I Hate The Menu 

Personally, I don't think the cheeseburger represents mindless entertainment. I think it's about being honest about what you really enjoy and not putting up a front to try and impress people. Not mindless enjoyment, but honesty about what you actually enjoy and not a search for approval.

I think the cheeseburger is more about chef's enjoyment of making the cheeseburger and the burger being enjoyable for margot. Both the audience and the artist enjoyed making and taking it. Thats what art should be, enjoyable to make and fulfilling to the audience. Its not about technical prowess or the levels of depth, its about being enjoyable. Your not being tyler your more like Lilian.

I think the one thing that this analysis of the cheeseburger sort of misses is that the burger DID have a lot of effort and skill put into its preparation, but the fact it was made with intent of tasting good rather than to show off or impress is what made it special. "Just a well made cheeseburger" isn't a dismissal of the craft: it's just outlining all that really matters. It's skewering intellectualism and craft *for its own sake*, not the idea of thought being put into things in general. I also think that one thing this review misses is that The Menu doesn't necessarily think its elevated. It *is* less smart than it thinks it is, 100%, I'll give you that, but it knows it's soulless, pretentious trash... and it hates itself for feeling like it needs to be for attention. That's kind of the point. And honestly you could argue/feel like that's copping out, but considering that I think in the modern culture of CinemaSins, Mauler, and (sorry) essays like this, a message/point like this is exactly the way I feel about modern cinema.

I wish I agreed with this video but I never saw the film as a criticism of filmmaking, rather a criticism of criticism itself and the food industry.

I saw the film as a black comedy where there's really only one rational thinking person we're meant to side with (Anya) while the rest are at more extreme sides of the spectrum. Everytime Fiennes was on screen, I was glued to it. I feel like I've seen films of this kind that didn't have the same level of care put into the cinematography, acting, and structure that this one did. It took a mid movie and elevated it. I don't think it's meant to be a masterpiece, but it's still really REALLY good in my opinion

Also: The Chef's attempt to relate to Margot as a fellow service worker struck me as disingenuous because he is neither a service worker nor a customer but a secret third thing (a terrible boss). I actually thought the movie was going to go somewhere with that, given there's a whole subplot about how he sexually harassed one of his employees, but it ends up going nowhere. It just strikes me as strange to make a movie that is at least in part a commentary on the soul-crushing nature of service work and then make ZERO distinction between the worker bees and the people who employ them.

I think your analysis of Tyler being a mocking stand in for the general movie critic is a little defensive. I think the point is that Tyler is someone who is dismissive of other peoples perspectives and routines, clamoring only to those who subscribe to what he sees as ‘true art’. It’s not anti critic, it’s anti snob. Tyler can’t imagine how someone could smoke a dig and still enjoy a complex dish because he doesn’t comprehend that other people can find pleasure in things outside of the way he does. I mean, he talks about how sports and music is for ‘idiots’ because they’re not as ‘meaningful’ as what HE appreciates. From that comment alone, it’s pretty clear the film is mocking those who revel in their own self-diagnosed refinement and superiority. He’s self absorbed and a brown nose, ignorant of other perspectives simply because they are not his. He desperately wants Slowik to like him because he wants validation for his obsessive dedication. He only sees the chef as a part of his hobby, thinking that Slowik will think he’s cool because he can name obscure ingredients in a dish. He doesn’t want to be friends with the personality within the chef, but the knowledge.

I don’t know if the movie really wanted you to agree with the chefs that their beliefs were the correct. Like I doubt the creators of the film actually think there shouldn’t be critics who haven’t made movies themselves

This video essay is the personification of what the menu was satirising. Criticism just for the sake of criticism of art devoiding it of any enjoyment and meaning.

"I didnt miss the point" honestly yeah i think you kinda did.

