I had that feeling after seeing the trailer a couple times that I was already getting everything the movie had to offer. This seems to confirm it. Does it help or advance the struggle against very real current problems to keep recasting things to the mythical Eisenhower era? I realize that the people causing those very real problems hold that era up as a gold standard, but on a practical level, does the use of that frame really mean anything to anyone younger than almost dead today? It strikes me as a dusty cry against a very real threat.
Maybe - just maybe - someone could do something interesting with fact that Eisenhower era conservatives fetishize only possible because it came at tail end of most liberal period in American history. Yes, we were prosperous because US was only country not blown to crumbs after WWII, but that prosperity was shared with burgeoning middle class because union membership was at all-time high and top marginal tax rate was 90% — not exactly right-wing fantasy. Me not really sure how to turn that into movie allegory, but it really only interesting take on era me can think of at this point.
There’s a huge, interesting gulf between a work that has a “grueling wait for the other shoe to drop” and a work in which the end is telegraphed or explicitly said, but makes an event of the journey there. For something like Columbo, the joy is in watching Peter Falk work, how the mystery is cleverly solved, and whatever random charming character actors he meets along the way. Whereas “Don’t Worry Darling” seems to view the central event of the work as the twist, which rarely bears enough weight to support a full movie
Gonna need a spoiler space on this. I saw an ad for it earlier today that said something along the lines of “nothing will prepare you for this movie!!” Not sure if I buy that one.
Nobody who read the original Black Listed script by the Van Dyke Brothers will be surprised at how bad this is. It would have needed a substantial overhaul right down to the central conceit to be any good, and it sounds like Silberman and Wilde limited the changes to minor flourishes like the visions and adding more sex.
Actually, it's weird that every review I've read mentions Silberman as the writer and has no mention of the Van Dyke Brothers—who I should have mentioned above are the brains behind TRANSMORPHERS, TITANIC II, and PARANORMAL ENTITY.
IMDb still lists them as cowriters, and even if the WGA deemed Silberman's rewrite as sufficiently extensive I have to imagine they would still get a story by credit. My guess is they've been completely scrubbed from press kit materials to prevent writers from inviting this attempt at a prestige film to [be compared to] the "designed to be digitally rented on accident" schlock of The Asylum.
I'm reluctant to dump on this movie, as I think the way Olivia Wilde and this project have been dragged through the dirt during its promotional tour has been incredibly unseemly. It simply never would have happened to a male director. On the other hand, I was frustrated and maybe even a little offended by how overrated "Booksmart" was, and it's sadly reaffirming to see that the tide of opinion on that one has started to turn. What I saw from Wilde as a director in that debut—"facile" is a kind way of putting it—was very consistent with what I'm reading about her execution of "Don't Worry Darling."
Agreed that the feeding frenzy around on-set gossip has been weird and pretty gross. Especially since, as I can tell from the very little I've read, it seems like some mild, middle-school level shit about adults who may not entirely like each other but can still work together professionally. (Person A said something mean about Person B to Person C and now Person B knows, oooooooooooh)
That first line is killer, but I still can't wait to see this thing.
"...a grueling wait for that other shoe to drop..."
That tells me right there to think long and hard about seeing this one. That is a trope in movies that I don't find too appealing.
I had that feeling after seeing the trailer a couple times that I was already getting everything the movie had to offer. This seems to confirm it. Does it help or advance the struggle against very real current problems to keep recasting things to the mythical Eisenhower era? I realize that the people causing those very real problems hold that era up as a gold standard, but on a practical level, does the use of that frame really mean anything to anyone younger than almost dead today? It strikes me as a dusty cry against a very real threat.
Maybe - just maybe - someone could do something interesting with fact that Eisenhower era conservatives fetishize only possible because it came at tail end of most liberal period in American history. Yes, we were prosperous because US was only country not blown to crumbs after WWII, but that prosperity was shared with burgeoning middle class because union membership was at all-time high and top marginal tax rate was 90% — not exactly right-wing fantasy. Me not really sure how to turn that into movie allegory, but it really only interesting take on era me can think of at this point.
The trailer also seemed about as subtle as someone shining a bright flashing light in your face while screaming.
There’s a huge, interesting gulf between a work that has a “grueling wait for the other shoe to drop” and a work in which the end is telegraphed or explicitly said, but makes an event of the journey there. For something like Columbo, the joy is in watching Peter Falk work, how the mystery is cleverly solved, and whatever random charming character actors he meets along the way. Whereas “Don’t Worry Darling” seems to view the central event of the work as the twist, which rarely bears enough weight to support a full movie
Gonna need a spoiler space on this. I saw an ad for it earlier today that said something along the lines of “nothing will prepare you for this movie!!” Not sure if I buy that one.
+1 Would love a spoiler space!
Nobody who read the original Black Listed script by the Van Dyke Brothers will be surprised at how bad this is. It would have needed a substantial overhaul right down to the central conceit to be any good, and it sounds like Silberman and Wilde limited the changes to minor flourishes like the visions and adding more sex.
Actually, it's weird that every review I've read mentions Silberman as the writer and has no mention of the Van Dyke Brothers—who I should have mentioned above are the brains behind TRANSMORPHERS, TITANIC II, and PARANORMAL ENTITY.
IMDb still lists them as cowriters, and even if the WGA deemed Silberman's rewrite as sufficiently extensive I have to imagine they would still get a story by credit. My guess is they've been completely scrubbed from press kit materials to prevent writers from inviting this attempt at a prestige film to [be compared to] the "designed to be digitally rented on accident" schlock of The Asylum.
I'm reluctant to dump on this movie, as I think the way Olivia Wilde and this project have been dragged through the dirt during its promotional tour has been incredibly unseemly. It simply never would have happened to a male director. On the other hand, I was frustrated and maybe even a little offended by how overrated "Booksmart" was, and it's sadly reaffirming to see that the tide of opinion on that one has started to turn. What I saw from Wilde as a director in that debut—"facile" is a kind way of putting it—was very consistent with what I'm reading about her execution of "Don't Worry Darling."
Agreed that the feeding frenzy around on-set gossip has been weird and pretty gross. Especially since, as I can tell from the very little I've read, it seems like some mild, middle-school level shit about adults who may not entirely like each other but can still work together professionally. (Person A said something mean about Person B to Person C and now Person B knows, oooooooooooh)
I am so sorry but this review is totally making me want to watch this movie. Really hoping it’s as satisfying (-ly bad) as The Snowman.
Were you not a fan of Booksmart, Scott?
Me starting to wonder whether off-screen drama was manufactured just to give people *any* reason to want to see this thing.