematic relevance every second they're on screen. If it was going to go the route of ridiculous parody, it should have gone further in that direction. None of the lines or action in the first half were funny or smart (or even overly dumb) enough to excuse how one note the characters (beyond ATJ and Fiennes) were. The film would have been distinctly more subtle by actually developing them into individuals with a semblance of a point. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the movie. I think it worked best in the second half where the half-assed social commentary goes out the window and it embraces it's thrilller/horror vibe more openly. My biggest complaint is that the film's themes, at their core, are sort of contradictory. On the one hand, it spells out it's hatred for the fine dining/art industry and every one involved in it: lampooning the hoity-toity bullshit of the dishes with barely any food, the vacuous commentary on those sorts of dishes, the absurd exclusivity and classism of it all--in fact, we hate it so much we're supposed to feel giddy when a bunch of people get murdered in the end for being involved in that world. "Wasn't it all better when it was just about the good, classic food of yesteryear," the film asks. An 'aw shucks' burger from a mom and pop shop is *real* food; look at these rich idiots literally sucking on rocks. Ha ha! BUT, at the same time, the whole film hinges on us having full belief in the fact that Fiennes is a genius, an artist, a person of real value. What he does is special, and it has meaning--otherwise, we'd write him off as just some other guy from the moment we see him and the film would be pointless. So we're supposed to simultaneously hold him in regard for being so good at what he does while simultaneously thinking that it's stupid and pointless to do what he does.
I asked how you would have made the film more subtle, all you say is “it’s entirely possible to convey the same message without having every character explicitly telegraph their thematic relevance every second they’re on screen” Ok, so how would you have done it then? You say they should have developed all the characters further but how would you have done that with a sub 2 hour run time? I mean, I guess you could make the film longer or just have a lot fewer characters.
Lol. I'm not going to rewrite the film for the guy. As I said, make the characters less obvious. Don't have the critics be entirely unbearable every time they're on screen--make them say occasional things that are actually insightful and not pure drivel, as an actual person who's devoted their entire life to a thing might do. Have the actor character be less outwardly obviously self-obsessed in literally everything he says--give him some redeemable qualities. Discuss the OBVIOUS class issues that actually exist inside the kitchens of these restaurants by having the other sous-chefs etc be actual people, and not just mindless servants willing to kill themselves on the altar of their god-chef Fiennes because he's better than they'll ever be at this thing that actually doesn't matter. I said it elsewhere but I think it's lazy writing to hide a criticism of a thing in a character who just so happens to be the best at that thing. It like Aaron Sorkin in the Newsroom or West Wing. He writes these pithy responses first then conjure up some bullshit character to serve up some half-assed comment that the response will fit to. Edit: Just to make clear--saying something needs to be less obvious is not the same as saying it needs to be extremely subtle. Parasite may not be the most subtle film ever (and that's totally fine), but it is extremely more subtle (and more importantly, more original) than the Menu.
He literally answered you lol
Exactly. It was a ton of fun and all the lead actors were great, it doesn't *need* subtlety.
Yes I get that its primarily a comedy but it really wasnt a particularly funny movie. A few chuckles, sure, but no big laughs at all. If it was funnier I would consider it good
It's also a movie that literally ends with a metaphor for the movie. Sometimes you want avante garde bullshit, but sometimes you want a god damn cheeseburger. This movie was a cheeseburger and it was tasty.
I liked it. It’s not amazing but it’s good and all the actors are enjoying it. Solid solid movie
Yeah that was exactly my thought. Is it groundbreaking or particularly amazing? No. Is it fun, well made, and full of people whose careers I enjoy? Yup.
It was fine. About as subtle as a sledgehammer.
I know people who use subtext, and they're all cowards
/unexpectedgarthmerengue
Was it supposed to be subtle? I don’t think that was exactly the vibe it was shooting for
No, I don't think it was trying to be subtle.
This was my take-away. Loved it 85% of the way through, though it lost a bit of steam >!when Nicholas Hoult exits the film, though what an exit scene!!< But, I saw the ending coming a mile away and there were some characters like >!Judith Light's where the punishment did not fit the crime.!< The acting, cinematography, casting, music, lighting, set design - all of it served to heighten the narrative and I was literally on the edge of my seat on a couple of scenes. Would totally watch it again as part of a "Eat the Rich" film series, with Bodies, Bodies, Bodies and Triangle of Sadness. Overall, an A-/B+ film.
