I didn’t watch the Oscars, and haven’t for years, but I saw the news stories that the film Everything Everywhere All At Once won the award for best picture, as well as a bunch of other honors. Coincidentally, that happened to be one of the few films we saw at a theater last year.
The AP story on the Academy Awards describes Everything Everywhere as a “metaphysical multiverse comedy,” but I would describe it, instead, as a surreal, confusing, and in large part disturbing movie that I have no desire to see again. Although the movie claims to be a comedy, I don’t think I laughed at any point during the film’s two-hour-and-19-minute running time, and mostly wished it would finally, blessedly end before another strange character and incident was inflicted on my senses. The movie was creative, I’ll give it that, and at least it was an original screenplay and not a superhero movie or one of the remakes that Hollywood routinely churns out these days, but those points exhaust the positives in my book.
The Academy Award decisions are always debatable, but for years, I’ve wondered what criteria are used in deciding who wins what at the Oscars. It’s stumped me at least since a boring snoozer like Out Of Africa beat Witness, a taut, engrossing drama with some great comedic moments, in 1986. Witness has stood the test of time, Out of Africa hasn’t. But at least I could somewhat understand how, in some views at least, the cinematography and settings and sweep of Out Of Africa put it in contention. I’m flummoxed at how Everything Everywhere All At Once was even considered a contender on any grounds.
This is further evidence, if any is needed, at just how out of touch my tastes have become. It’s also a reason why our trips to the movie theater have winnowed down to virtually none.