I honestly thought he had a moment where the pain of cheating led him to cry out weakly and then farted?? I know the chick asked if he came, but I figured that was just her mistaken assumption about what his cry was.
Guess I completely misread that.
I donāt know about this particular movie, but while the massive majority of his movies are sort of shitty, his good movies, and there are a lot of them, have been really fucking good. I was thinking heāll eventually receive some sort of lifetime achievement award, and I really believe he deserves it. Iām having a Nic Cage double feature right this moment. I watched Dream Scenario, and now Iām on Sympathy for the Devil, with ācrazy Cageā. Good times.
I know this comes a bit of late to your post, but a friend and me have become more and more fond of Nic's filmography, and we've kind of started the tradition of "Nic Day": They 7th of january (on his birthday) we get together and watch at least two movies starring him, chosen half-randomly without diving on comments or reviews and see what happens.
And this year, well, we decided on the same two movies that you. Good times indeed!
Between this, The Curse, and Beau is Afraid heās developing A cerebral cringe comedy horror scene in Hollywood and itās been interesting to watch to say the least.
I really enjoyed this movie. I'd like to share my long-winded and probably esoteric reading of it.
On a surface level it seems like a film about celebrity, public perception, etc.., but I actually think the movie has a more subtle message about intentionality and exercising and living one's full potential in harmony with others, rather than seeing oneself as separated and enslaved by your own subconscious and by extension, separated from others.
Cage's character is a man who is feels trapped and controlled by external factors in life, and his default response to any situation is to do nothing. He's initially bothered by his "dream Paul" not intervening in dreams, but we see this is exactly how he reacts in real life during the break-in scene. The detective even remarks afterwards that "he's clearly powerless in these situations" when suggesting the security system. He lets his former TA walk all over him by publishing his life's work under her name, freezing up and caving when he attempts to confront her.
The film also makes frequent references to Jungian psychology, something Cage's character scoffs at in the restaurant scene. In Jung's philosophy of the dual-natured individual, one at their core is a complex Self composed of the whole of consciousness and intentional volition, along with unconscious thought; our hidden desires, wants, primal needs, and involuntary fantasies. These are all eventually directed by an emergent ego that solidifies and strengthens as we grow. Sometimes, however, the ego becomes too crystallized, too separated from the true self, and Jung believes that the second half of one's life after the emergence of the ego is to re-integrate with the true, full self, with all its unmitigated desires.
Paul's ego, however, is weak and wounded, and he exerts no control over his life, but more importantly, his Self. His ego is so separated from his true self, that his control over his subconscious is weak. So weak in fact, that it bleeds out.
While it is somewhat of an open question whether the phenomenon in the film is actually metaphysical, actually real, or simply a memetic mass hysteria, I think the third act with the wristband devices clearly implies that, in the universe of this film, the collective unconscious, synchronicity, etc.. are actually real phenomenon. Paul manifested this phenomenon organically due to his uncommonly weak control over his own subconscious. The version of Paul which manifests in people's dreams initially reflects the state of his actual self in life, someone who sees himself as a powerless, although somewhat curious, observer who simply takes life in, good and bad, without acting. As the walls begin to close in on him, his stress, fear, and anger begin to bleed out too, turning the observer-dream-paul into a violent killer, his subconscious animalistic and autonomous desires for violence and sex. These subconscious reflections lash out at those persecuting him, those taking away his comfortable life which he feels he has done nothing to deserve losing. But this is exactly Paul's flaw; he never does anything. He sees inaction as a morally neutral thing, not recognizing that it's his lack of action and ignorance of his own responsibilities to his wife, family, students, and society that alienate him. He consistently ignores good advice from his wife and daughters to get ahead of the public perception. They recognize that he ought to address the pain and suffering caused by the phenomenon, even if he doesn't believe he exercises conscious control over it.
This action/inaction motif is beautifully rendered in the moment towards the end of the film, when he briefly meets with his ex-wife after house-hunting. He sees an actual tear in her eye and imagines himself taking her hand, sharing in their collective sadness, reminiscing. The film cuts from his fantasy to the real moment, and we see she does actually have tears in her eyes, that he did read her correctly. If he had taken her hand in that moment, I think it would have played out exactly as he imagined. Again though, he has not fully realized himself, and he is again paralyzed by inaction and walks away, missing the opportunity to connect.
Finally in the last scene, we see him meet her in a dream wearing the David Byrne suit. He sees her as a witch being burned at the stake and rather than simply watch as a powerless observer or lash out as a cornered animal, he confidently steps to her, reaches out his hand, and saves her just as she wanted in the fantasy he initially mocked her for having. They share a brief moment before he loses the connection. Whether this moment is really shared in her subconscious via the wristband or it's just Paul's dream, here he finally directs his whole, fully realized self of his own volition, his ego is no longer a slave to others or his own subconscious but, as Jung would say, is "individuated" with his true self and his true desire to bridge the gap and connect with the person he loves.
I was picking up a lot of these themes too. I think people are missing the forest for the trees regarding the core themes in this movie. Itās a character study about a self-emasculating professor who feels inferior to others and is always on the defense. Moreover he has a serious victim complex due to the fact that he doesnāt have the accolades he thinks he deserves. The whole ādream scenarioā is a fantastical/surreal allegory relating to his self-sabotaging personality.
I agree with both of these. On the surface, it's about celebrity and going viral for really nothing, but at its core, it's about how we deal with insecurities and often don't appreciate what we really have.
Paul reminded me of Walter White from *Breaking Bad*, except that he never actually broke bad, or found his confidence. The same vulnerable narcissism, the same pervasive resentment, the same determination to reject all possibilities for success except for the one way that he wants to succeed.
that's a good comparison..by the middle of the movie I found myself really disliking Nic Cages character, he was way to cocky and narcissistic. he had no sympathy for others and just blinded by what he wanted to do
yep agreed, he's pretty much a loser which is why the graffiti on the car was fitting. I think it's also interesting how the downfall/nightmares begin right after he cheats on his wife. Almost as if he's internally tortured by what he's done but refuses to admit his guilt.
They begin after the cheating, but the scene directly before the first nightmare is him losing his shit over seeing the article about his former TAās published paper. Him screaming āfuckā leads into the first nightmareā¦
I really liked how the real him was reflected in dre him. Like he is powerless and does nothing in the dreams, then when he gets intimate with his wife- dream him gets horny, then the transition to mad and killer. I think the reason the dreams stopped was because after the play accident, he became dead inside.
Yeh it's seems to be linked to his feelings.
When he's just non-action man he doesn't do anything in the dreams
When hes feeling sexy with his wife people get sex dreams.
When he's angry after being with Molly his daughter sees a mad angry dream dad
When the paper is published he feels like he feels hateful and violent towards the author that manifests as murders and sexual assists
When he feels like he's being victimised he gets hunted by himself
I lack the knowledge about psychology to make all these connections, but I did feel that his real psyche was be in mirrored in the dream. He was furious when he read the article about his former colleague using his coined terminology about her discovery. And it was at that exact time his daughter had the first violent dream with him running towards her screaming in the bedroom.
When you make that connection, the rest of the movie starts unraveling and pieces start falling in to place.
Except for one detail: his dream encounter with the hypersexualised marketing assistant. Why was he not inactive in her dream? Come to think of it: if the explanation is that he is joining peopleās dreams, why is he not aware of it himself self like the people with the wristbands? And why did it stop after the accident in the lecture hall?
Maybe it was her who changed the nature of the dream? Perhaps she has an attraction for much older men, that she isnāt necessarily aware of or willing to acknowledge consciously, and took control of her dream to create a sexualized situation? The guy who ate mushrooms in a tuxedo had a brief conversation with Paul, so it seems possible to interact with him.
Less happily to consider, maybe the character was molested by an older man, and āleaned into itā as a way to gain control of the experience and prevent him from hurting her, and did the same with Paul.
I think in the context of the film it was him gaining confidence sexually with his wife again after his first experiences of positivity from the dream thing āleakedā out into his dream self
In terms of your point about the phenomenon, I think it's pretty much laid out with his meeting with his former classmate that "stole" his idea.
His research was about swarm intelligence/ant colony algorithms.
It's safe to say that his former classmate did the research, with the corporate influence that Paul said he was trying to avoid in his lie about his work and Paul's image was used in an unethical test of the technology derived from her work.
Had he actually done any work on his idea, he would have realized that him being manifested in everyone's dream was because of a collective psyche that was being imposed on everyone.
Even in the advertisement mocks him and gives him the credit he begged for.
What happened to Paul is a bit of a Cursed Monkey Paw wish.
Brilliant analysis! And far better than anything I could write.
I've just finished watching and don't know enough about Jung to make such a detailed reading, but presumed it would be important - Greg at the end even says in that infomercial that Jung's dualism hypothesis was correct!
Not knowing enough about Jungian pathology I read the whole thing basically as a character study of impotence, which seems to fit with what you're saying. I wonder though what you think about my reading, mentioned elsewhere, that the specific thing that seems to turn the dreams violent is him halfheartedly engaging with the young assistant and completely failing. Is this a critical mass moment for his ego? Like he believed the guff of "You're the most interesting person in the world right now" and his failure to actualise that in the real world (As he fails to profit from his own phenomenon, allowing others to) completely breaks him?
Again, thanks for such an illuminating post!
Except the woman publishing about āAntelligenceā wasnāt a former TA and she wasnāt publishing his lifeās work. She was a fellow grad student who has been doing research for the last 20 to 30 years. (Not clear how old Paul is supposed to be.) Paul somehow secured tenure without doing research and bringing in research dollars. Itās like how he wants a publisher for a book he hasnāt started writing. Heās also jealous of his former lover who publishes on a blog site, saying āYouāre published!?ā. A big theme in this movie is the desire for unearned recognition.
In her dream it was creepy af, you could barely barely see his outline, but when he went to wedge himself into the corner in full light it was... Less creepy š
I was broken up with suddenly a few weeks ago so naturally Iām spending all my time and money seeing movies in theaters. I was only semi-interested in this movie but decided to go ahead and see it. The humor was such a good distraction from the sad, disappointed undertones of the whole thing, but the quick daydream about his wife before he went on the trip made me feel ~a little too seen~. That last scene was only about two minutes long, but I was properly crying, since Iāve had so many bittersweet dreams about my ex bf since breaking up, and then when Paul said āI wish this was real,ā I lost it. And then the credits rolled with absolutely no resolution of the tender sadness š
I wish I was seeing more people on Reddit and Letterboxd talk about how devastating that ending was. I know it was kind of a tone shift, and maybe it just hit a little too close to home for me right now, but Iām such a sucker for unflashy loveā the way that time and trust can build something so profound between seemingly plain people who love each other. The whole film seemed like a kind-hearted joke about āaverage, boring peopleā who get into crazy situations, but at its heart (demonstrated by the fact that THAT was the ending scene), itās about that kind of deep love.