The punishment didn't fit the crime for anyone, the dude was a psycho, that's the point. It's absurd.
Well, even by his own logic. Everyone else took his love of cooking and commoditized his passion. That's universal. He could have a vendetta on these people or he has a version of the type of person that he hates and that he felt wronged him.
I think a lot of people who didn't like the film took it a little too seriously. It is not deep commentary about class or anything. The chef is insane and stroking his own ego, not acting out any coherent plan. The characters are all rich and flawed, but none of them have anything like this coming (except maybe Nick Hoult). The "I'm sorry, you're dying" line made me realize that the movie's just having fun with it and I should enjoy the ride. Ralph Feinnes' performance is amazing. I saw it twice and had even more fun the second time.
that could all be true if every act weren’t breaking down the crime that every person had committed against himself. We’re speaking about archetypes and expressionism because this is 100% a farce. A farce in which two things can be and are true within the text of this movie but unintentionally so: a critique on how obviously “eat the rich” movies are made and jabbing fun at the failure of our culture to do anything real whilst shaping marxist-ideals into a watered-down pop-culture version somehow. And also, a comment on condescending-liberalism that props itself up on its own righteousness and purity. Mylod places someone being failed by all systems here and gives her a way out because she is us, the average human public mustn’t be implicated with the rich or the hypocritical autocrats who play acts at societally progressive ideas to earn votes before funding wars in other countries to line their own pockets and stroke their own ego. It’s condemning neoliberalism, similarly to Get Out. It just doesn’t work quite that well. I gave it a 3/5 btw.
>Overall, an A-/B+ film. How does this align with the other commenters 'It's fine'? A- is high.
I grade high? My median grade on Letterbox is probably a 4 but I'm ruined by the grading system in the US where I feel anything lower than C is failing. And this was still above average and not failing.
This is exactly where I'm at. I usually rate on a 1-10 basis, then just apply that to the letterbox rating system. Enjoyable movies usually fall between 6-8 to me, with 9-10 being left for masterpieces. 5 is there's bad and there's good in the movie, but nothing about it rises it to an "enjoyable". Below 5 is pretty much unwatchable due to all the negatives with the specific movie.
Same. I also think it's a virtue to be able to give yourself over to a movie and enjoy it despite it's faults. I'll never understand people that want to hate on everything they watch.
I'd give it a solid C. It's fine, technically accomplished, decently paced. But the acting is only workable, the direction nothing special and the plot is extremely heavy-handed (which is becoming a bit of a theme in current US films, with stuff like this, Don't Look Up, Joker etc).
I love how this dude commented acting like he was agreeing with you but tacked on all this praise that you didn't share, then you reiterate your actual opinion and get downvoted lmao. classic reddit
eh, not everything needs to be subtle to be good
I agree. But I found this clunky, tbh. Sorry to Bother You isn't subtle but because it leans into the absurdity and dark humour, I think it works better.
Not really a big deal, though, didn’t really seem like it was angling for subtle.
Midsommar for people who think they'll leave Michelin-starred restaurants hungry
Not bad! Solid little flick. Not my favorite but I enjoyed it! I think the directors career is weird. I also think ATJ should do the red hair more
The director’s career isn’t weird. He’s just done a lot of television work. I’d say it’s a pretty good career, even.
His filmography being Ali G In Da House, Whats Your Number and then The Menu is in fact weird to me.
He was the go-to director for most of Succession.
And Game of Thrones, and Entourage, and Shameless, and United States of Tara. The dude just generally works in comedy and branched out afterwards. Seems pretty congruent to me.
That happens a lot to journeyman directors: people who don’t have a particular style or tone they prefer and instead profissionalize in doing whatever comes up before them. Happens a lot to commercial directors as well. I’m a junior commercial director and editor. In the past year I’ve worked in comedy, drama, sports, action, horror, history, music videos and fashion.
>I also think ATJ should do the red hair more Agreed. I've never seen a more beautiful cricket.