I don't know, to be honest, if you look at it from a dining-critique aspect, i think it makes way more sense. The characters, as stated, are part of the menu: they are ingredients, they don't really need to be completely explored; the focus is on the experience, which is why the cheeseburger works. The burger is a bait: by tugging at his heartstrings, Margot exploits the concept of the chef's plan, which is to deliver a masterpiece. Once he's served the cheeseburger, refusing to give her the rest "to-go" would ruin the experience, the soul of a "fast-food", thus forcing him to let her go or admit that the experience wasn't perfect. I feel like the analogy for film-making is a bit forced, but to be honest, as the movie states, i don't really know what's going on behind the scenes, or what was the real intention of the writers.

I usually like your reviews. But this the first time where the comments are more compelling and thought out than you analysis

I think you connecting the criticism of the food world with the film world is a massive stretch, this very clearly only criticizes food and celebrity chef culture that has only risen in the last 20 or 30 years. Nothing in this has commentary on filmmaking, it sounds like you, as a filmmaker, are taking what it has to say way too personally and drawing parallels in your mind that aren’t actually there. If you were a fan of food culture you’d immediately recognize the skewering of it in this movie instead of trying to apply what it’s saying to all forms of art. It’s very pointed and specific

I think you misunderstand that the biggest message, in my opinion, is to be present when engaging with art. It’s very easy for us to emotionally connect to something (which sometimes can be where “low art” comes in, a la Scorsese with Marvel movies), but there seems to be a movement to intellectualize and get too mentally engaged with art. Both mind and heart are equally valuable, but when you get caught up in the headspace too much, you’re not feeling anything necessarily. I think the best example of this is in the old couple because they can’t remember anything they’ve eaten in MONTHS of attending that restaurant. They’re rich enough that they can go eat anywhere and they pick the most prestigious and costly place, not for the experience, but because it improves the reputation. They could’ve spent that money, and any other way. This whole thing is about reputation, and not appreciating the little pleasures in life. And the people who have the best reputations are the rich and the popular and affluent… in a way, I think the movie is about balancing the heart in the mind, and not letting reputation and superficiality cloud our judgment. As far as Holt’s character, he was obsessive about this, but never engaged with it and created anything himself. I feel like there’s a lot of the time where we are such consumers of content that we don’t realize we should also be producing as well. It’s not an absolute obligation, but I believe it’s an important part of being a person. It’s something I’m struggling with myself, wanting to put out things into the world instead of only consuming, but not knowing how.

I'm definitely watching The Menu again after seeing this video. When I watched it the first time I had a different interpretation. The movie made me think about the academic art movement. The academic art movement, which rose and fell largely between the 16th and 20th century, and was influential in the European art world, was a style of art which prioritised technical skill, realistic paintings, and high-minded concepts. There was a right way and a wrong way to make a brush stroke, and every painting must have a complex message behind it. Nobody argues that this movement didn't produce beautiful art, like The Fallen Angel by Alexandre Cabanel, but it was restrictive and it was too focused on technical details instead of the spirit of the art. It wasn't until the end of academicism that we got painters like Van Gogh and Monet. To me, this is what the movie is saying. Being too focused on art being technically good and high-minded is restrictive and we have to embrace the spirit of art to fully experience it. P.S. I enjoyed this movie more than Triangle of Sadness, which I felt it was over the top with its message. They literally have an American and a Russian argue about capitalism vs communism for like 5 minutes!

Honestly I just thought it was fine. It was an interesting premise I felt was stretched a bit thin.

7:20 That's a bad faith take. The chef is punishing him for 'ruining the experience' of tonight's event i.e. he's being punished for involving an 'innocent' victim to tonight's would-be massacre

His whole argument (in MANY words) was that this wasn’t the movie he wanted to see.. 😑 then go watch that movie.

I just watched this movie last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. The beauty of art is that it's subjective so we can feel/think whatever we want about it, we all have different taste buds, so to speak. To me, this movie was a cheeseburger. I didn't try to deconstruct it or get the meaning for everything while watching, I just sat back and went along for the ride and had a great time and some good (although dark) laughs. That's all I was looking for and left "full".

I don't think the movie was making a point about stupid audience members. The movie is also making fun of Ralph Fiennes' character just as much as the other characters, in my opinion. If it were making fun of Nicholas Hoult's character, I don't think it would have felt as cringey in that scene when he cooks, and it certainly wouldn't have felt sad when he dies. "The movie" (as you put it) pities him, I think. To me, the central question of the movie is, "what's worth living for?" For most of these characters, it's not much. For the chef, cooking is what was worth it to him, and then, he let other things get in the way. Instead of changing, he takes it out on his patrons.