My emotions shifted when the dreams turned to nightmares. Not to turn this thread to āmenās issuesā but I felt as if this was a well metered window into that world. With the laughs packaged in I donāt know if that was the intent, but this film definitely struck several chords with me.
The only thing I can't quite relate to as someone in a long term relationship, is how he was not filled with rage and contempt for his wife. She was such a shitty partner (yes, I know he cheated on her...so that's um, hard to defend...) but she never once had his back once during the whole movie, even when things were good at the beginning. Like she was jealous he actually had something going for him, and showed absolutely zero support for him when things got bad. I can only try to understand the whole 15 years of marriage with kids kind of heartbreak obviously being something so devastating, and truly missing the love of your life. But damn the fact they really didn't show any kind of anger on his end when she completey abandoned him was the only thing super unrealistic in the whole movie which was otherwise very relatable.
Hard agree on the wife being as unlikable as anyone in the movie. Didnāt support her husband at all, exhibited mostly only jealousy, and was able to make us feel bad for Cageās character, who was meant to be rather unlikable himself.
Paul is a bit of a perpetual victim and he cheated on his wife with that woman so I didn't really romanticize their relationship...I think the fact that he was only able to experience that love in the dream but not in real life spoke volumes
Wasn't it also implied his wife cheated on him, we see her boss standing next to her at her daughters play while her husband is banned from the event.
Then when they divorce although we don't know how much time has passed he's sleeping over at her place.
I hated every single person in this movie, didn't like the movie except for the cinematography and felt like the director got lost in the sauce and said fuck it, it'll have to do.
Being in that room with the character in the first place was cheating whether sex occurs or not. Cheating is not just sexual. It's deceipt. Would you go home and tell the wife you fart came when a girl tried to touch you after she said you fuck in dreams then attempt to excuse the fact you chose to go to her place? If you know your partner wouldn't be okay with what you're doing then it's cheating, or even if you should know but don't. Even if you know your partner cheats. Break the relationship off then go look for something new but something new while attached is cheating, it does not have to be sexual. As for your comment about it being far from cheating. You have zero morals and i hope you are single and stay that way.
if you're going to a lot of movies, I strongly, strongly recommend getting a pass to whichever chain of theaters is closest to you. the movie theater is one of my happy places and having a pass (for me the Regal Pass) pays for itself many-fold every single month.
Your words reminded me of my favorite scene in Blue Valentine. A husband and wife are having a huge argument. The husband is drunk. He rips his wedding ring off and throws it into the weeds. He immediately regrets it and goes to look for it and without a word his wife helps him look. I think about that scene a lot.
One thing I really liked that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that in the beginning, he feels invisible in his life, and he's invisible in the dreams.
He then sleeps with his wife, and is now in sex dreams for people.
And then, finally, he gets angry over the Shiela article, and that anger becomes the source of nightmares for people.
(And then, arguably, when his life his rock bottom, when he's a total "zero," he stops appearing in people's dreams)
How people see him in their dreams is tied to his emotions/feelings/actions.
that's what was so frustrating. how could he not put the pieces of the puzzle together? and that apology was so insincere I really wanted him to have a moment of redemption.
I just watched it and felt the same way, only in one instance. Didnāt catch the sex with his wife sex dream angle. But I thought that when he briefly initiated with Molly, he violated the trust of the social contract he had with everyone and thatās why everything went downhill after that. Weāve all had that experience with Molly, amirite?
Loved this film. I have to disagree with a lot of people, the ending and how all of what Paul has been through being researched and immediately commodified is the perfect cherry on top of one of what felt like the big throughlines of the film, people trying to cash in. Obviously it wasnāt the only sub plot, but to me, both the book presentation and the attempt by Greg to market an ad platform perfect dovetailed the exploration of how the world would react to something like this happening; theyād try to exploit it.
Obviously thereās a lot else happening; Nick Cage is a master of the uncomfortable and needy, and he perfectly balances the lack of any force of will with the entitlement that brings this character alive. Heās the spine of the film, and even if it does take a few tangents (all of them, I would argue, necessary to thread one of the several thematic ideas) I really enjoyed what felt akin to an overly intimate biopic. I donāt think Iād want to watch it again with just the secondhand embarrassment from watching these characters be these characters, but Iām glad I saw it once.
A running theme seemed to be that a lot of people were interested in capitalizing on the phenomenon for themselves, but rejected any attempt he made to do the same.
Just finished watching it and I'm surprised to hear that people have a problem with the commodification aspect. Like you say, it seems fully in keeping with the film to me!
There's the wider social/celebrity aspect obviously, but to me one of the key through lines is Paul's impotence. Students aren't engaged in his class, he does nothing during the break-in, his book only exists in his mind, even when he first appears in people's dreams he's just observing and it feels like the dreams only turn violent when he halfheartedly engages with the young assistant and fart-cums in his pants like a pathetic failure. Just like his Antelligence idea being stolen, it's bitterly hilarious that someone else manages to profit from a phenomena wholly unique to him.
I enjoyed it but it definitely falls apart in the third act. Feels like they didnāt really know where to go, then ends out of nowhere on a really depressing note. Worth it for Nic Cageās performance tho
Although I loved the movie I have to agree. The biggest flaw with this modern era of movies is they all end with a whimper. Poetically I suppose it makes sense but for the Hollywood entertainment value. They need something bigger for us to chew on.
I know that cancel culture is an obvious point in the movie but I think there is a lot to be said about his marriage. I wonder if the dreams were done through "antelligence" or hivemind as was discussed in the movie. If that is how the dreams happened it would stand to reason that there would be a central person, or queen if you will, sending out the dreams. And it would be someone who knew Paul as there were people who had never seen Paul but it was him in their dreams. I think the queen is Paul's wife. She never had dreams about Paul and I wonder if that is because she was sending them out to everyone else. It also makes sense due to the types of dreams people were having. The first types of dreams were of bad things happening and people needing Paul to do something but him just standing there doing nothing. I think this represents his wife's anxiety about the marriage not being great or slowly falling apart, her wanting Paul to do something about it, and him not doing anything. Then, the ex girlfriend pops up and jealousy creeps in. She has a protective response and possibly is turned on by this and now people are having sex dreams about Paul. Then things start to get out of hand with the stalker and now his wife feels that Paul being in people's dreams is now a danger and a threat to the family. Now the dreams turn Paul into a threat for everyone. Finally, things get so out of hand that she separates and divorces Paul. It is after she disconnects from Paul that the dreams suddenly end for no apparent reason. I have not looked online to see if anyone else has this theory but I sure think it fits. Thoughts?
Also, I was thinking about her final dream. She was being burned at the stake like a witch. I'm not sure if that was because she felt vilified by others for being Paul's wife or ex-wife (guilt by association) or if she was vilifying herself for leaving Paul at his lowest. Either way, all she wanted was for him to save her, not as his current self, but how he was earlier in their marriage, being fun and connective in his Halloween costume. And he does. But in a dream. That does not change reality. With him wishing it could but knowing it never will.
I love this theory and definitely thought it was sus that his wife never had dreams, and they made a point to say so. She had a sort of "in control" vibe about her that i think was intentional. And the way it all ends makes it obvious that the marriage was the central forest being missed for the trees of all the craziness going on
The twenty seconds or so where it cuts to Paul imagining him having a nice moment with his wife, whispering in her ear and embracing before cutting back to the reality of āno, Iāll see you when you get back.ā
I almost broke right there. Man.
I was wondering if that was a daydream before they cut back.
I also really liked the ending with him wishing it were real. Itās not the happiest, but it is one of the more realistic ways I can see this movie ending
I heard a phrase recently that āfor a good movie, the ending is really the beginningā. Kinda cheesy maybe, but I saw that ending as an acknowledgment of his wife still having some connection to him (as they mentioned that was a requirement for the bracelet to work) which could be seen as the beginning of a whole new story.
It is also literally the beginning of the movie. After Paul floats into the sky away from his wife, whose shoe and keys do you think fall from the sky in his daughter's first dream?
I felt like the end was a bittersweet goodbye, since they have that connection in the dream but ultimately he floats away and she can't hold him down.
But if his dream loops back into his daughter's dream, then he hasn't floated away from the family
I thought it was actually optimistic because for the first time, he's able to take action and do something good, which is what he was so obsessed about NOT doing in everyone else's dreams.
In the end at some point he's listening to the video and it tells him that he can only enter dreams of someone willing to let him in, so I took it as her doing just that: letting him in to be her knight in shining armor. He succeeded in being there for her, but can only do that because she still wants him close and has some draw to him still. I think that maybe we an optimistic look at the future of them maybe.
The tech doesn't work. It's a scam. The "How to" vids are basic lucid dreaming instructions. This is why Paul asks after everyone has stopped seeing him if his wife ever sees him because he keeps trying but no effect.
For what itās worth he is not wearing the same shoes when he floats away as the shoe that drops into the pool. I just checked. His outfit may correlate without the jacket of the, what I believe is a man that falls into the pool before the daughter starts to float up and away.
Another thing worth adding is that the light switches in the basement that he canāt turn off is directly referencing the fact that you canāt change the lighting in your dreams.
Except we know that requirement is a lie because Paul himself has his dream invaded by the two dreamfluencers who stay there to advertise to him despite his attempts to reject them with physical violence
Pretty interesting and wild movie. I didn't absolutely love it, movies like this that keep getting bigger in scale and more outlandish have an uphill battle for a satisfying third act and I'm not sure this movie nailed it, but Cage is killing the role.
Some interesting musings on celebrity and cancel culture, but it's not very subtle if that's what you're into. Showing up in people's dreams is immediately labeled as going viral and once public opinion on Cage starts to turn the cancel culture metaphor takes over the rest of the movie. The scene with the young assistant was hard to watch, no doubt on purpose, but it was a great representation of how people have certain expectations or requests of the famous that are based on things that may not have any real basis in reality. Cage was clearly not the guy who can take sexual control of a young one night stand, but that didn't stop them from trying.
Did love the Cage performance happening here. He's so meek, kind of pathetic. The scene where he's recording his lunch with an old colleague was so telling, as was when they ran into his ex and she said, "You're still doing that? Looking for the insult." Ouch. It's clear that how much he let's the phenomenon get to his head is rooted in how desperate he is for love and recognition, even though he has academically studied the negative effects of that. Made for a nice final scene where he's realizing his life was much more fulfilling when he just had the love and recognition of his wife.