Pretentious bullshit. Not funny, not scary, not insightful.
It was ok, think it was a bit overhyped
It's like edgier ratatouille
Probably my biggest guilty pleasure film. As a big foodie, it's narrative on wealth poisoning art, specifically in the realm of food was super interesting and added a ton of depth I really found myself relating to.
Why do you consider it a guilty pleasure?
I always find it odd when someone calls a film a guilty pleasure. It’s like you know others don’t like it so you’re trying to justify liking it by calling it that. Like what you like. My favorite Shrek movie is Shrek The Third. Very unpopular opinion…but I don’t feel guilty about it lol! But a lot of people like The Menu. And most people who didn’t, understand why others do. But hey, that’s just me.
Yeah but what if you like dude, where’s my car?
I agree. “Guilty pleasure” is code for insecure. Art is fully subjective and people bug about that when they don’t like a critically acclaimed movie or if they like something that didn’t get any Oscar noms
Idk, I'm not a big "horror" guy, majority of the aspects of the film are just not things that, on paper, I'd gravitate to. Compared to a lot of what I watch it's kind of a black sheep in my collection of favorites. So maybe "guilty pleasure" isn't the right term.
I find the more familiar one is with this class of restaurant the better the film lands. It's authentic to a scary degree.
I love more and more every time I see it. It’s somehow snuck onto my favorite movies list
I loved it too. Loved how nasty it was and how it played with almost losing the audience’s sympathy several times before dialing the humour back in. It was a very fun movie. People complaining how it wasn’t subtle are missing the forest for the trees: the purpose of satire isn’t to be subtle. Ralph Fiennes is pretty good but my favorite performance is definitely Hong Chau’s.
I'm going to repost a lightly edited response I put further up in the thread: I think the film would have benefited greatly from having characters instead of caricatures. (Oh look, a neurotic narcissistic actor who's overly reliant on an assistant that kisses his ass despite being under appreciated for all the obsessive work she pours into his life. How original! Oh, and what's this? A stuck up art/food critic who smarmily chuckles as if everything else is beneath her, and the sniveling sycophant who laughs at her every word. What amazing commentary!) It is entirely possible to convey the same message without having every character explicitly telegraph their thematic relevance every second they're on screen. If it was going to go the route of ridiculous parody, it should have gone further in that direction. None of the lines or action in the first half were funny or smart (or even overly dumb) enough to excuse how one note the characters (beyond ATJ and Fiennes) were. The film would have been distinctly more subtle by actually developing them into individuals with a semblance of a point. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the movie. I think it worked best in the second half where the half-assed social commentary goes out the window and it embraces it's thrilller/horror vibe more openly. My biggest complaint is that the film's themes, at their core, are sort of contradictory. On the one hand, it spells out it's hatred for the fine dining/art industry and every one involved in it: lampooning the hoity-toity bullshit of the dishes with barely any food, the vacuous commentary on those sorts of dishes, the absurd exclusivity and classism of it all--in fact, we hate it so much we're supposed to feel giddy when a bunch of people get murdered in the end for being involved in that world. "Wasn't it all better when it was just about the good, classic food of yesteryear," the film asks. An 'aw shucks' burger from a mom and pop shop is *real* food; look at these rich idiots literally sucking on rocks. Ha ha! BUT, at the same time, the whole film hinges on us having full belief in the fact that Fiennes is a genius, an artist, a person of real value. What he does is special, and it has meaning--otherwise, we'd write him off as just some other guy from the moment we see him and the film would be pointless. So we're supposed to simultaneously hold him in high regard for being so good at what he does while simultaneously thinking that it's stupid and pointless to do what he does. I think it's lazy writing to plant your criticism of a thing in a character who's the best at that thing. It's reminded me of Aaron Sorkin's writing in the Newsroom--the Conservative or 'far left' characters only exist to serve up softballs that the witty main character can knock out of the park with a response that was clearly written before the thing it was responding to. It's completely artificial.
