8

of 10

A great genre-bending movie with loving attention to detail that says a lot not just about the state of food, but also the state of artistry in a world dominated by money, celebrity, and social media.

9

Ritualistic mass murder unfolding at a Michelin 3-star—that has me intrigued.

8

Good arc overall; plot holes were well-hidden with movie magic, and layers of absurdity added to the overall point of the movie. Great “Clue” vibe, with each cast member getting their distinct thread.

7

Not particularly groundbreaking, but definitely does something its own.

8.5

Good and tight, nothing extraneous. Some actually conspicuously good jump cut work at points.

N.B.: I would probably move this down a bit in retrospect; the editing was quite good, but the directions wasn’t really that spectacular.

7.5

Some clever bits, though overall perhaps not outstanding.

7

Alright. Not conspicuously good, really; but, no complaints.

7

Again, good but not conspicuously good.

8

Great use of claps, especially with and without visual cues; great cognitive effects.

9

Loving attention to detail on the food, oh my god!

6

Margo and Chef are more “2.5D”, but largely everyone is a caricature. I suppose that’s part of the point, though, in the broader context of the movie.

8

The whole thing is predicated on some “grand insanity”.

I also love that, by and large, everyone just gives in to what’s happening! What a statement.

6

Some interesting bits in the direction of having character emerge through relationships, though those relationships are largely “flat”.

7.5

A little manifesto-ey at spots, but plus points for the emergence of Margo’s character, that was very well done.

5

Eh.

2

The one moment from the angel scene a little but that’s about it.

4

Plus points for the angel scene for sure. Otherwise very eh to sub-eh.

2

Meh.

5

Got a little response at some points, but otherwise didn’t really add too much.

7.5

Not exemplary in this department, but the way all the story threads integrated gave a really interesting tapestry that was greater than the sum of its parts.

7.5

Feel this pretty hard living in SF right now. Maybe not totally in the moment, but in the moment of food for sure.

7

A lot of particulars to the state of food today, but more durable statements about the nature of art, celebrity, what gets lauded, corruption as we become famous, the perversity of incentives.

8.5

Per above, a lot going on here: this film has more topics to cover than just cuisine. Wealth inequality and class struggle, the service industry, art, celebrity, beauty … a lot going on.

6.5

of 10

I really appreciate that this was the first movie I reviewed on this scale, because on first watch I was actually confused whether it was good or bad. The answer seems to be that it was indeed bad—and yet, aspects of the visual design and the score really gave me a much more positive overall impression than the Breakdown would suggest.

6

Pretty horrifying; does provoke some thought, especially in light of tie with contemporary online subcultures.

4

Good turn. Mostly predictable, but not tremendously poor plot; just very expected.

2

This is pretty well-trodden territory, in my estimation. Perhaps not in its specifically Jordan Peterson–referencing instantiation, but thematically.

6.5

Could have been tightened a little. Actually some conspicuously good bits!

2

Ham-fisted; too direct; extremely cringe at many points.

3.5

Some good bits out of Catherine Pugh’s lead, good points out of Olivia Wilde. Chris Pine did a terrible job as the Jordan Peterson character; middling otherwise.

8

Beautiful. Conspicuously good at many points.

5

Nothing stands out either way.

7.5

Beautiful. Simple sets, but used to great effect.

2

Almost entirely flat. The lead character has maybe two attitudes.

2

Olivia Wilde’s character is somewhat interesting, but everyone else’s character is almost completely transparent as to motive.

1

All relationships are almost stupidly transparent and one-dimensional.

1

Nothing comes out from behavior that isn’t explicitly announced.

3

Mostly formulaic, but with a few cues that showed good technique.

4

No themes or motifs stick, but some gestalt from the heavily manipulated voices.

6

Quite good at some points (e.g., the car chase desert cut to near-silence)

7

Some genuinely interesting and conspicuously good use of mangled voices in a cool way; I look forward to this technique being used more.

6

Really did get a good hit from the voices and big glissandos at points.

3

A little bit. It feels like most of the message is reducible to the discourse of a freshman seminar term paper.

6

Does say something important and unsettling about these Incel-adjacent subcultures and their scary ramifications. Fits into a broader narrative about their integration into right-wing organizing online as a whole.

2

Very tied to place and time. Some larger gender issues raised, but really with very little nuance.

0

No. Entirely locked to the specific depicted topic.

N.B.: On revisit, perhaps I was a little harsh here.