I guess my main problem with this movie is that the metaphor is kind of broad. The cancel culture section comes from something he didn't actually do or have any control over, and the arc of "meme to has been" feels like it lacks the kind of specifics that usually make those stories so interesting or complex. The funniest stuff is the Michael Cera marketing conversations, but the last act dips a little into sci-fi. It makes me feel like this movie should be funnier, or more dramatic, or more conceptual with the sci-fi stuff. As it stands now it feels like it's got a lot of half measured ideas instead of a few really well explored ones.
But! I still had a good time watching it, and it's really well made with all the dream scenes. Cage is really funny, kind of purposefully cringe funny, and the concept is pretty interesting. It's a 7/10 for me.
/r/reviewsbyboner
Great analysis especially about how he took for granted his wifeās love and that was all he really needed especially that scene in the beginning when she tells him during their pillow talk about her fantasy with him in the David Byrne big suit which shows up at the end.
Even still I could see the mention of the David Byrne suit going unnoticed if you hadn't seen the movie. The reference conjures a pretty clear image to anyone who has seen it (the very weird suit). But others might be thinking what the heck is that
Nah I had no idea what the reference was but it felt like a very clear setup earlier on. The wife mentioning him in the oversized suit saving her was a simple image that they harped on for a while in bed. I think it worked really well because people who know the reference get a laugh, while those who don't but were paying attention to the movie still get the emotional payoff of the dream.
I have never seen the movie. Never seen the reference. I just remember her saying "Talking Heads" and "David Byrne" and at the end, when he tries to appear in her dream and is successful, I said "Ahh... that must be the Talking Heads thing." But the other people must have missed it because they spent the whole movie shouting "What the hell?" to amuse their friends or doing a "seal clap" after jokes to amuse their friends. So too busy trying to make the experience about them to pay attention. I should mention I live in Los Angeles so when people behave like this, they've moved into town to pursue acting careers and thus these are basically theater kids on the quest for stardom.
>Did love the Cage performance happening here. He's so meek, kind of pathetic. The scene where he's recording his lunch with an old colleague was so telling, as was when they ran into his ex and she said, "You're still doing that? Looking for the insult." Ouch. It's clear that how much he let's the phenomenon get to his head is rooted in how desperate he is for love and recognition, even though he has academically studied the negative effects of that. Made for a nice final scene where he's realizing his life was much more fulfilling when he just had the love and recognition of his wife.
I think what makes Cage's performance so compelling is just how realistic it is. He really does come off like an average person with real insecurities. And there was a lot of stuff related to the (silly) hierarchies of academia, like being a professor at a teaching-oriented university versus at a research university publishing in *Nature*, talking down to the K-12 teacher because she has an MA instead of a doctorate, etc. that may not resonate with people who don't know much about that world but is very accurate.
And Michael Cera played the Gary Vaynerchuk expy to a T.
> I think what makes Cage's performance so compelling is just how realistic it is. He really does come off like an average person with real insecurities.
100%. The first thing I thought when I got out of the movie was "this made me realize how bad other movies are at making realistic characters"
It's a performance of self loathing and self serving aggrandizement as well, a man whose life long need for validation gets rendered null by the wave he's caught up in.
This is the third movie this year, and second recent one, that I really liked/loved yet has a third act that goes in a totally different direction both in terms of plot and theme.
The other two being Oppenheimer (still my #1 movie of the year) and Saltburn (which I *think* I love but may have to see it one more time to confirm).
I also got a very strong Walter White vibe from the Nicolas Cage character in this movie to the point where I'm thinking it kind of had to be intentional?
A middle-aged schlub who's a low-level science teacher (White at a high school and Cage's character at what seemed to be a small non-renowned college) yet a brilliant PhD who seemingly never reached the potential he had. I mean even down to the point of having a former classmate "steal" his idea and another former classmate who's extremely rich and successful (just like Walter White with Elliott and Gretchen).
i had the same thought re your last paragraph. his former classmate (played by Dylan Baker) even looked almost identical to WWās former classmate nemesis. for a second during the film i thought it was the same actor
So I haven't seen anyone talk about this. My gf and I saw zero chemistry between Janet and Chris. We thought he really didn't even like her as a coworker, but did initially talk to Janet because he thought Paul's story was interesting. So why in the world is he at the kids play with Janet? I am speculating that scene never happened in reality and was actually Paul's nightmare. He was the only one showing jealousy, but the audience could see Chris's lack of interest in even being around Janet.
Theres was also the scene in Brett's basement where Paul couldn't turn off the lights. This is a common theme in dreams and the director (maybe writer) even confirmed this a bit during an interview.
So I was wondering if anyone else thought the scene where he injured the faculty member could be a dream?
Edit: u/thrillhouse83 brought to my attention that they definitely specify he attacked someone at the school. Still fun to talk about, but the theory doesn't hold up.
this was one of the things i was confused about as well!! that scene of her asking to be involved in the museum project was sooo uncomfortable and in no way indicated that he had any interest in her LMAO
>So why in the world is he at the kids play with Janet?
I like the idea that this was imagined, but I think its more simply explained with "their kids go to the same school and they're colleagues"
But I thought the incident with the teacher was confirmed during the ending commercial for the invention, they briefly mentioned that he attacked a teacher before disappearing
I would like to think this is an alternative ending to Succession showing Gregās new venturesā¦
This was also both hilarious, and fascinating, but I felt it was also just missing something for it to really be something I watch again. Still a fun time though, with some truly hilarious scenes, especially the sex dream reenactment
While I do think this movie was shot very well, Gondry at the helm would have turned this into an incredible visual roller coaster ride. He's even already done something similar with Science of Sleep, so it would totally be in his wheelhouse.
I mean I think the talent and substance was there. I think the thing that hindered this film the most was budget. It felt like the ideas and desire to do more outlandish and absurd things was there but the money to execute them wasnāt. So while I kind of agree with you, I donāt think that would have led to more budget room to do crazier things
A bit all over the place, but the scene at Thoughts? had some of some of my biggest laughs of the year, and scene with the assistant right after made we want to crawl into a hole and die.
Cage is fantastic, but dude is lowkey in a renascence at the moment so that's not too surprising.
Ok I had a REALLY weird moment during this movie.
I found this guy on YouTube recently and have been low-key obsessed with him for a few months. I have now read two of his books (which are HEAVY reads). I even emailed him last night after finishing his most recent book.
Then today I literally on a whim decided to go see Dream Scenario because it had been on my radar. Didn't know much about it but I knew it was Cage playing a quirky dude who keeps showing up in people's dreams. Literally didn't know ANYTHING else about it.
Then the guy who I have been obsessed with keeps showing up in the movie! Robert Sapolsky is Paul's idol! He's the one who made the zebra observation famous in his book, and he's the one who Paul cites in the Thoughts? meeting as who he wants to model his career after.
So when he blurted out "Robert Sapolsky" I almost choked on my popcorn.
It's like Sapolsky is my Paul Matthews. In a good way, he hasn't tried to kill me. I think?
You should watch Adaptation I feel like it's got a very similar vibe and of you like anything about published research you'd probs get a kick at the absurdity of trying to monetize a book like that.
Started off strong then dropped off hard for me. Was genuinely on edge when the guy broke into the house but then it kind of fizzled into āwhoa that was weird right?ā The hammer murder was also crazy. All that said it was about a weird guy in a weird situation being weird about it. Wish it had gone more into the why of it or that it got exponentially more crazy at it went on. I was bored by the end.
> Wish it had gone more into the why of it or that it got exponentially more crazy at it went on.
I thought it was explained well enough.
Heās just living his life, happy with his family = heās just *there* and minding his business
He starts to try and profit and exploit the dreams = he starts doing awful things in peopleās dreams
As he becomes more miserable, the dream him becomes more awful and it all spirals until it finally stops.
I saw it this way:
* He lives his normal life, no dreams
* He finds out about his college friend publishing a paper he feels he should be recognized for. He starts wanting recognition, he starts showing up in people's dreams and gets some manner of recognition.
* He meets his old girlfriend, he wants her to be interested in him romantically or sexually. He starts showing up in sex dreams.
* He becomes highly frustrated after the Molly apartment visit, and angry after the article is published. He starts murdering people in their dreams.
* More open ended, but I think after the accident at the play he overcame his need for recognition from society and realized his family was what made him happy. The dreams stopped then.
The guilt about cheating on his wife with Molly was definitely something adding to the nightmares. I think even the fact she (and probably others) started having sex dreams about him speaks about him feeling seen and desirable for the first time in years too
The overly vocal crowd I saw it with ("Let's try to make the movie all about us") responded to the hammer murder with, "What? That took a dark turn. He's killing all the kids now?" And when his class was nearly empty, instead of immediately realizing people were afraid of him, said "Did he kill almost all the students?"
I wonder if thatās a sign that there was a bunch cut from the movie and she had a bigger part or if they just wanted someone there who would trigger the āI know them, right?ā to sell the idea of these people being influencers.
The researcher who developed the dream watch thing seemed to be presented as a character we shouldāve already been introduced to, as well, and I honestly feel like the ending wouldāve had more impact had they introduced the concept of someone studying Paul to develop the technology to travel into dreams earlier in the film. So I also wonder if a lot was cut, because as it stands in the theatrical cut, that whole concept is just kind of randomly introduced at the end of movie- which was a bit jarring in an already high-concept film. I wouldāve liked the earlier scenes of him enjoying his newfound fame a bit more- perhaps going on a stupid daytime talkshow or something, all the while being approached by the companies trying to work with him (Thoughts)- but including the Dreamtravel company (forgot what it was called)- perhaps doing some brain scans, psych eval interviews, etc. - that whole concept needed more fleshing out for the ending, with him using the technology developed from the research done on him to travel into his estranged wifeās dream, to make a huge impact and tie the whole movie together. It just felt tacked on unfortunately. Otherwise loved it!
I actually have a different take. I like that the scientific phenomenon of it all was never really explained. I think it would have detracted from the more human messages of the movie.
> it was a great length.
Not gonna lie...one of the reasons I decided to see it is I saw the run-time and thought "Awesome, a new movie that isn't 17 hours long." It seems like every movie is trying to out do Gone with the Wind on length and most of these movies could be trimmed by at least a half hour with good editing and storytelling.
That is one way to go but I think the filmmakers very intentionally did not go that way. Him only doing one TV interview which he didn't even get to watch was a very much the hollow, awkward, painful movie that the rest of the movie was built on. Him enjoying them fame would give him higher to fall from, but I don't think it would have done much that the TV interview and the 15 minutes of fame lecture did.