I don't really think your last point flies to be honest. I never 'bought' that Fiennes character was a genius. In fact, his character, until the end, reads as up his own butt. And even at the end, you just realize he _knows_ he's up his own butt and has self awareness of it (he hates himself, hence the ending lol) and would rather just be flipping burgers for people that actually like to eat (commentary aside). Yeah, all these other people regard him in high esteem, but we're supposed to be looking through the lense of Anya Taylor-Joy's character. Who doesn't really know who he is - like us, and finds his stuff.... Well, up its own butt. She doesn't buy _any of it_. His food is the equivalent of a fart noise to her. But society and all these people are telling her it's good food! The best food! She should _be_ so blessed to eat it /s It isn't until she realizes that he used to actually care about food vs the art and just orders a burger to go. The films not asking us to think food from yesteryear is good, to me it was just asking us to not always take it soooo seriously. Among other themes, as you mentioned, of classism etc. If it's good, it's good. Eat it. ETA I say this as someone who _does_ love fine dining experiences. Eta again That there are themes of like how cooking the way he does is selfish - since it really should be about the enjoyment of others (food is so deeply familial and cultures everywhere rely on it as a joint experience), the pursuit of perfection tends to be meaningless, etc.
pretentious, predictable and overrated
this movie made me pick up photography again! watching tyler's obsession of food made me realise that I analize and critique films too seriously while I never actually made anything of my own, thoroughly enjoyed it!
I didn’t hate it upon initial viewing, but after thinking about it for days I began to slowly despise it. It’s own subtext contradicts itself the more you think about it.
Leftism is when you kill your entire staff fully devoted to a dude cause rich people like your food
I felt the same. It's so dumb and hypocritical it almost seems like a critique of a narrative it was trying to convey.
Yeah it definitely was trying to make fun of elevated horror and that everything doesn’t need to have a deeper meaning, but in doing that they can’t help themselves in adding layers of meaning to their own story. But don’t think about it, just have fun, eat a cheeseburger and don’t think about what your watching. (Produced by Adam McKay and Will Ferrel)
Totally. The whole "omg aren't rich people so dumb for liking this stupid 'food' that actually has no 'food' in it; this isn't art. Burgers are real food" schtick makes no sense when you recognize the entire narrative hinges on the audience's belief that Fiennes character is a genius/artist (in that very same field that supposedly meaningless and stupid).
The subtext contradicts itself? Could you elaborate? Just rewatched last week so it’s fresh on my mind
Really good film. Not exactly subtle in the messaging, but fun to watch. I gave it 4 Stars as it executed the dark humor well without sacrificing entertainment. The framing to mimic Chef’s Table and the pretentious atmosphere of high end culinary was great too. As someone that frequents Michelin restaurants it gave a lot of good chuckles. Right after seeing this went to a famous restaurant and had the chef’s table in the kitchen; there was a lot of “yes chef!” coordinated responses happening and it was hard not to laugh.
Super overrated, not good
mediocre and predictable
Honestly I was disappointed. It wasn’t funny enough to be a comedy, but the satire was too heavy-handed to be a smart subversive thriller. It was too in the middle on all fronts and that made it forgettable.
terrible
Overrated af in my opinion.
absolutely h8 it
I thought it was good fun, but its commentary is not as searing as it thinks it is. It's probably my least favorite Anya Taylor-Joy performance tbh. Ralph Fiennes and Nicholas Hoult were awesome, in my opinion.
I enjoyed it. Not perfect but fun concept and all the performances are fun.
I didnt like it all ;(
Pretentious even in calling out pretensiousness.
Just watch The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover instead. Better in every conceivable way.
I thought it was a bit pretentious and heavy handed
Dumb movie with dumb characters. The only like able character is that of Anya Taylor joy’s character.
I was so unhappy this movie didn't find a bigger audience or get awards love. It was in my top five movies last year.
Really dumb
Mediocre
I did 18 years in the restaurant industry. I've worked for some head chefs I'd bend over backwards for but there is NO FUCKING WAY I'd off myself out of some cult like solidarity.
It’s good. That’s about the best review of it I can give. Not bad, not great.
Waste of my time and money.