I just thought that the cheeseburger was Magot's final attempt at freedom. After hearing everything that Slowik had to say and investigating his personal quarters, she found that the only time that he seemed happy was when he was still cooking burgers at a simple diner. Slowik was happy to make something that he probably hadn't had the chance to make in a long time due to the nature of his current establishment. Furthermore, the description of "Just a well-made cheeseburger" is honestly more than sufficient. Margot herself literally asked for a simple cheeseburger. Something quick and easy that would fill her up. It was never meant to be a culinary masterpiece.

I love the menu. The acting, the design, the comedy. But having just watched your view of Trap… I’m having the same thing today with my view of Alien Romulus verses the whole of RU-vid, apparently

This is the best depiction of a SW I've ever seen as a SW so like, eh. having a bad take on that point isn't surprising from a civilian.

This is a guy missing the point of a movie for 16 minutes

this review became convoluted quite quickly and i have to disagree. it’s a fun movie to watch but the concept didn’t live up to all it could’ve been in the end. i think it’s just a bit too simple for its own good in the end and that you’ve definitely overanalysed it way too much

I saw the film as being more observational than dogmatic. I can't prove that the writers were taking a definite stand on one thing, rather I think they were just using the characters to throw out ideas and views that people may commonly have in these industries. I disagree with the idea that "critics who can't create shouldn't judge because they don't know what it's like". But if there exist artists in the world who think that, then it's not a bad aesthetic choice to portray the villain of the film to have that view. If there exists audience goers who feel the way Margot did during her cheeseburger speech, then it's just alright to portray her thinking that way, even if I personally want intellectual engagement in art. I don't think these characters were written as mouth pieces as much as they are observing the friction that goes on between these people in art and business.

when anya and the fanboy first appeared on screen i was like “are they siblings?” because it didn’t seem like they were dating at alllll

7:20 since when was Tyler a critic? Everything about his character was based on obsession without work. He skipped over actually loving food unlike the chef who did at one point.

Coming back to this video months later it feels like there’s a ton of assumptions being made here

I was a little confused that they were surprised they were going to die at the end when apparently it was included in the invitation? Is that a plot hole, or did I miss something?

One thing I think this misses about the criticism point is that chef was angry that the critic’s writing often resulted in restaurants getting shut down. Criticism is one thing, criticism that deprives someone of their livelihood is something else entirely. Also, Northrop Frye stressed the importance of delineating good and bad criticism. If you don’t acknowledge that you only strengthen the notion that it’s a purely parasitic art form.

This film felt like the inversion of Glass Onion. Both feature rich assholes stuffed into a remote luxury island setting and ends with mass destruction, distinctly motivated deaths and the "based" protagonist/deuteragonists make it off the island with a happy ending.

I've been waiting for this one since your Letterboxd review. I struggle with this because I think you're right, but I still enjoy the movie. I think the points it makes are very explicit and its thesis is sort of an ass-backwards critique of high art. I just think it's kinda funny to take those people to their logical extremes and make fun of them. I love watching these rich, pretentious assholes literally get killed. I agree with you, critiquing art is an important part of that process. The critic _should_ point out the broken emulsion. There's nothing wrong with Tyler's extensive knowledge of food. I don't think the movie says that they're invalid, it's just pointing out their obvious hypocrisies. The movie can criticize these extremes without invalidating the whole field.

This review says everything I thought about The Menu but in smart words. Thank you so much for an analysis I agree with...finally!

Lots of comments seem to be disagreeing with you here, but I for one am glad to hear another person with a similar take on this film. I neither had fun nor took away any interesting ideas from this film. Cringe lines about class felt like an attempt to gain favour with a political youth. It's a shame since I felt like there was a good film underneath this one, maybe like something from Yorgos Lanthimos.