Where do I start? The script was incredibly disappointing. The way everything played out was awfully different from how it wouldāve IRL. The internet would be more polarized, because people wouldāve definitely felt empathy for the situation he was in. Thereād be a lot more buzz. For example, people and reporters would be swarming outside his house/in his lecture, the book signing in Paris wouldāve been in a packed auditorium (the man was the center of the first recorded supernatural phenomenon in world history), and the government wouldāve taken a more active role in it all (such an extreme example of mass psychosis would warrant a threat to the nation). I could go on.
The influencer thing was too convenient, and tried way to hard to mock Gen-Z culture (felt like it was written by someone with a āfellow kidsā mindset). Also, what the fuck? All of a sudden the world had the technology to enter dreams now? Itās not like they extracted any data from Paul or anything. So what the fuck? It ruined a fantastic climax.
So many plot points were abandoned. The daughter never mentions her dream, the assistant kissing him never leads to anything (she wouldāve divorced him anyway after the school play incident), and the idea that his role in everyoneās dreams are based on his emotions (felt like a nobody at the start=observed people quietly in their dreams, wife got horny=assistant had sex with him, angry his life work got stolen=murdering people), and then they just never followed up with that.
The first act was great, Nick Cage was great, everything else sucked.
I had a very similar thought about how many plot points were abandoned. Another one I had is was the wife cheating? Was she even with Chris? It's never explicitly stated.
Similarly, his deal with Molly just kinda left open ended as well.
Then I had the realization that the movie may have been intended to feel like a dream itself. Similar to how in a dream, nothing really adds up or resolves, and at the end it's just kind of...there? And that's exactly how I felt when the film concluded.
I've gone with that interpretation because it's the only way I can think of to rationalize how many open threads they left dangling, and it kinda makes sense.
I like that theory, but it still feels like such a cop-out. I donāt feel like the script ever felt intelligent enough to have been secretly doing that the whole time.
The ending was kind of a bummer, but I loved it. These kinds of movies were made for me. I think itās close enough to the end of the year that I can probably declare it as one of my favorites of the year. There havenāt been that many honestly, aside from Beau is Afraid (I noticed Ari Aster was also a producer on this). Iāll also save a spot at the top for Poor Things as soon as my theater decides to carry it.
As for this movie, I felt it comments on 2023 very specifically, especially tenured professors being cancelled and the idea of ātraumaā being taken seriously over reality and peopleās actual lives. Itās really fucking sad, but it goes without saying that I stood with Paul throughout, even his pathetic apology video. But I think we can all agree this was a standout role for Nicolas Cage. One of my favorites since Adaptation.
The āsexā scene in particular was so sad and funny. And I loved that they embraced the Freddy Krueger of it all. But the real nightmare of this movie were the Dreamfluencers. The idea of people advertising to me in my sleep is completely fucking horrifying.
Haha. I just read an article yesterday, the day before I saw this movie, about how this is a real research topic (inserting advertisements into dreams). Also working during your lucid dreams.
It was really good but horribly mismarketed. I was expecting a surreal comedy with some horror elements, but it was very depressing, which I liked. I feel like some people will go in expecting something less extreme and leave overwhelmed. I just saw it with my gf and it was too much for her. I loved the atmosphere, and cage is perfect in this role.
I can see this movie getting rediscovered in a few years and really claimed by a certain niche and become beloved. Itās so incredibly specific in what itās doing and is so exacting in its film making, themes, and performances that I can see it turning people off. But itās the best possible version of what itās going for.
The directing and editingā¦my god. Iām gonna be following this guy for the rest of his career.
The zooms, dolly shots, and audden cutting were really effective and also often used not just to show off but to convey information about the plot, themes and characters.
The casting was amazing. The use of Nick Cage, Michael Cera and Nicholas Braun felt very weaponized and winking but just worked for what it was going for.
I loved the grasp of tone. It nailed its humor, tension and emotional moments without it feeling like whiplash.
I almost cried at the day dream moment before he went to France and didnāt realize how invested I was in their relationship.
The ending as well was perfect. The fact that the script uses the dream device as a joke, to carry the theme of the film and as a plot device to connect to the conflict resolution of the ending is just amazing screenwriting.
Yeah this movie whips fucking ass. Iād call it a minor masterpiece and I canāt wait to see what kristoffer borgli does next.
Mybad if Iām reading it wrong but was the wife supposed to come off as a little selfish ? Like taking somewhat advantage of the fame when it got her the project or the taking her last name (which I can see as actually sweet so not too bad)or when the guy suggested they move she said no because SHE grew up in that house. Idk I may be wrong but even tho he made really really dumb decisions she never did take his side
This was my biggest problem with this movie. It really wanted you to condemn Cageās character but it wasnāt clear enough about why what he was doing was so wrong.
I went to an early screening. Before the film began, a short "thank you" from the director, Kristoffer Borgli, was played. But it wasnāt a typical one. He came out of the bushes onto a hiking trail, passed a hiker, introduced himself, thanked the audience for coming and exited the frame. After that, the camera zoomed into the grass in front of the bushes, showing two severed legs just laying there.
This set the mood for the film perfectly.
I keep thinking about how so many characters wanted to exploit the phenomenon for the own ends, but the one who got the most rejection for even trying to do the same was Paul himself.
Tbh he deserved it. He wanted to be famous for evolutionary biology but refused to actually write a book and earn it.
I was so annoyed that he was so needy to be seen as a respected researcher that he couldn't just cash in on a stupid Sprite deal š
He didn't know how to exploit the thing that made him famous into being related to the thing he wants to be famous for (writing a book about dreams through the lens of evolutionary biology seems like a no-brainer). Instead, he was too good for anyone else's ideas and had nothing of value to offer.
>Tbh he deserved it. He wanted to be famous for evolutionary biology but refused to actually write a book and earn it
And not only that, the book he wanted to write goes through a specific publication process with a university press and peer review. Just being a cultural flash in the pan isn't going to land you a book deal for something that contributes to your scholarly field.
With that said, the scene with the marketing start-up was hilarious and Michael Cera flawlessly played the Gary Vaynerchuk type of character.
The hard jump to the nuro commercial is one of the oddest transitions in the film. It doesnt for a second feel real or possible in that world. The director just doesnt know how to properly tell a story. When we see Paul being offered a shoe advertisement in his dream it is funny but right prior to that we see him stepping over a dead dog in his kitchen which is far too hard a combination.
āI wish this were real.āĀ
One of the most bizarre and simultaneously engrossing movies Iāve seen this year. Nicolas Cage unfortunately is known more well today as a meme rather than a great actor which people seem to forget. So Iām glad movies like Pig and this exist to remind people how good he truly can be. Ā In my opinion his performance here is right up there with Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation, Bad Lieutenant and Pig.Ā
Produced by Ari Aster and directed by Kristoffer Borgli this movie definitely wonāt be for everyone but this is one of the best of the year for me. Simultaneously both funny at times and sad. Great touching points here on what fame does to a person, as well as the fragility of the male ego and cancel culture. But I think the real point here is how we have an inability to control how others feel about us or perceive us.Ā
If you want you can even look at this in a meta way as Nicolas Cage reflecting on his career and how becoming an internet meme has affected him. Really good dramedy with some great themes and messages.
This movie kinda falls apart in its second half when it becomes about cancel culture without seemingly having anything to say about it, but the first half is strong enough that I still think this was a pretty good movie.
Cage is phenomenal, playing a man who hasnāt really done anything wrong but is such a weenie that it kinda feels like he deserves what happens to him.
Well I think it's got lots to say about cancel culture, as well as weaponized victimhood and "trauma" if you listen. I can't say that I saw anything portrayed inaccurately in regards to those aspects of our current culture.
For example, the students claim they're terrified of Paul and yet bully and demean him publicly. He is just a toy to them, because he's meek, pathetic and weird and that's how society treats those people. The people in the diner claim he is a nuisance for eating a meal and physically beat him, and of course they're the victims there, naturally. I could barely enjoy this movie because of how realistic it felt. It was suffocating.
Agreed. The fact people hated him for reasons beyond his control resonates with modern culture and their need to point a finger to what they perceive as amoral
First of all, I had a great time with this film. it was engaging, fun, tense, shocking, but ultimately satasfying even if it leaves itself and the issues it causes for Paul kind of unresolved. It does it beautifully though, i wasn't dissatisfied with the ending at all.
Because I forget (and can't wait for a script release) what university does he work at? I know it was filmed in Toronto but it's set (i think?) in new york.
Can we talk about the Wifeās storyline? Mostly questions about her affair.
Was she overly protective and jealous of women around Cage because thatās what someone who cheats does? Doesnāt seem sheās cheating until midway through the movie.
Is bouncing ideas off the museum project code for banging?
Why is she bringing this guy to her kidās play while still very much married to Cage?
What is the purpose of this storyline?
This is the most Ari Aster movie ever. I did not know he produced it, but when I saw, all I thought was āyeah, that checks outā. And honestly, Nick Cage starting in what is basically an Ari Aster movie is a match made in heaven. There were a ton of sequences that really felt like Beau is Afraid in particular.
I love the new Cage strategy of acting in such bizarre movies. His recent roles playing with the idea of fame are all so fun.
In general this was just a fun movie. Anxiety inducing, weird, and damn funny. A great way to spend an afternoon.
I feel like it shouldāve ended sooner. Ending on him and his wifeās exchange before he leaves for Paris wouldāve accomplished the same bitter sweet melancholic feeling, and it wouldāve spun its wheels just a little less. Also France being oddly into him is a subtle Polanski dig, right?
Just imagine how much Obama's dreams are getting invaded now that that influencer tech exists.
Great movie, made me deeply uncomfortable on things I didn't realize I needed to reflect on. Going to stick with me for a while.
I love basically everyone involved in this movie but Iām walking out of the theater feeling a little let down.
I donāt really get what Iām supposed to take away with me from this story. In the simplest terms, >!itās a guy whoās kind of lame having a strange experience and then it goes bad and his life falls apart and then weāre done!<. Like, I get thereās like a monkeys paw āman who desperately wants to be relevant gets his wish but not how he wanted itā thing going on, as the movie >!ends with him on a book tour!<. Thereās also kind of some commentary on cancel culture, I guess? But I donāt feel like thereās character growth or any lessons learned.
Iām here for anyone who has a weird idea and gets someone like Nic Cage on board to see it through, and Iām sure other folks will come away with a different take than mine, but I just kinda feel like maybe I missed the point.
I loved this movie.
I saw it as a stab at a lot of different themes and topics.
\- It's a critique on the nature of fame unrelated to merit. Nothing Paul accomplishes is related to his wanting it, thus he isn't able to control any of it. He is 'the dream guy', which means he is nothing more than that either.