9

of 10

This movie is completely absurd structurally when considered in a vacuum; and yet, the artistry in the movie magic is so strong that the audience likely never even notices, because they’re along for the ride. A tour de force of form.

N.B.: If I had to pick one favorite movie of all time, it would probably be this movie. It’s not really a justifiable choice based on the score, but perhaps that’s a beautiful aspect of personal taste.

Concept

5.3

Execution

7.5

Character

3.0

Score

7.5

Meaning

7.5

5

Con: It’s a f*cking Batman movie. Completely tired and boring idea. Pro: It’s a cinematic treatment of Batman with a degree of artistry that is truly extraordinary.

4

Absolutely ridiculous plot-wise. Shot through with plot holes; self-contradictory; often nonsensical. At the same time, a wonderful arc of exposition, and a beautiful form, which goes on to shape so much of what superhero movies become.

7

This is a superhero movie. But it is a superhero movie with aspirations to be in the canon. It seeks to use the archetypal images of superheroes to say something profound and universal at its center—something beyond the lore.

7

Incredible directing, and truly wonderful pacing—conspicuous for the fact that even in a nearly three-hour film, we have a sense that things are constantly moving. But damn, no one edited this!

6.5

Sublime in places, but also absolutely mundane in others.

7

Mediocre/OK, except of course for Heath Ledger’s absolutely incredible “Joker”. (And of course Michael Caine doing superb as “Michael Caine in every Cristopher Nolan film”.)

9

Incredible. Genre-defining. To the point of abandoning logic and common sense for the sake of pure cinematic beauty.

8

Conspicuously good in many moments.

7.5

Truly Nolan-esque, austere sets. Excellent choice on Heath Ledger’s self-applied makeup. Exceptionally bland color palette.

2

Nobody except the Joker has any discernible character depth. Women exist only as objects.

4

The Joker is defined by his chaotic nature. Dent’s transition to murder betrays some interesting psychology. Otherwise, completely predictable from what the audience knows of folks’ motivations.

3

Relationships are on the whole completely transparent, although the Joker-Batman relationship does have a lot of interesting complexity.

3

People pretty much just say who they are, though the Joker develops quite a bit through action.

3

A couple cues that had some real meat (like the rooftop flyover to the construction site), but largely quite banal.

N.B.: I have beef with Hans Zimmer. Fight me.

8.5

Strong use of the leitmotif; one of them only has two notes! Amazingly memorable.

9

Excellent from the get-go, with tight sync between the score and visuals—such a beautiful rarity.

8

An iconic use of “storm drum”, which has become an absolute trope in the genre and for action movies more broadly. Some really great integration of synths, which age shockingly well.

9

It’s a Zimmer score. The man knows how to make your skin crawl.

6

While the movie makes really interesting statements about several topics, I feel like a lot of them are languageable. (Many are enduring memes from lines in the movie!)

7

Looking back to the cultural context of 2008, I’m not sure how to draw the film’s specific timeliness/relevance apart from its larger statements; but, I retrospectively err on the side of significance.

9

This movie’s statements about chaos agents—and, more poignantly to me, the response and adaptation of evil as good attempts to push “progress” forward—are increasingly relevant and largely unheeded, even (perhaps especially) today.

8

This movie has strong archetypal energy. It is not just a movie about superheroes and their lore; it is a story about the psyche, and about society at large. The Dark Knight has a lot to say about a lot more than Batman.

8.5

of 10

A truly excellent film that is not only expertly crafted, but extremely meaningful—a parable, that speaks to the heart of how conflict can seemingly arise from nothingness, the disguise for alienation and the ills of society.

Concept

8.0

Execution

8.1

Character

9.1

Score

5.2

Meaning

8.6

9

Such a beautifully simple, enticing, and intriguing concept.

8

Excellent plot progression—great twists!

7

Not crazy groundbreaking, but also haven’t seen much else just like it.

8

Editing felt good and tight—full, but nothing felt extraneous.

8

Excellent—although, they gave away the best bits in the trailers!

8

Great performances out of the whole cast. Nothing particularly stands out, but all very good.

9

Gorgeous. Some amazing nature shots, establishing shots—overall just beautifully shot.

8.5

Some great, plot-driving moments!

(Fingers on the door, etc.)

7

Great period costumes, great sets. Amazing locations.

8.5

characters seem simple on their surface, and yet have such a richness of underlying motives that the movie is extremely coy on telling you about.

10

I think this is what I meant when I added “Irrationality” to the rubric. Several big moments of really against-audience-understanding behavior.

9

We get so much in this film through the major relationships, none of which is simple.