I kept wishing I was watching Triangle of Sadness during the menu

hi there! while 'The Menu' is honestly one of the hardest hitting and influencial to me personally, I love seeing others' critiques, and i want to be frank in validating the quality of your analysis. your critique is very well thought out, and i'm not trying to undermine you whtsoever here. I truly feel this film is satire on two levels: a critique of consumers, and a crfitique of the fine dining industry itself. you provided a wonderful analysis of the former, but as someone entrenched in the fine dining industry, i thought id offer my perspective. I feel like this film is a very personal critique of the fine dining inustry, and i think that point would understandably not speak to those who haven't been entrenched in that culture. I felt the film beautifully satarized how the industry often becomes cult-like and slowly consumes the lives an individuality of their employees, how chefs will elevate food to the point of absurdity where food itself no longer serves its purpose, and how the deeply toxic cukture of the industy dooms it to cannibalize itself. although i laughed every time the PacoJet was mentioned, i still think back to an icident where we lost our own PacoJet blade, and our Chef threatened to kill us if we didn't find it. obvously not the same magnitude of malice, but it haunts me either way. ive felt stuck in this industry to the point of consiereing suicide at times, and its really concerning how many other chefs share that feeling in my experience. Restaurant culture is rife with substance abuse and abysmal mental health. in my opiinion, this movie hel a mirror up to that, and it's allowed for some important conversations. i feel like it excelled much more in that respect than it did in critiquing the guests. once again, awesome video! just thought id share my own perspective!

I've never understood the praise for high art movies that had laughably unintelligent characters or caricatures. Nothing about The Menu was impressive. No harsh criticism, no stand-out performances, no suspense, nothing visually appealing outside of the food dishes, no horror, and no comedy. Just a very average one-dimensional movie.

This movie had no original thought

Thoughtful, well-argued commentary as always but I profoundly disagree: (spoilers) This is a discussion of class conflict within an artist who, while formerly of humble beginnings, has "made it" by appealing to the social expectations of an out-of-touch upper class. The cheeseburger doesn't invalidate "high" art, that's not its purpose. It invalidates fake, pretentious, hollow, and selfish interaction and interpretation of art. Ultimately, this movie is about the dissatisfaction of an artist who has spent his entire life trying to please the big money executive types, who can never be pleased because they care about their own clout and money, not his art. Most of them go to his restaurant as a status symbol, or because it can further their career, not to enjoy or appreciate his labor. The cheesburger represents his longing for a time when he could be appreciated honestly, not as a part of a cycle of fake empty people putting on reactions to his art for clout and high commercialism. The complaint about the guest characters not being humanized I completely disagree with. It's ok to have archetypes in a narrative. They are representations, not characters that are meant to be humanized in the same way as the characters in say White Lotus. They aren't people, rather, they are stand-ins for groups of people who have all of the control of the money and press that makes art successful without the desire to actually engage with it in an honest or constructive way. I don't think the film is trashing critics generally, because the character of Margot is also a critic. It's trashing the kind of criticism that is rooted in class distinctions, clout seeking, prestige seeking, etc., rather than the appreciation of labor and the quality of the resulting work. The difference is that Margot is able at the end to be honest, with no pretensions. She alone offers to take Chef back to a time when he was happy making great food for hungry people. I also don't think the film is attacking critics as a whole group but the systems of incentives that motivate criticism. You, yourself, admit that negative videos get more clicks. There is a system of incentives there, and I feel like that's what this film has in its teeth. The fact that Margot's tastes are simple isn't what saves her. It's the fact that she isn't a part of this system of incentives and she was able to ask for something she wanted just for the sake of wanting it. She engaged with his art honestly. This is why the title card has changed--because Margot as a customer doesn't care about all of the details. She doesn't want to be convinced that something is good by its presentation. She has simple tastes and there's nothing wrong with that. Both Chef and Margot give one another what each other wants. (Maybe there's a comment here about how people who aren't in the cycle of money and power should be engaging in one another's art and cutting them out of the process?) Which brings us to Tyler. Tyler is a fundamentally untalented, inhuman force of consumption who believes the narratives about Chef because he wants to feel smart, special, and important. People are disposable to him. His own life is disposable to him. His entire identity is built around knowing the language of the art form, without actually understanding the soul or substance that underlies it. I don't think the film is going for the simplistic take presented here. I think it's saying that Tyler knows the language, understands how to talk about art, but fundamentally doesn't understand what goes into it or even what he actually likes. He contrasts sharply with Margot by expressing no preferences, eating whatever he is given and heaping empty praise upon it. When he gets a chance to make some food, he doesn't try to make something he wants, or that he thinks others might appreciate, he attempts to step into the Chef's shoes but makes a soulless mess because he has no substance. He wants to consume art but has learned nothing from engaging with it. He wants to own art, own a piece of the artist, be close to art, but for superficial reasons. He cannot understand the simple joy of eating a good meal. He's full of BS. I do think they could have handled this point better, but I disagree with the interpretation of this scene. Anyway, fundamentally this is a movie about the interactions between class-motivated incentives to critique art, in direct conflict with real analysis, combined with a steadfast defense of "lowbrow" audience participants who consume art for its simplest pleasures. That's my read anyway, cheers.