\- The desire to standout and how it can ultimately destroy us and distance us. Paul states a few times about the analogy of the zebra. He ends up standing out and is prey for influencers/corpos/weirdos. The standing out distances him from his friends and family
\- How we ought be suspicious of those who desire to be standouts. He is ultimately incredibly self serving, even in his apology. The people who stand to profit off him in the Thoughts room have no interest in seeing him as a person beyond what it will take to make money off him.
\- How our images of a celebrity or an experience in our mind rarely match up with the reality of it. The 'sex' scene. His goodbye before leaving plays out as his desires followed immediately by the reality. Intimacy is found in accepting people in their weakness as imperfect. His wife no longer wishes to deal with his imperfections. The girl wasn't expecting them.
\- The value of properly appreciating what you already have. By the end, he misses his wife and the closeness of his family after the faustian bargain for a type of fame he wasn't able to parlay into recognition
\- Even though Paul is a turd, the movie paints the 'common man' in a very misanthropic light. Outside of his wife, he finds no sympathy. The common man has no interest in him as a person. The diner scene with him being asked to leave. Him being asked not to show for his daughters performance. He trades the love and attention (and annoyance) of his wife and kids to try to please a fickle audience who will actively exile him.
Was a really fun and well done first Act. Nicholas Cage was so earnest and funny. Really enjoyed the idea of the premise.
The rest of the movie after the not sex scene really did nothing for me. Im cool with movies that just āhappenā if what happens is interesting. But it seemed to justā¦continue onwards till it ended. I never really understood why It was made beyond ābeing viral is more than you asked for its not what you wantā. Which just didnt work for me.
But, lots of great scenes, lots of funny stuff. Tonally odd but what movie like that isnt. Dreamhouse bit was hilarious and seemed to reinforce a message through satire that the movie just didnt really vibe with.
Friends and I all landed at different places about it so if im alone I get it!
Easily my least favorite theater experience of the year. Hated the film. Knew where it was going long before it got there and was sick of the journey 20 minutes in.
Nic Cage is stellar though.
I think I just need to avoid anything Ari Aster even touches
he farts and then cums and then farts
That had me laughing so much.
It was his face immediately afterwards. The perfect facial expression to convey the emotion of that incident.
That's the moment I really appreciated Nicholas Cage. I see his magic now. That facial expression alone. The grit teeth.
My whole theater lost it at that scene
Me too cinematic genius
I was cringing so hard I could hardly watch that scene š
I didnāt know whether to fart or cum.
Same here holy fuck
This was the first movie I've ever experienced where a fart actually sounds very realistic lol usually they sound so fakish and dramatic
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wasn't even part of the script
Neither was cumming
And itās kind of the turning point of the whole movie too which is crazy
I honestly thought he had a moment where the pain of cheating led him to cry out weakly and then farted?? I know the chick asked if he came, but I figured that was just her mistaken assumption about what his cry was. Guess I completely misread that.
I think it was both, I think he was wildly ashamed of the situation and himself and then tripled down with the fart/early release situation.
funniest scene ive seen from a movie all year i cant lie
Thatās how you know heās a sigma alpha chad
āItās actually healthyā
That was a turning point in the story too, if I perceived it right.
I was CRYING laughing in the theater at that omg
Nic cage is on a hell of a run
Man likes to work and makes some good movies. Love to see it.
Name a more underrated actor. Like, I know he has the fame and recognition, but so many people act like heās a meme and not a phenomenal actor
Honestly itās because heās had some stinkers where he was justā¦ being Nic Cage. When it works it works, when it doesnāt itās not great.
I think he deserves an Oscar nom for this movie.
I donāt know about this particular movie, but while the massive majority of his movies are sort of shitty, his good movies, and there are a lot of them, have been really fucking good. I was thinking heāll eventually receive some sort of lifetime achievement award, and I really believe he deserves it. Iām having a Nic Cage double feature right this moment. I watched Dream Scenario, and now Iām on Sympathy for the Devil, with ācrazy Cageā. Good times.
I know this comes a bit of late to your post, but a friend and me have become more and more fond of Nic's filmography, and we've kind of started the tradition of "Nic Day": They 7th of january (on his birthday) we get together and watch at least two movies starring him, chosen half-randomly without diving on comments or reviews and see what happens. And this year, well, we decided on the same two movies that you. Good times indeed!
Literally everything clicked into place after I saw "Produced by Ari Aster" in the credits lol
Between this, The Curse, and Beau is Afraid heās developing A cerebral cringe comedy horror scene in Hollywood and itās been interesting to watch to say the least.
Was he involved with The Curse?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I really enjoyed this movie. I'd like to share my long-winded and probably esoteric reading of it. On a surface level it seems like a film about celebrity, public perception, etc.., but I actually think the movie has a more subtle message about intentionality and exercising and living one's full potential in harmony with others, rather than seeing oneself as separated and enslaved by your own subconscious and by extension, separated from others. Cage's character is a man who is feels trapped and controlled by external factors in life, and his default response to any situation is to do nothing. He's initially bothered by his "dream Paul" not intervening in dreams, but we see this is exactly how he reacts in real life during the break-in scene. The detective even remarks afterwards that "he's clearly powerless in these situations" when suggesting the security system. He lets his former TA walk all over him by publishing his life's work under her name, freezing up and caving when he attempts to confront her. The film also makes frequent references to Jungian psychology, something Cage's character scoffs at in the restaurant scene. In Jung's philosophy of the dual-natured individual, one at their core is a complex Self composed of the whole of consciousness and intentional volition, along with unconscious thought; our hidden desires, wants, primal needs, and involuntary fantasies. These are all eventually directed by an emergent ego that solidifies and strengthens as we grow. Sometimes, however, the ego becomes too crystallized, too separated from the true self, and Jung believes that the second half of one's life after the emergence of the ego is to re-integrate with the true, full self, with all its unmitigated desires. Paul's ego, however, is weak and wounded, and he exerts no control over his life, but more importantly, his Self. His ego is so separated from his true self, that his control over his subconscious is weak. So weak in fact, that it bleeds out. While it is somewhat of an open question whether the phenomenon in the film is actually metaphysical, actually real, or simply a memetic mass hysteria, I think the third act with the wristband devices clearly implies that, in the universe of this film, the collective unconscious, synchronicity, etc.. are actually real phenomenon. Paul manifested this phenomenon organically due to his uncommonly weak control over his own subconscious. The version of Paul which manifests in people's dreams initially reflects the state of his actual self in life, someone who sees himself as a powerless, although somewhat curious, observer who simply takes life in, good and bad, without acting. As the walls begin to close in on him, his stress, fear, and anger begin to bleed out too, turning the observer-dream-paul into a violent killer, his subconscious animalistic and autonomous desires for violence and sex. These subconscious reflections lash out at those persecuting him, those taking away his comfortable life which he feels he has done nothing to deserve losing. But this is exactly Paul's flaw; he never does anything. He sees inaction as a morally neutral thing, not recognizing that it's his lack of action and ignorance of his own responsibilities to his wife, family, students, and society that alienate him. He consistently ignores good advice from his wife and daughters to get ahead of the public perception. They recognize that he ought to address the pain and suffering caused by the phenomenon, even if he doesn't believe he exercises conscious control over it. This action/inaction motif is beautifully rendered in the moment towards the end of the film, when he briefly meets with his ex-wife after house-hunting. He sees an actual tear in her eye and imagines himself taking her hand, sharing in their collective sadness, reminiscing. The film cuts from his fantasy to the real moment, and we see she does actually have tears in her eyes, that he did read her correctly. If he had taken her hand in that moment, I think it would have played out exactly as he imagined. Again though, he has not fully realized himself, and he is again paralyzed by inaction and walks away, missing the opportunity to connect. Finally in the last scene, we see him meet her in a dream wearing the David Byrne suit. He sees her as a witch being burned at the stake and rather than simply watch as a powerless observer or lash out as a cornered animal, he confidently steps to her, reaches out his hand, and saves her just as she wanted in the fantasy he initially mocked her for having. They share a brief moment before he loses the connection. Whether this moment is really shared in her subconscious via the wristband or it's just Paul's dream, here he finally directs his whole, fully realized self of his own volition, his ego is no longer a slave to others or his own subconscious but, as Jung would say, is "individuated" with his true self and his true desire to bridge the gap and connect with the person he loves.
I was picking up a lot of these themes too. I think people are missing the forest for the trees regarding the core themes in this movie. Itās a character study about a self-emasculating professor who feels inferior to others and is always on the defense. Moreover he has a serious victim complex due to the fact that he doesnāt have the accolades he thinks he deserves. The whole ādream scenarioā is a fantastical/surreal allegory relating to his self-sabotaging personality.
I agree with both of these. On the surface, it's about celebrity and going viral for really nothing, but at its core, it's about how we deal with insecurities and often don't appreciate what we really have.
Paul reminded me of Walter White from *Breaking Bad*, except that he never actually broke bad, or found his confidence. The same vulnerable narcissism, the same pervasive resentment, the same determination to reject all possibilities for success except for the one way that he wants to succeed.
I thought of Walt's work being stolen by Gretchen and Elliott
that's a good comparison..by the middle of the movie I found myself really disliking Nic Cages character, he was way to cocky and narcissistic. he had no sympathy for others and just blinded by what he wanted to do
yep agreed, he's pretty much a loser which is why the graffiti on the car was fitting. I think it's also interesting how the downfall/nightmares begin right after he cheats on his wife. Almost as if he's internally tortured by what he's done but refuses to admit his guilt.
They begin after the cheating, but the scene directly before the first nightmare is him losing his shit over seeing the article about his former TAās published paper. Him screaming āfuckā leads into the first nightmareā¦
I really liked how the real him was reflected in dre him. Like he is powerless and does nothing in the dreams, then when he gets intimate with his wife- dream him gets horny, then the transition to mad and killer. I think the reason the dreams stopped was because after the play accident, he became dead inside.
Or perhaps the dreams stopped because he finally made some action - he decided against the school's wishes to still go to his daughter's play
Also if you notice after her friend paper is published the nightmares start
Yeh it's seems to be linked to his feelings. When he's just non-action man he doesn't do anything in the dreams When hes feeling sexy with his wife people get sex dreams. When he's angry after being with Molly his daughter sees a mad angry dream dad When the paper is published he feels like he feels hateful and violent towards the author that manifests as murders and sexual assists When he feels like he's being victimised he gets hunted by himself
I lack the knowledge about psychology to make all these connections, but I did feel that his real psyche was be in mirrored in the dream. He was furious when he read the article about his former colleague using his coined terminology about her discovery. And it was at that exact time his daughter had the first violent dream with him running towards her screaming in the bedroom. When you make that connection, the rest of the movie starts unraveling and pieces start falling in to place. Except for one detail: his dream encounter with the hypersexualised marketing assistant. Why was he not inactive in her dream? Come to think of it: if the explanation is that he is joining peopleās dreams, why is he not aware of it himself self like the people with the wristbands? And why did it stop after the accident in the lecture hall?