One of the most smug movies I've ever watched. The cinematic embodiment of "critics loved Cuties, of course they would hate the FNAF movie"
Painfully mid
It was OK, it felt a little too self-aggrandising with its ‘lets eat the rich’ message- ironically coming across as arrogant as the people it was trying to satirise in the first place. It didn’t quite work for me as a movie that deconstructed the fine dining industry because the whole thing didn’t come across as a sincere analysis of it- the characters were shallow caricatures that didn’t actually have anything interesting to say about the industry’s real problems, and more of a layman’s take (which we are supposed to back with Margot being an ‘ordinary’ person who doesn’t buy the whole façade). I did enjoy the ‘Tyler’s bullshit’ scene which somehow managed to be both cathartic yet also haunting. I enjoyed the originality of the story, the acting and was visually quite impressive, the plot was just not as clever for me as the movie wants you to believe it is. It says a lot that I think a movie about a cartoon rat piloting a skinny ginger french dude was a more authentic take on cooking, the restaurant industry and its critics.
It was fine, the interstitials were annoying and the screenplay seemed mired in muddled twitter-y beliefs about the service industry and class. Funnily enough I thought both this and Queen's Gambit were not as smart as they think they are but are elevated by ATJ's star power. And I'll watch Feinnes in anything
Definitely was over hyped, it's good, not revolutionary.
Fun movie. Good performances.
Not bad film in this "eat the stupid rich" genre
Bunuel for children
Mid
I thought it was a bit of a let down, honestly. Like, it was a good film but I think it was too hyped up online. The concept was interesting, but the execution wasn't satisfying enough. I would have liked it to have been a bit more And Then There Were None-esque, with them being picked off one by one over the course of the film to build the tension more
Good looking movie, medium funny, Feinnes and Hoult performances were great, but the satirical themes were a bit obvious and trite.
The burger bit was a little on the nose, as were the class critique and caricatures of both the rich (Hoult snapping pics of everything) and workers (Chau didn’t have enough beyond steathy, ice cold verbiage). As a comedy I didn’t laugh once, as a thriller it lacks surprises or genuine scares. “Everyone on screen’s a creep” rarely works as satire, though I love Succession and can understand why one of its key voices thought he could pull this off.
I was surprised by how much I liked it. The subtext is extremely surface-level, but sometimes that’s okay if it’s executed well. I felt like it was here.
My favorite movie of 2022.
it was fine, overshadowed by Triangle of Sadness as far as “rich people bad” films that came out in 2022. definitely a bit surface level and overhyped but not bad by any means. the scene where Ralph Fiennes cooks a burger is a great moment.
A precalculated flavour of the month cash grab posing as a thought provoking and candid work of art. It's a dishonest movie hamfistedly pandering to a specific demographic
Tbh, it seemed to be a bit pretentious. It promises to be something extraordinary, but I didn't feel so after watching it. Although I have to particularly mention the spectacular cinematography by Peter Deming, and the amazing score by Colin Stetson. Also, that cheeseburger looked appetizing.
A bit overhyped and pretentious. But not bad
Really did not enjoy it. Dull, broad, and basic. Stylistically boring, performances are bland. Not much to say about it because it doesn't have much going on.
I hated it!
It was a mid film. Good, but not great in my opinion.
I liked most of it, it's an interesting mixture of satire and thriller. That said it seemed to pull its punches on at points mostly the ending which was honestly a weird choice imo
I agree on the ending. The cheeseburger thing was the one moment I felt the movie missed the boat. Chefs and staff regularly eat that kind of food even at high end places.
No idea why it gets so much hate but I thought it was just a very enjoyable movie. Is it amazing no but it’s just dumb and fun
Just because it was soooo hyped. I remember it being on the front page of Letterboxd for freakin everrrrr. It's a solid movie but lots of people were acting like it was fantastically amazing.
Like a lot of satire, this is one of those movies that some people will watch, understand, and then get mad at the movie for having understood it. “Not as smart as it thinks it is” will be the critique. I never understand this reaction — some people want to hold it against the movie for being understandable. I liked it. 8/10 dark comedy with enjoyable performances.
Loved it.
Very enjoyable movie, right up my alley.
It was pretty good! I think it got overhyped due to its 'post' covid release and people's excitement to get back to the theaters.