Subscribed, said everything what I wanted to say after watching the film, finally!

This video in my sub feed made me go watch the menu so I could enjoy you ripping on it and I loved it so much lmao I thought it was so good

You’re problem is that you state almost all your opinion on the movie as if it’s a fact, like “it’s got bad green screening” I didn’t even realize it was green screen ☠️ also the critic in the movie is clearly shown smoking during the meal with just women, showing how SPECIFICALLY that critic is biased, as smoking DOES effect the taste buds

It’s ok to be wrong.

If you're dealing with a large cast, then large broadstrokes on their characterization is fine. As long as the main characters get fleshed out

I havent seen this guy before, but he is on fcking point. Thank you for calling this smug movie out for its hypocrisy

I think you have a grudge or something with the people who made the movie so it colored how you felt about the movie. Whereas the rest of us are just enjoying the film.

LOVE Triangle of Sadness; what a feat

The film was a great commentary on the pretentiousness that food and chefs have reached in todays time. We glorify food and turn it into this soulless pompous “experience” - where food critics and influencers think they know me than the chef who made the food. Like art, it is very subjective - art critics who just presume to know what the artist tried to convey from their own perspective, which is again a pretentious one. This film was a great time. I loved the commentary it made.

It was a fun movie.

Excellent points, honestly you helped me try to...wrap my mind around what I had watched. It's just trying so hard to be bad that it missed the mark, (or maybe that's the point! lol) it felt like a twisted charlie and the chocolate factory or "foodie saw movie".

What bothers me about The Menu is that it's so incredibly mean-spirited. The "crimes" of these diners are so petty and their punishment of being gruesomely tortured and killed isn't remotely proportional, yet the tone of the movie remains detached and ironic like it expects you to yawn when you see them die. As the story rolled on, I went from being entertained to being annoyed by how full of itself the movie was, and ended up profoundly disturbed at what the writers apparently believe justice is. Ralph Fiennes's character in this movie is completely evil and yet the movie asks you to sympathize with him, not his victims. I have rarely seen a movie that seemed so angry at its characters with so little explanation of why that anger is deserved. A few expository lines about some of the diners committing fraud, a critic being arrogant and snooty, an actor who made a bad movie that he enjoyed making more than the chef enjoyed seeing it (?), and suddenly I'm expected to cheer or at least not be upset when they're all murdered by a psychopath. The peccadilloes of the rich are often funny, so why not respond to them with amusement instead of rage? It seems like the movie can't decide whether the chef is off-the-rails crazy (in which case he deserves to lose at the end, but actually he mostly wins) or is actually totally justified in everything he's doing (in which case the writers are sociopaths). While I was watching the movie, I imagined an alternate scenario in which these characters were humiliated by the chef but came out of the experience alive, and I came to the conclusion that I would have probably loved that version of the story. That would show some tact and discipline on the part of the writers, who strike me as pretty pretentious themselves despite the fake populism of their script. No amount of "a good cheeseburger is better than haute cuisine" rhetoric can change the fact that this movie was made by and for the same kind of rich assholes that it fumes over. In other words, The Menu exemplifies all the problems it claims to find among the wealthy segment of society. It's shallow, insubstantial, cruel, and spends more energy pretentiously explaining the product than it does creating a decent product to begin with. It has the kind of emotional tone I would expect from a slasher movie back in the 1980s, not a film with pretensions to maturity and social commentary. This movie took a fascinating premise and just kept cooking it until it turned to charcoal.