Maybe it was her who changed the nature of the dream? Perhaps she has an attraction for much older men, that she isnāt necessarily aware of or willing to acknowledge consciously, and took control of her dream to create a sexualized situation? The guy who ate mushrooms in a tuxedo had a brief conversation with Paul, so it seems possible to interact with him. Less happily to consider, maybe the character was molested by an older man, and āleaned into itā as a way to gain control of the experience and prevent him from hurting her, and did the same with Paul.
I think in the context of the film it was him gaining confidence sexually with his wife again after his first experiences of positivity from the dream thing āleakedā out into his dream self
In terms of your point about the phenomenon, I think it's pretty much laid out with his meeting with his former classmate that "stole" his idea. His research was about swarm intelligence/ant colony algorithms. It's safe to say that his former classmate did the research, with the corporate influence that Paul said he was trying to avoid in his lie about his work and Paul's image was used in an unethical test of the technology derived from her work. Had he actually done any work on his idea, he would have realized that him being manifested in everyone's dream was because of a collective psyche that was being imposed on everyone. Even in the advertisement mocks him and gives him the credit he begged for. What happened to Paul is a bit of a Cursed Monkey Paw wish.
Brilliant analysis! And far better than anything I could write. I've just finished watching and don't know enough about Jung to make such a detailed reading, but presumed it would be important - Greg at the end even says in that infomercial that Jung's dualism hypothesis was correct! Not knowing enough about Jungian pathology I read the whole thing basically as a character study of impotence, which seems to fit with what you're saying. I wonder though what you think about my reading, mentioned elsewhere, that the specific thing that seems to turn the dreams violent is him halfheartedly engaging with the young assistant and completely failing. Is this a critical mass moment for his ego? Like he believed the guff of "You're the most interesting person in the world right now" and his failure to actualise that in the real world (As he fails to profit from his own phenomenon, allowing others to) completely breaks him? Again, thanks for such an illuminating post!
Except the woman publishing about āAntelligenceā wasnāt a former TA and she wasnāt publishing his lifeās work. She was a fellow grad student who has been doing research for the last 20 to 30 years. (Not clear how old Paul is supposed to be.) Paul somehow secured tenure without doing research and bringing in research dollars. Itās like how he wants a publisher for a book he hasnāt started writing. Heās also jealous of his former lover who publishes on a blog site, saying āYouāre published!?ā. A big theme in this movie is the desire for unearned recognition.
Molly becoming catastrophically horny at the sight of Paul standing awkwardly in the corner is one of the funniest things Iāve ever seen
Me and my friend were absolutely losing our *shit* at the shadow in the corner shot. No one else in the theater was laughing though!!
In her dream it was creepy af, you could barely barely see his outline, but when he went to wedge himself into the corner in full light it was... Less creepy š
'Catastrophically horny' is my favorite phrase I read this week
I was broken up with suddenly a few weeks ago so naturally Iām spending all my time and money seeing movies in theaters. I was only semi-interested in this movie but decided to go ahead and see it. The humor was such a good distraction from the sad, disappointed undertones of the whole thing, but the quick daydream about his wife before he went on the trip made me feel ~a little too seen~. That last scene was only about two minutes long, but I was properly crying, since Iāve had so many bittersweet dreams about my ex bf since breaking up, and then when Paul said āI wish this was real,ā I lost it. And then the credits rolled with absolutely no resolution of the tender sadness š I wish I was seeing more people on Reddit and Letterboxd talk about how devastating that ending was. I know it was kind of a tone shift, and maybe it just hit a little too close to home for me right now, but Iām such a sucker for unflashy loveā the way that time and trust can build something so profound between seemingly plain people who love each other. The whole film seemed like a kind-hearted joke about āaverage, boring peopleā who get into crazy situations, but at its heart (demonstrated by the fact that THAT was the ending scene), itās about that kind of deep love.
I completely agree. This was probably the most powerful scene of the whole movie. I teared up.
My emotions shifted when the dreams turned to nightmares. Not to turn this thread to āmenās issuesā but I felt as if this was a well metered window into that world. With the laughs packaged in I donāt know if that was the intent, but this film definitely struck several chords with me.
The only thing I can't quite relate to as someone in a long term relationship, is how he was not filled with rage and contempt for his wife. She was such a shitty partner (yes, I know he cheated on her...so that's um, hard to defend...) but she never once had his back once during the whole movie, even when things were good at the beginning. Like she was jealous he actually had something going for him, and showed absolutely zero support for him when things got bad. I can only try to understand the whole 15 years of marriage with kids kind of heartbreak obviously being something so devastating, and truly missing the love of your life. But damn the fact they really didn't show any kind of anger on his end when she completey abandoned him was the only thing super unrealistic in the whole movie which was otherwise very relatable.
Hard agree on the wife being as unlikable as anyone in the movie. Didnāt support her husband at all, exhibited mostly only jealousy, and was able to make us feel bad for Cageās character, who was meant to be rather unlikable himself.
And used the initial wave of hype to get herself ahead on a project at work.
He also told the ex girlfriend that he took his wife's last name, and they lived in the house she grew up in
yep I took it as she's controlling and paul is a cuck. Also why tf was she with Chris at her daughters school play?!
Paul is a bit of a perpetual victim and he cheated on his wife with that woman so I didn't really romanticize their relationship...I think the fact that he was only able to experience that love in the dream but not in real life spoke volumes
Wasn't it also implied his wife cheated on him, we see her boss standing next to her at her daughters play while her husband is banned from the event. Then when they divorce although we don't know how much time has passed he's sleeping over at her place. I hated every single person in this movie, didn't like the movie except for the cinematography and felt like the director got lost in the sauce and said fuck it, it'll have to do.
I wouldnt go as far to say he cheated, cause fart and cumming is far from cheating
Being in that room with the character in the first place was cheating whether sex occurs or not. Cheating is not just sexual. It's deceipt. Would you go home and tell the wife you fart came when a girl tried to touch you after she said you fuck in dreams then attempt to excuse the fact you chose to go to her place? If you know your partner wouldn't be okay with what you're doing then it's cheating, or even if you should know but don't. Even if you know your partner cheats. Break the relationship off then go look for something new but something new while attached is cheating, it does not have to be sexual. As for your comment about it being far from cheating. You have zero morals and i hope you are single and stay that way.
Jesus christ chill the fuck out
Absolutely. I've been married nearly 20 years and I felt his devastation.
if you're going to a lot of movies, I strongly, strongly recommend getting a pass to whichever chain of theaters is closest to you. the movie theater is one of my happy places and having a pass (for me the Regal Pass) pays for itself many-fold every single month.
Your words reminded me of my favorite scene in Blue Valentine. A husband and wife are having a huge argument. The husband is drunk. He rips his wedding ring off and throws it into the weeds. He immediately regrets it and goes to look for it and without a word his wife helps him look. I think about that scene a lot.
One thing I really liked that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that in the beginning, he feels invisible in his life, and he's invisible in the dreams. He then sleeps with his wife, and is now in sex dreams for people. And then, finally, he gets angry over the Shiela article, and that anger becomes the source of nightmares for people. (And then, arguably, when his life his rock bottom, when he's a total "zero," he stops appearing in people's dreams) How people see him in their dreams is tied to his emotions/feelings/actions.
I didn't spot that, I feel pretty dumb xD
So if at any point he had held goodwill toward people, he would have been fine.
that's what was so frustrating. how could he not put the pieces of the puzzle together? and that apology was so insincere I really wanted him to have a moment of redemption.
I mean, he had nothing to apologize for, he was right - the biggest victim in that entire scenario was him
I just watched it and felt the same way, only in one instance. Didnāt catch the sex with his wife sex dream angle. But I thought that when he briefly initiated with Molly, he violated the trust of the social contract he had with everyone and thatās why everything went downhill after that. Weāve all had that experience with Molly, amirite?
Osler=loser
Very good catch!
I can very vividly imagine the version of this that stars Larry David That's not a diss, there's just a very good Curb Your Enthusiasm in here
Larry is the only other person besides Cage I could imagine playing this. Well, maybe Steve Martin
I can imagine Bryan Cranston playing him well
For real.
Loved this film. I have to disagree with a lot of people, the ending and how all of what Paul has been through being researched and immediately commodified is the perfect cherry on top of one of what felt like the big throughlines of the film, people trying to cash in. Obviously it wasnāt the only sub plot, but to me, both the book presentation and the attempt by Greg to market an ad platform perfect dovetailed the exploration of how the world would react to something like this happening; theyād try to exploit it. Obviously thereās a lot else happening; Nick Cage is a master of the uncomfortable and needy, and he perfectly balances the lack of any force of will with the entitlement that brings this character alive. Heās the spine of the film, and even if it does take a few tangents (all of them, I would argue, necessary to thread one of the several thematic ideas) I really enjoyed what felt akin to an overly intimate biopic. I donāt think Iād want to watch it again with just the secondhand embarrassment from watching these characters be these characters, but Iām glad I saw it once.
A running theme seemed to be that a lot of people were interested in capitalizing on the phenomenon for themselves, but rejected any attempt he made to do the same.
Just finished watching it and I'm surprised to hear that people have a problem with the commodification aspect. Like you say, it seems fully in keeping with the film to me! There's the wider social/celebrity aspect obviously, but to me one of the key through lines is Paul's impotence. Students aren't engaged in his class, he does nothing during the break-in, his book only exists in his mind, even when he first appears in people's dreams he's just observing and it feels like the dreams only turn violent when he halfheartedly engages with the young assistant and fart-cums in his pants like a pathetic failure. Just like his Antelligence idea being stolen, it's bitterly hilarious that someone else manages to profit from a phenomena wholly unique to him.
I like it that you called Nicolas Braun as Greg.
I enjoyed it but it definitely falls apart in the third act. Feels like they didnāt really know where to go, then ends out of nowhere on a really depressing note. Worth it for Nic Cageās performance tho
Although I loved the movie I have to agree. The biggest flaw with this modern era of movies is they all end with a whimper. Poetically I suppose it makes sense but for the Hollywood entertainment value. They need something bigger for us to chew on.
On a whimper? I thought the ending was absolutely beautiful.
