Someone recently asked me if I liked Don’t Look Up, and I thought I’d write a review to explain why I didn’t. There will be spoilers so if you haven’t seen it yet beware.
To begin with the positives, the acting was mostly good. Jennifer Lawrence, Leonardo DiCaprio and others performed well as usual, and for about the first 10 to 15 minutes it felt like it could be a great film. But then it goes downhill fast, and by the end I was left thoroughly underwhelmed.
The main reason for this is because it desperately tried to develop a dramatic and politically serious narrative, while at the same time enveloping it in a absurdist comedy framework, thereby completely undermining itself. Whenever stakes are raised to build suspense, heighten dramatic effect, and make you resonate and empathize with a particular character (something actually accomplished quite well when it tries to do so, like in the first 10/15 minutes)—all that effort is instantaneously demolished with a third-rate, hacky, totally unfunny quip/joke/witticism. The attempt to balance the unrealistic with the realistic is a disastrous failure.
Take for example the scene where Jennifer Lawrence’s character, distraught after having just discovered the comet that is hurtling toward earth and will destroy in 6 months, is talking to her boyfriend. The boyfriend senses that something is wrong, so he presses her to tell him what’s going on. Then she leans in to him and whispers that a comet is approaching the earth, and will destroy all life. A passerby overhears this, stops and goes up to her and the boyfriend and says “Wait. What did you just say?”, in shock. Lawrence’s character then says she was talking about a movie or show they’re working on, and it wasn’t serious.
So this sets a standard of realism for the narrative, and raises the stakes in accordance with it. Even a random person on the street who vaguely heard about a comet coming to destroy the planet from another random person is utterly shocked by it. How would the vast majority of people react if they hear a scientist tell it on national TV, and with it being reported in a mainstream publication?
But then the absurdism kicks in. The DiCaprio and Lawrence characters, who play the scientists, are roundly ignored by everyone, from the President down to the average person. There are some attempts made to maintain the realistic standard, like a quick reference by a journalist at the paper that reported on the story saying that some other scientist had put some doubt into it, and that science itself is never entirely sure, but all this is unconvincing in the face of the utter absurdity that is played up elsewhere.
The TV show hosts who have the DiCaprio character on to tell about the discovery of the comet turn the story into a frivolous TMZ-like entertainment bit. The President, played by Meryl Streep, upon hearing about the comet doesn’t care at all, until she realizes it can be used for political gain, and even then it’s treated as an irrelevancy (the Chief of Staff, her son, played by Jonah Hill, also adds to this absurdist unrealism by constantly joking about it and treating it as meaningless).
So on the one hand you have a very high standard of realism that is set up at the outset and then (incredibly weakly) defended throughout the rest of the story, while on the other hand you have this absurdist comedy wherein there’s no standard of realism at all and anything goes, and this ends up being the guiding thread of the film after the first 10/15 minutes, growing increasingly absurd as time goes on.
Maybe in the hands of a better director and writer it would have been possible to balance out these elements, and to keep both the serious, dramatic, realistic aspect of the narrative as well as the absurdist, comedic part without them undermining the other. But that’s not the case here.
When you get to the dramatic scene at the end, where the only main characters you’re supposed to care about and have followed throughout the film have a final dinner together as the comet hits the earth—there’s just nothing there. Why would you care about something in this world at all, when there are no stakes in it? Where some Elon Musk-like guy is capable of developing some novel technology to try to mine the comet (which ends up failing in the end, but still, an addition that totally undermines any standard of realism set up elsewhere in the film).
I have seen some criticisms of the film from the left that focus on its politics, saying it’s liberal, not radical enough, etc., but to me that’s not really relevant in assessing its artistic value. And it is on those grounds that I thought it was an utter failure, for the mentioned reason.
Politically there is not much there either. The key message is “listen to scientists instead of demagogic corrupt politicians and billionaires”, which is fine as far as it goes, but ultimately they are presented as an immovable object. Yeah, some riots occur here and there, there’s some looting, and then when the comet is about to hit there’s a society-wide collapse into anarchy (though even this is absurdly presented, like adding a shot of a mass orgy happening at the top of some building). But there is no significant organized attempt to do something about the comet, aside from the titular “Just Look Up” movement that arises at some point, and is presented like a media PR campaign instead of a mass social movement.
If it’s a critique of contemporary society and its inability to create such movements that’s fine, but again, within the world of the film the DiCaprio and Lawrence characters and those who support them, and view the comet as an existential threat, have no reason not to engage in mass social action. Even if this group was limited to a small minority (which the film does not present it as), why would you just wait until the comet is about to hit the earth and kill everyone? Why not occupy buildings, and even engage in “terroristic” acts? Elements of the environmental movement engage in those kinds of actions regularly (and admirably so). Why wouldn’t their counterparts in the world of Don’t Look Up do so? Again, any standard of realism set up earlier in the narrative is thoroughly undermined.
Then there’s also the peculiar omission of the rest of the world. There are some occasional references to China, Russia and India, but they don’t exist as actors capable of affecting anything (there is no mention at all of other places like Europe, Africa or South America). When the US decides to not go ahead with its mission to destroy the comet but instead to mine it, Russia, China and India decide to work together to conduct such a mission instead, which ends up failing due to an accident at the launch base, ending humanity’s final hope. There are only a few minutes of the entire film, if that, devoted to the existence of the rest of the world, and this is pretty much it. If you have acknowledged that other relevant foreign actors exist and are capable of mounting a mission to destroy the comet, why would they just have one mission? Why wouldn’t China, Russia and India (let alone other countries!) have several ones? Why would they just stand by and watch a crazed American President do nothing, especially if the film makes clears that these other countries apparently do believe the comet will actually destroy the earth and it’s something that has to be stopped.
Again setting up a standard of realism that isn’t maintained but rather subverted, undermining the overall narrative.
I ended up giving the film a 5 out of 10 on IMDB. If you have some time to kill and don’t go into it with high expectations, it’s worth giving it a watch. But if you’re interested in a apocalyptic story that’s actually done well, I suggest you look elsewhere, like Melancholia or even the more recent Greenland. If you’re interested in a comedic ridicule of contemporary society that’s done well, you’re better off with Idiocracy, or Silicon valley. And if you want a climate change themed movie that actually does balance out the comedic and serious quite well, there’s Wall-E.
I don't completely agree with everything you said. I really liked the film. And films, like books, belong to the readers and the viewers. But you are extremely coherent about what you didn't like.
I agree with everything you said, the tonal shifts were extremely jarring. Every time it jumped from being a grounded drama/black comedy to leaning too far into cartoonish comedy or sci-fi, I couldn't help but cringe. However, I think the good parts overall outweighed the bad. I usually try not to let partial distaste for a movie change my overall enjoyment.
Just one quick note about your plot summary: although it's not said outright, there's a heavy implication that the US was actively sabotaging efforts from around world to stop the comet, rather than them failing on their own. I think you of all people would be able to make the parallel between that and the US's history of getting involved with the attempted rise of left-leaning regimes. "Oh, look, other solutions NEVER work, so that's why ours is the best!" says the country that actively stops other solutions from coming into fruition.
However, if my analysis is true, it would be strange that they'd make it subtle when everything else was so ham-fisted. Maybe I'm wrong!