I just watched the movie yesterday and really didnt care, I thought it was mostly cause it reminded me of Friendly Beast, a brazilian horror movie from 2017 about an elite restaurant that tackles class issues, which is a much better movie in every way, specially cause they dont use class as a cheap dressing like The Menu but I havent thought about how the movie is a commentary on art and criticism, specially film and now I'm even more annoyed, I watched The Menu cause I wanted a cheeseburger, but it felt like they spat on it first

This video was 10x more enjoyable than the menu. Totally agree with your points, you vocalized what I could not.

I had this in my watch later, saw the movie, thought it was mid at best. I think you hit the nail on the head by 1:30, it didn't have enough teeth (lol) either as a satire/parody or when it tries to take itself seriously. As a result it did neither excellently, imo. It was fine, not bad, but definitely confused thematically. I felt like it was more interested in parodying (mocking) the artist's obsession rather than actually satirizing class dynamics. I think themes of food and capital were intertwined kind of clumsily. But then again, I am a critic, so maybe the satire didn't land bc it's really about me 😂

I think the film setup for atleast a decent point, albeit pretentious but a decent point. Towards the end it completely failed at tying it together which resulted in a completely pointless movie. Like the commentary on being an artist was great but is completely ruined by the commentary on critics (which ultimately criticizes regular fans aswell) and I think thats roughly what happened with every other point it tries to make too.

I think the issue here is that you're bringing a lot of your own baggage to the film, perhaps a concern that people might view you as snobbish. I don't think you're snobbish for having an opinion. That being said, I think you fundamentally misunderstood what the film is saying with the burger sequence, which is kinda the most important part of the movie. It's not a complexity vs simplicity thing at all. As you pointed out, the process of making a great cheeseburger IS very complex and specialized. And then you say that the film is trying to use this to say that moviegoers should reject all but the most basic art? Anya's character doesn't order a cheeseburger because she literally wants a cheeseburger, but because she knows that's what Ralph's character wants to cook. It's not about hungering for simplicity or accessibility, it's about hungering for HONESTY. The one thing that unites all of the characters in the film is that all of them are putting up some kind of facade. None of them are being their honest selves. The chef isn't cooking for himself, he's cooking for the critics. He's not being genuine. He thinks killing everyone is the only option because he's so frustrated by the pervasiveness of this unauthenticity, in himself, in others and in his industry that he thinks the only real thing any of them can do anymore is die. So the film isn't anti-creativity or anti-complexity, it's against art made for critics or made by committee or made by people who have no passion. If you have passion and love for what you do that is what gives your art life and purpose. If you create solely for other people then where is that passion going to come from? The desire for more clout? Maybe that'll sustain you for a while, but eventually you'll just end up making shallow bullshit trapped in the midst of a career that you resent, and the only way out will be to metaphorically start a fire, to burn down all of that goodwill and begin again. Basically I think of this movie as a feature length version of that amzing scene from Pig where Nic Cage confronts the chef about the food he makes. You ever see Pig? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Hi1qHibM2Y8.html

Bruh, you are exactly the kind of critic this movie was about.

Taylor I agree with you, I really think if people have to do this much hoop-jumping to prove that a movie is "actually smarter than you think" it might actually... not be that smart. I personally thought it was an amalgamation of cliches from much better movies that came before it.