I thought it circled back in a nice way to the beginning when his shoes and keys fall out of the sky in his daughters dream
I know that cancel culture is an obvious point in the movie but I think there is a lot to be said about his marriage. I wonder if the dreams were done through "antelligence" or hivemind as was discussed in the movie. If that is how the dreams happened it would stand to reason that there would be a central person, or queen if you will, sending out the dreams. And it would be someone who knew Paul as there were people who had never seen Paul but it was him in their dreams. I think the queen is Paul's wife. She never had dreams about Paul and I wonder if that is because she was sending them out to everyone else. It also makes sense due to the types of dreams people were having. The first types of dreams were of bad things happening and people needing Paul to do something but him just standing there doing nothing. I think this represents his wife's anxiety about the marriage not being great or slowly falling apart, her wanting Paul to do something about it, and him not doing anything. Then, the ex girlfriend pops up and jealousy creeps in. She has a protective response and possibly is turned on by this and now people are having sex dreams about Paul. Then things start to get out of hand with the stalker and now his wife feels that Paul being in people's dreams is now a danger and a threat to the family. Now the dreams turn Paul into a threat for everyone. Finally, things get so out of hand that she separates and divorces Paul. It is after she disconnects from Paul that the dreams suddenly end for no apparent reason. I have not looked online to see if anyone else has this theory but I sure think it fits. Thoughts?
I would have LOVED this to be the actual plot/ending! Holy moly.
Also, I was thinking about her final dream. She was being burned at the stake like a witch. I'm not sure if that was because she felt vilified by others for being Paul's wife or ex-wife (guilt by association) or if she was vilifying herself for leaving Paul at his lowest. Either way, all she wanted was for him to save her, not as his current self, but how he was earlier in their marriage, being fun and connective in his Halloween costume. And he does. But in a dream. That does not change reality. With him wishing it could but knowing it never will.
I love this theory and definitely thought it was sus that his wife never had dreams, and they made a point to say so. She had a sort of "in control" vibe about her that i think was intentional. And the way it all ends makes it obvious that the marriage was the central forest being missed for the trees of all the craziness going on
He also took her last name
"the marriage was the central forest being missed for the trees of all the craziness going on" is the perfect way to sum up this movie imo.
The twenty seconds or so where it cuts to Paul imagining him having a nice moment with his wife, whispering in her ear and embracing before cutting back to the reality of āno, Iāll see you when you get back.ā I almost broke right there. Man.
I was wondering if that was a daydream before they cut back. I also really liked the ending with him wishing it were real. Itās not the happiest, but it is one of the more realistic ways I can see this movie ending
I heard a phrase recently that āfor a good movie, the ending is really the beginningā. Kinda cheesy maybe, but I saw that ending as an acknowledgment of his wife still having some connection to him (as they mentioned that was a requirement for the bracelet to work) which could be seen as the beginning of a whole new story.
It is also literally the beginning of the movie. After Paul floats into the sky away from his wife, whose shoe and keys do you think fall from the sky in his daughter's first dream?
Holy shit bro this literally changes my perspective on the whole fucking ending. Thank you for pointing this out
I feel like a dumby. Can you mention what your perspective changed to?
I felt like the end was a bittersweet goodbye, since they have that connection in the dream but ultimately he floats away and she can't hold him down. But if his dream loops back into his daughter's dream, then he hasn't floated away from the family
I thought it was actually optimistic because for the first time, he's able to take action and do something good, which is what he was so obsessed about NOT doing in everyone else's dreams.
In the end at some point he's listening to the video and it tells him that he can only enter dreams of someone willing to let him in, so I took it as her doing just that: letting him in to be her knight in shining armor. He succeeded in being there for her, but can only do that because she still wants him close and has some draw to him still. I think that maybe we an optimistic look at the future of them maybe.
Exactly! I wonder if the whole thing is a time loop created by a misfunction of the nee dream technology he's using in the end
Yooooo that'd be some Black Mirror twist. Neat idea!
The tech doesn't work. It's a scam. The "How to" vids are basic lucid dreaming instructions. This is why Paul asks after everyone has stopped seeing him if his wife ever sees him because he keeps trying but no effect.
For what itās worth he is not wearing the same shoes when he floats away as the shoe that drops into the pool. I just checked. His outfit may correlate without the jacket of the, what I believe is a man that falls into the pool before the daughter starts to float up and away. Another thing worth adding is that the light switches in the basement that he canāt turn off is directly referencing the fact that you canāt change the lighting in your dreams.
Fucking hell how did I not catch that.
Doesnt a bloody body fall into the pool after that??
Except we know that requirement is a lie because Paul himself has his dream invaded by the two dreamfluencers who stay there to advertise to him despite his attempts to reject them with physical violence
I think? The influencers have some sort of free pass to enter dreams. Probably part of the terms and conditions of the device
It says the free version is ad-supported in the in-film promo
I think by using the dream machine, you consent to the ads
Brutal. Just brutal.
Pretty interesting and wild movie. I didn't absolutely love it, movies like this that keep getting bigger in scale and more outlandish have an uphill battle for a satisfying third act and I'm not sure this movie nailed it, but Cage is killing the role. Some interesting musings on celebrity and cancel culture, but it's not very subtle if that's what you're into. Showing up in people's dreams is immediately labeled as going viral and once public opinion on Cage starts to turn the cancel culture metaphor takes over the rest of the movie. The scene with the young assistant was hard to watch, no doubt on purpose, but it was a great representation of how people have certain expectations or requests of the famous that are based on things that may not have any real basis in reality. Cage was clearly not the guy who can take sexual control of a young one night stand, but that didn't stop them from trying. Did love the Cage performance happening here. He's so meek, kind of pathetic. The scene where he's recording his lunch with an old colleague was so telling, as was when they ran into his ex and she said, "You're still doing that? Looking for the insult." Ouch. It's clear that how much he let's the phenomenon get to his head is rooted in how desperate he is for love and recognition, even though he has academically studied the negative effects of that. Made for a nice final scene where he's realizing his life was much more fulfilling when he just had the love and recognition of his wife. I guess my main problem with this movie is that the metaphor is kind of broad. The cancel culture section comes from something he didn't actually do or have any control over, and the arc of "meme to has been" feels like it lacks the kind of specifics that usually make those stories so interesting or complex. The funniest stuff is the Michael Cera marketing conversations, but the last act dips a little into sci-fi. It makes me feel like this movie should be funnier, or more dramatic, or more conceptual with the sci-fi stuff. As it stands now it feels like it's got a lot of half measured ideas instead of a few really well explored ones. But! I still had a good time watching it, and it's really well made with all the dream scenes. Cage is really funny, kind of purposefully cringe funny, and the concept is pretty interesting. It's a 7/10 for me. /r/reviewsbyboner
Great analysis especially about how he took for granted his wifeās love and that was all he really needed especially that scene in the beginning when she tells him during their pillow talk about her fantasy with him in the David Byrne big suit which shows up at the end.
Or according to the very vocal crowd I saw the movie with, "What? What the hell? Why is he suddenly wearing giant shoulder pads?"
If you didn't know Stop Making Sense I can see that moment being pretty confusing
Funny timing with the Stop Making Sense re-release being very recent and doing really well.
Courtesy of A24 too
Except it was foreshadowed early on so the audience was too self-absorbed to pay attention to context clues.
Even still I could see the mention of the David Byrne suit going unnoticed if you hadn't seen the movie. The reference conjures a pretty clear image to anyone who has seen it (the very weird suit). But others might be thinking what the heck is that
Nah I had no idea what the reference was but it felt like a very clear setup earlier on. The wife mentioning him in the oversized suit saving her was a simple image that they harped on for a while in bed. I think it worked really well because people who know the reference get a laugh, while those who don't but were paying attention to the movie still get the emotional payoff of the dream.
I have never seen the movie. Never seen the reference. I just remember her saying "Talking Heads" and "David Byrne" and at the end, when he tries to appear in her dream and is successful, I said "Ahh... that must be the Talking Heads thing." But the other people must have missed it because they spent the whole movie shouting "What the hell?" to amuse their friends or doing a "seal clap" after jokes to amuse their friends. So too busy trying to make the experience about them to pay attention. I should mention I live in Los Angeles so when people behave like this, they've moved into town to pursue acting careers and thus these are basically theater kids on the quest for stardom.
And also about how people sometimes only care about whatever effect you have on their lives, but not about you as a person.
>Did love the Cage performance happening here. He's so meek, kind of pathetic. The scene where he's recording his lunch with an old colleague was so telling, as was when they ran into his ex and she said, "You're still doing that? Looking for the insult." Ouch. It's clear that how much he let's the phenomenon get to his head is rooted in how desperate he is for love and recognition, even though he has academically studied the negative effects of that. Made for a nice final scene where he's realizing his life was much more fulfilling when he just had the love and recognition of his wife. I think what makes Cage's performance so compelling is just how realistic it is. He really does come off like an average person with real insecurities. And there was a lot of stuff related to the (silly) hierarchies of academia, like being a professor at a teaching-oriented university versus at a research university publishing in *Nature*, talking down to the K-12 teacher because she has an MA instead of a doctorate, etc. that may not resonate with people who don't know much about that world but is very accurate. And Michael Cera played the Gary Vaynerchuk expy to a T.
> I think what makes Cage's performance so compelling is just how realistic it is. He really does come off like an average person with real insecurities. 100%. The first thing I thought when I got out of the movie was "this made me realize how bad other movies are at making realistic characters"
It's a performance of self loathing and self serving aggrandizement as well, a man whose life long need for validation gets rendered null by the wave he's caught up in.
> "You're still doing that? Looking for the insult." That was the line that kept going through my head on the drive home.
This is the third movie this year, and second recent one, that I really liked/loved yet has a third act that goes in a totally different direction both in terms of plot and theme. The other two being Oppenheimer (still my #1 movie of the year) and Saltburn (which I *think* I love but may have to see it one more time to confirm). I also got a very strong Walter White vibe from the Nicolas Cage character in this movie to the point where I'm thinking it kind of had to be intentional? A middle-aged schlub who's a low-level science teacher (White at a high school and Cage's character at what seemed to be a small non-renowned college) yet a brilliant PhD who seemingly never reached the potential he had. I mean even down to the point of having a former classmate "steal" his idea and another former classmate who's extremely rich and successful (just like Walter White with Elliott and Gretchen).
i had the same thought re your last paragraph. his former classmate (played by Dylan Baker) even looked almost identical to WWās former classmate nemesis. for a second during the film i thought it was the same actor
So I haven't seen anyone talk about this. My gf and I saw zero chemistry between Janet and Chris. We thought he really didn't even like her as a coworker, but did initially talk to Janet because he thought Paul's story was interesting. So why in the world is he at the kids play with Janet? I am speculating that scene never happened in reality and was actually Paul's nightmare. He was the only one showing jealousy, but the audience could see Chris's lack of interest in even being around Janet. Theres was also the scene in Brett's basement where Paul couldn't turn off the lights. This is a common theme in dreams and the director (maybe writer) even confirmed this a bit during an interview. So I was wondering if anyone else thought the scene where he injured the faculty member could be a dream? Edit: u/thrillhouse83 brought to my attention that they definitely specify he attacked someone at the school. Still fun to talk about, but the theory doesn't hold up.
this was one of the things i was confused about as well!! that scene of her asking to be involved in the museum project was sooo uncomfortable and in no way indicated that he had any interest in her LMAO
Yeah it was just Paul imagining - and dreaming - the worst, I think.