9

So many establishing actions. Also dialogue, but dialogue that develops character indirectly, which was also refreshing.

6

What was there was Ok.

5.5

The angelic choral bits stay with you; the rest is pretty forgettable.

5

Ok. Not super well integrated into the film, except at a couple discrete spots.

3.5

Eh.

6

The choral bits added a lot, the rest was pretty Eh.

9.5

I skipped over the gestalt box at first because I needed time to collect my thoughts about what this film is saying; it is difficult to put directly into words.

7

Not entirely sure how specifically au courant this is, but I think there is a political angle that is important in this moment.

9

This is a story that gets to the heart of conflict, a central part of the human experience. Set in the War, true, but approaching a topic with true universality.

9

This film has echoes of war, politics, conflict, so much of the darker side of what it is to be human, alienation, sadness, the search for meaning … the list goes on.

9

of 10

I was moved to tears by the end, because at so many points I felt the resonance with my own life as a “creative”—the child of a singer who left her career behind for family, and a pianist who took a white collar job and worked himself to the bone just to provide, both in spite of their genius. I came away with a renewed sense of how beautiful and scary a gift it is, to be given creative passion. It always exists in the context of a human life that is messy, lonely, and painful.

Concept

7.7

Execution

8.7

Character

8.1

Score

5.9

Meaning

7.6

8

Fictionalized memoir of the childhood of a filmmaker stuck in the clash between art and life. An excellent vehicle.

8.5

Plays on “vignettes”, but really overcomes the shortcomings of that format with how well woven together everything is.

6.5

Not outlandish, but certainly fresh.

9

Spielberg showing off his full form. Perhaps some bits that could have been cut, but the directing really feels like a tour de force.

8.5

Not canonizable, but very good. Excellent use of bilingualism, conspicuously good lines, no glaring issues.

9

Teenage Sam, Mitzi, Uncle Boris, and more, with fabulous performances. Judd Hirsch as “Uncle Boris” in particular might get an Oscar for literally one scene.

8

A few shots that get the “conspicuously good” designation, several in Sam’s “films within the film”, which is an interesting twist.

9

Very good, very well integrated. (See the fingernail clicks, wow.)

8.5

Wonderful period detail throughout, perfect sets. Plus points for loving attention to detail on the piano performances, including that interior shot of lifting the damper pedal. Oof!

9

So many of the characters that we get to know well—and many we see only briefly—have so much going on behind the scenes that makes them complex and imperfect.

6

There’s a little bit of this that peeks through, but in large degree folks tend to behave explainably—or, perhaps justifying the more intermediate score, explainably given knowledge we get later on.

9

This movie hits on both points: many, many relationships are complex and ineffable, and, these relationships serve as the vehicle for elucidating characters’ complex attributes (e.g., for sure Mitzi).

8.5

The film doesn’t just say, “Mitzi is creative.” It shows you what that means, in every facet, in a way that is recognizable to someone from a creative household. Minus points because, in spite of much very excellent emergence, it does hold our hand and tell us a great deal explicitly.

6.5

So much was stock classical piano, which, I know, makes sense. But we finally got some great Williams cues, right at the very end. So tantalizing, such an under-use of the talent you brought in!

5

A little bit from some of the classical piano pieces used during the camping trip editing scene, etc.

7

Not exemplary, but quite good at points. Plus for the records played during Sam’s films, which were better than this film’s score!

4

I love John Williams, but even his bits were kind of stock John Williams, you know what I mean?

7

Not throughout, but definitely did get me in certain points.

9

At times I thought I was seeing my own childhood, my own creative middle-class family, laid out before me—the complexity, the humanity, and above all the passionate longing for the unattainable art. It was all presented in its raw, complicated, ambivalent form.

5

I think this is an important film, but in the world today, I think that this type of creative passion has become almost “passé”—a folly of older generations who were not “well-rounded”, who did not have the same relentless, all-consuming pressure to conform that has taken over because of technology. I don’t abide by that view, but I can see how the film might not resonate with a 2022 audience.

9.5

That said: The pursuit of art—perhaps defined more broadly—is a core part of the human experience. This film shows the intersection of that ideal with the messy reality of our specific lives in a time and place, and that resonates, at least with me.

7

Perhaps not all-encompassing, but the creative spark that drives so many into fervent passion in their disciplines—art, music, film, science, what have you—follows in the same pattern. I was deeply moved by Uncle Boris’ speech, with respect to my own experience as a creative scientist; it made me critically re-examine my own place as an “artist” in my field.