Thank you. I could elaborate and add more points… but I’m tired and this film deserves none of my time as it’s as bad as can be… so I’m happy someone is sane enough to cut up sone of the major crap that Is this horrible failure, embarrassing, insult to anyone with a functioning mind who was duped into exposing themselves to this film. Though I think he was overly generous snd not critical enough. I despair that money was spent on this dreck and that so many liked it. As for the concern that somehow critical reviews draw a crowd to pile on or whatever… perhaps. But no one feels hurt or ripped off or scammed or bamboozled when they see a good movie. And good movies get the love they deserve. But so often something horrible is inflicted on everyone and yet praised and people feel disconnected and it’s an insult to the injury that everyone gushes over the horror they endured. I think That reviewing something like the menu is a very positive thing and a great service to the audience of movies. Yes there are stupid hate watch trends and piling on. But a thoughtful review of a film like this one that is mainly being praised and is as awful as anything i know of and was inflicted on people, many of whom will feel shocked and alone and alienated from the medium by the fact there is so much praise… you’re wrong to be concerned. It’s a service to film and to viewers

Thank you! I felt insane seeing people rave about this movie

Sometimes a cheeseburger is just a cheeseburger

I hope desperately that The Menu is intended as specifically a veiled satire/critique of the film industry, because if it is instead a veiled critique of the restaurant/fine dining/food industry at large then it absurdly bad at doing so and misses many of the major issues with those cultures and the spaces they create.

With all due respect, based on your critique I think Ralph Fiennes would’ve turned you into a s’more.

11:18 sums it up. thanks man.

I thought it was the funniest film involving rich people being stuck on an island that came out in 2022.

Bro. Bro you ARE Tyler

I thought I was watching an episode of goosebumps. That would have been awesome if everyone started laughing when she escaped the island by herself but that was not so...

I actually really liked the movie but I couldn't shake the feeling that they had one scathing review once and this was their response

It's a little negative to say we don't think this movie has anything to say. Especially when so many people found an important message repentant. 12:45 ish

I thought The Menu was good up until the end. It would've worked better if the dinner patrons were actual horrible people but besides that one group of businessmen and Nicholas Hoult's character none of them were that bad. I guess maybe that was the point but I thought the ending would have the Chef let them all go. Anya Taylor Joy's character was also kinda bland maybe it was the way it was written or her performance but I just found her character dull so I never really rooted for her

tortillas deliciosas

I wonder if the directors of The Menu love Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen...

I think you missed the point of the things you're complaining about. The movie isn't dismissing critics in general, or making some marxist class analysis, or saying art shouldn't be engaged with. It's explicitly criticizing the process through which art is made exclusive, an empty symbol of status to be consumed by people to show off their high place in society. The rich people (both the married couple of regulars, the trio of financial speculators and the washed out actor) represent that wealth and high status being expressed through the shallow consumption of something exclusive. The duo of food critics represent the trend setters and gate keepers, determining what is and isn't worthy of being considered a status symbol, marking places and experiences to be made exclusive and creating sophisticated jargon to separate the haves from the have-nots. Tyler is someone who shouldn't be there, who is of lower status and can't afford to be there but ho is obsessed with all this high status crap. He doesn't care about good, enjoyable food, he's just obsessed with absorbing every bit of data of a high-class, exclusive experience in the wish that having absorbed such knowledge and regurgitating it approvingly will gain him access. Finally, there's Margot and the cheese burger that represent the massive pile of bullshit everything is by just asking a simple meal she can enjoy. And I know all this because the movie says as much. The chef's reason to hate all these people is that they've turned him into a symbol of their status. Nobody cares about the food he prepares, except for Tyler who gets all the ingredients and techniques right but the motivations behind it wrong. He rants against the food critic who destroys restaurants for not complying with her standards, for feeding his ego and elevating him to that point where only these rich people can buy his food and then destroying his life as she pleases. He interrogates the wealthy married couple, complaining they've been there more times they can remember but still don't remember a single thing he has cooked for them, even though he explains his meals every time. In the breadless bread plate scene, when the financiers ask for bread Elsa tells them "you will get less than you want and more than you deserve", then their tortillas show all the illegal schemes they used to get rich defrauding people, showing he sees them as scum that doesn't deserve what he makes but can still be there simply because of their wealth.