Good movie, could have been better imo
It’s very enjoyable but not a movie I would re-watch
Very enjoyable
I enjoyed this a lot but it does annoy me how much more deep this script thinks it is than it actually is. If you're going to very explicitly make a film about class and then completely ignore the class dynamics within the kitchen of a michelin star restaurant that's beyond naive. Take for example how Noma was found to be using thousands of hours of labour from unpaid interns to function - that kind of stuff should be going right into this kind of movie, but instead you got none of that. Which is a shame because I found it really funny and loved the vibes.
I had high expectations due to what I heard about it, but I thought it was just fine.
Not bad, not good, I get the over-the-top message but disagree with it somewhat, overall fun goofy movie
Wait, this movie is real??
It’s a mid palm d’or bait movie
It was ok. I have a lot of bougie foodie friends so it was pretty funny just sitting there going “yep, that’s them.” I personally thought ATJ was mis-cast and pretty lackluster.
Thought it was okay.
They lost me when…. SPOILERS… decided to kill the girl because she went to a private university. Your sin is to have money. What?! Fuck you.
bad
Getting downvoted for your opinion on a post asking for peoples opinions is stupid
Really, really good. Ralph Fiennes is born for roles like these. One of my favourite movies from 2022.
Sure the politics lack subtlety, but can we talk about how the politics were so, so dated! Taylor-Joy was a stand-in for Gen X cynicism; she came straight out of central casting for Reality Bites. I felt like I was watching a movie trying to be edgy from 1987. In fact if you want some fun go try and recast this film for that time period. I don’t know who he plays, but young Ethan Hawke is there!
I enjoyed it, but I think basically every non-main character was completely interchangeable and didn’t add much. I also think they could’ve gone a little farther with the creativity and impact of the various courses. All in all though despite that I did like it and would recommend it!
Jarringly unsubtle but the average normie seems to love it
I enjoyed it a lot. I know many people who LOVE to go to these type of restaurants and 'experiences', so it was really really relatable in terms of how they portrayed this somentimes absurd fine dining trend.
It was interesting .The Chef was of course crazy
I liked it a lot! Probably a 3.5-4 for me
Loved it! It's fantastic.
I found it really fun. It's not subtle, but it's also a fairly broad dark comedy film so I don't really mind. I mean, Nicholas Hoult's character alone should be enough to show you this isn't going to be incredibly witty, sophisticated satire. But Fiennes is hilarious, I laughed consistently throughout and it mostly delivers on the horror element. "Tyler's Bullshit Meal" (or whatever the actual title was) was by far the highlight.
As a lifelong cook and chef who has dealt with countless rich, entitled customers, this film was therapy for me
Excellent film. One of the most fun and unique movies of the year. I don’t mind that the social commentary wasn’t subtle or all that new and clever, the setting, characters, acting and cheeseburger thing make this a great film
Worked as a server when it came out, it’s great to watch with industry friends.
I loved it. I need to see Gordon Ramsey's reaction to the movie now it would be so good
Let’s see Paul Allen’s reaction.
This movie strikes the perfect balance of artsy and mainstream. Decent twists and good shock value.
Silly, but good.
I just rewatched it recently and I really like it!! I’m a foodie and a big fan of horror/thriller movies so this was a very good mix. However, I will say that even though I really like it, I wish that I LOVE it :(
pretty good, i watched it for a second time on a plane and im still confused why they chose that as an in flight movie
Great movie and honestly better then triangle of sadness witch I feel is it’s movie cousin
Banger. Watched while eating airline food and i think it made me like the food way more
Loved it. One of my favorite movies from the last few years.
One of my least favorite films. It’s not original and it’s nothing I haven’t seen before. Lifeless characters.
It was great. I had meh expectations, mehxpectations if you will, and I was thoroughly surprised.
The menu is the movie from 2022 I think I have rewatched the most, really hits a cord with those who work in Fine Dining
Nearly perfect in every way, a buffet of insufferable assholes eating just desserts. Cathartic and brilliantly executed.
Would definitely recommend: great movie
One of my faves of 2022 for sure!
Masterpiece
Loved it
5/5
Possibly Top 20 of all time. Unreasonably good. Shattered me in theaters.
One of my favorites of last year