It's not insanely offensive, if anything, tearing it apart is like a fun game of chess. But yeah it did very little to shake its Adam McKay stink

It's remarkable how this video misinterprets such a simplistic film. Like it's about enjoying what you enjoy regardless of peer pressure. It's not that deep, yet this video misunderstands that basic message. How?

NGL this shit was hard to follow. I don't think anyone here understood what your message was.

i think by focusing solely on filmmaking, you missed what the movie was trying to say about art in general. rich people only care about pretentious art because it validates them and gives them a chance to show off their wealth. “you pay for the experience” as one character says. meanwhile, the artist, has became a shell. losing the passion and lower class he had in order to make higher class art no one cares about. the rich people didn’t care about the food, they cared about the reputation. the cheeseburger was bringing slowick back to his roots and validating that art as good and nourishing. i saw it more as a metaphor for how society asks artists to make a24 art, make abstract mood pieces and says “you know what? i want to make a simple movie. a cheeseburger. and that’s okay too.” bc the writers are working hollywood people. not a list celebs. the cheeseburger was good because t was made with love and passion. and maybe being a fry cook is all slowik wanted to be

My take on The Menu was that it felt like a made for TV movie from the 1970's. Cheaply made, cheaply written, but trying oh so hard to be an artful masterpiece of a movie by throwing in some dark social commentary. Anybody remember "Bad Ronald"?

Everyone is allowed an opinion and I didn't agree with practically everything you said.

This movie bored me to death. If that's what the producers were aiming for, they accomplished that 100%. The characters are bland, you can't relate to any of them. You can't even understand the true purpose of the "villain". Most of the movie's script is just small-talk. And the shock value of the movie wasn't even shocking because the movie takes ages to go somewhere and then when it does go somewhere there aren't really major consequences, as well as plot twists that don't even change the course of the story, everything goes back to the same direction after the so called plot twist. No matter the elevated idea they were trying to convey, you cannot do it if you don't follow at least the basics of script writing and character development. I wouldn't be surprised if even the actors were bored while filming. It's just a bad script overall and that breaks everything else.

I can understand you not thinking Hoult was good- but Anya was very enjoyable

I love this I don't understand the hype at all

That's the very reason I clicked on this. You put into words exactly what I felt and thought so perfectly. Thank you. I just didn't know how to feel or think about this piece of work for a couple of weeks now.

Agree to disagree. While the movie is yes, pretentious at times, it's enjoyable and in no way is it attacking you for critiquing it. I can sense that you're being defensive when this movie wasn't even going for film critics.

Great take

2:55 there was a pedophile dad? I think I have to rewatch the movie, this fact was erased entirely from my mind.

i really admire you for this video. nobody is sharing their hot takes like this anymore and for this you slay

I enjoyed it.

seems they forgot the golden rule, ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

thank you i was scouring the internet for a bad review, as everyone seems to love it

L

Probably not liking for agreeing, but only for the algo because I overall support the channel ✌🏼

I'm just gonna say art is subjective and everyone has the right to have their opinions but I just don't agree with this video. Watched it in the cinema knowing nothing about it and I was blown away!

This guy didn't like the message of the Menu but thought Crimes of the Future had something meaningful to say? Foolishness

It’s so interesting that the people who think the film is pretentious and shallow were going into it expecting it to be so much deeper than it ever intended to be. The film outright tells you to just enjoy the ride, and yet you insist on overanalyzing it to death and you’re left wondering why you find nothing to analyze. YOU are Tyler. This film is about YOU.

I’m sorry, I very much disagree. And it seems like most of us do too…

Is it hard not enjoying so many things?

The Menu WAS fun. "Student loans?" "N-no." "I'm sorry, you're dying."

Whilst I really like your reviews, I think you’ve completely misunderstood the cheeseburger scene. This was not the film’s way of saying “the blue curtains don’t mean anything.” Rather it was that Cheeseburgers were an example of the kind of food that Chef used to make when he had passion for cooking, and wasn’t just obsessively cooking for food critics. It didn’t have to be a cheeseburger. It could have been a far more complicated dish. But the point was Chef had an actual passion for making it. He was making it so that it tasted good. And more importantly, making it for an ordinary service worker actually grateful for eating it.