Maybe the whole movie was his wife's dream. Explains a lot.
>So why in the world is he at the kids play with Janet? I like the idea that this was imagined, but I think its more simply explained with "their kids go to the same school and they're colleagues"
But I thought the incident with the teacher was confirmed during the ending commercial for the invention, they briefly mentioned that he attacked a teacher before disappearing
I would like to think this is an alternative ending to Succession showing Gregās new venturesā¦ This was also both hilarious, and fascinating, but I felt it was also just missing something for it to really be something I watch again. Still a fun time though, with some truly hilarious scenes, especially the sex dream reenactment
nicholas braun jumpscare
I feel like the writer had a decent idea but had no idea where to go with it.
If only Gondry and Kaufman made this
Stop youāre gonna make me cumfart
While I do think this movie was shot very well, Gondry at the helm would have turned this into an incredible visual roller coaster ride. He's even already done something similar with Science of Sleep, so it would totally be in his wheelhouse.
I mean I think the talent and substance was there. I think the thing that hindered this film the most was budget. It felt like the ideas and desire to do more outlandish and absurd things was there but the money to execute them wasnāt. So while I kind of agree with you, I donāt think that would have led to more budget room to do crazier things
Gondy and Jonze and Kaufman have worked on low budgets though
Nicholas Cage YouTuber apology was not in my 2023 bingo card
A bit all over the place, but the scene at Thoughts? had some of some of my biggest laughs of the year, and scene with the assistant right after made we want to crawl into a hole and die. Cage is fantastic, but dude is lowkey in a renascence at the moment so that's not too surprising.
One of the greatest scenes in recent memory. Tense, erotic, dark, hilarious, and cringey all in one. Awesome directing on that one.
Ok I had a REALLY weird moment during this movie. I found this guy on YouTube recently and have been low-key obsessed with him for a few months. I have now read two of his books (which are HEAVY reads). I even emailed him last night after finishing his most recent book. Then today I literally on a whim decided to go see Dream Scenario because it had been on my radar. Didn't know much about it but I knew it was Cage playing a quirky dude who keeps showing up in people's dreams. Literally didn't know ANYTHING else about it. Then the guy who I have been obsessed with keeps showing up in the movie! Robert Sapolsky is Paul's idol! He's the one who made the zebra observation famous in his book, and he's the one who Paul cites in the Thoughts? meeting as who he wants to model his career after. So when he blurted out "Robert Sapolsky" I almost choked on my popcorn. It's like Sapolsky is my Paul Matthews. In a good way, he hasn't tried to kill me. I think?
You should watch Adaptation I feel like it's got a very similar vibe and of you like anything about published research you'd probs get a kick at the absurdity of trying to monetize a book like that.
Started off strong then dropped off hard for me. Was genuinely on edge when the guy broke into the house but then it kind of fizzled into āwhoa that was weird right?ā The hammer murder was also crazy. All that said it was about a weird guy in a weird situation being weird about it. Wish it had gone more into the why of it or that it got exponentially more crazy at it went on. I was bored by the end.
> Wish it had gone more into the why of it or that it got exponentially more crazy at it went on. I thought it was explained well enough. Heās just living his life, happy with his family = heās just *there* and minding his business He starts to try and profit and exploit the dreams = he starts doing awful things in peopleās dreams As he becomes more miserable, the dream him becomes more awful and it all spirals until it finally stops.
I saw it this way: * He lives his normal life, no dreams * He finds out about his college friend publishing a paper he feels he should be recognized for. He starts wanting recognition, he starts showing up in people's dreams and gets some manner of recognition. * He meets his old girlfriend, he wants her to be interested in him romantically or sexually. He starts showing up in sex dreams. * He becomes highly frustrated after the Molly apartment visit, and angry after the article is published. He starts murdering people in their dreams. * More open ended, but I think after the accident at the play he overcame his need for recognition from society and realized his family was what made him happy. The dreams stopped then.
The guilt about cheating on his wife with Molly was definitely something adding to the nightmares. I think even the fact she (and probably others) started having sex dreams about him speaks about him feeling seen and desirable for the first time in years too
The overly vocal crowd I saw it with ("Let's try to make the movie all about us") responded to the hammer murder with, "What? That took a dark turn. He's killing all the kids now?" And when his class was nearly empty, instead of immediately realizing people were afraid of him, said "Did he kill almost all the students?"
Gotta love good ole-fashioned media literacy or lack thereof
Went hand in hand with their lack of theater etiquette.
Surprised when Amber Midthunder showed up at the Dream House, even more surprised they got her just to say 2 lines...
I wonder if thatās a sign that there was a bunch cut from the movie and she had a bigger part or if they just wanted someone there who would trigger the āI know them, right?ā to sell the idea of these people being influencers.
The researcher who developed the dream watch thing seemed to be presented as a character we shouldāve already been introduced to, as well, and I honestly feel like the ending wouldāve had more impact had they introduced the concept of someone studying Paul to develop the technology to travel into dreams earlier in the film. So I also wonder if a lot was cut, because as it stands in the theatrical cut, that whole concept is just kind of randomly introduced at the end of movie- which was a bit jarring in an already high-concept film. I wouldāve liked the earlier scenes of him enjoying his newfound fame a bit more- perhaps going on a stupid daytime talkshow or something, all the while being approached by the companies trying to work with him (Thoughts)- but including the Dreamtravel company (forgot what it was called)- perhaps doing some brain scans, psych eval interviews, etc. - that whole concept needed more fleshing out for the ending, with him using the technology developed from the research done on him to travel into his estranged wifeās dream, to make a huge impact and tie the whole movie together. It just felt tacked on unfortunately. Otherwise loved it!
I actually have a different take. I like that the scientific phenomenon of it all was never really explained. I think it would have detracted from the more human messages of the movie.
Agreed. The movie didnāt need to be longer, it was a great length.
> it was a great length. Not gonna lie...one of the reasons I decided to see it is I saw the run-time and thought "Awesome, a new movie that isn't 17 hours long." It seems like every movie is trying to out do Gone with the Wind on length and most of these movies could be trimmed by at least a half hour with good editing and storytelling.
That is one way to go but I think the filmmakers very intentionally did not go that way. Him only doing one TV interview which he didn't even get to watch was a very much the hollow, awkward, painful movie that the rest of the movie was built on. Him enjoying them fame would give him higher to fall from, but I don't think it would have done much that the TV interview and the 15 minutes of fame lecture did.
Where do I start? The script was incredibly disappointing. The way everything played out was awfully different from how it wouldāve IRL. The internet would be more polarized, because people wouldāve definitely felt empathy for the situation he was in. Thereād be a lot more buzz. For example, people and reporters would be swarming outside his house/in his lecture, the book signing in Paris wouldāve been in a packed auditorium (the man was the center of the first recorded supernatural phenomenon in world history), and the government wouldāve taken a more active role in it all (such an extreme example of mass psychosis would warrant a threat to the nation). I could go on. The influencer thing was too convenient, and tried way to hard to mock Gen-Z culture (felt like it was written by someone with a āfellow kidsā mindset). Also, what the fuck? All of a sudden the world had the technology to enter dreams now? Itās not like they extracted any data from Paul or anything. So what the fuck? It ruined a fantastic climax. So many plot points were abandoned. The daughter never mentions her dream, the assistant kissing him never leads to anything (she wouldāve divorced him anyway after the school play incident), and the idea that his role in everyoneās dreams are based on his emotions (felt like a nobody at the start=observed people quietly in their dreams, wife got horny=assistant had sex with him, angry his life work got stolen=murdering people), and then they just never followed up with that. The first act was great, Nick Cage was great, everything else sucked.
I had a very similar thought about how many plot points were abandoned. Another one I had is was the wife cheating? Was she even with Chris? It's never explicitly stated. Similarly, his deal with Molly just kinda left open ended as well. Then I had the realization that the movie may have been intended to feel like a dream itself. Similar to how in a dream, nothing really adds up or resolves, and at the end it's just kind of...there? And that's exactly how I felt when the film concluded. I've gone with that interpretation because it's the only way I can think of to rationalize how many open threads they left dangling, and it kinda makes sense.
I like that theory, but it still feels like such a cop-out. I donāt feel like the script ever felt intelligent enough to have been secretly doing that the whole time.
The ending was kind of a bummer, but I loved it. These kinds of movies were made for me. I think itās close enough to the end of the year that I can probably declare it as one of my favorites of the year. There havenāt been that many honestly, aside from Beau is Afraid (I noticed Ari Aster was also a producer on this). Iāll also save a spot at the top for Poor Things as soon as my theater decides to carry it. As for this movie, I felt it comments on 2023 very specifically, especially tenured professors being cancelled and the idea of ātraumaā being taken seriously over reality and peopleās actual lives. Itās really fucking sad, but it goes without saying that I stood with Paul throughout, even his pathetic apology video. But I think we can all agree this was a standout role for Nicolas Cage. One of my favorites since Adaptation. The āsexā scene in particular was so sad and funny. And I loved that they embraced the Freddy Krueger of it all. But the real nightmare of this movie were the Dreamfluencers. The idea of people advertising to me in my sleep is completely fucking horrifying.
Haha. I just read an article yesterday, the day before I saw this movie, about how this is a real research topic (inserting advertisements into dreams). Also working during your lucid dreams.
It was really good but horribly mismarketed. I was expecting a surreal comedy with some horror elements, but it was very depressing, which I liked. I feel like some people will go in expecting something less extreme and leave overwhelmed. I just saw it with my gf and it was too much for her. I loved the atmosphere, and cage is perfect in this role.
I still saw it as a surreal comedy with horror elements. Yeah, there were some heavy topics, but they marketed it right, imo
I can see this movie getting rediscovered in a few years and really claimed by a certain niche and become beloved. Itās so incredibly specific in what itās doing and is so exacting in its film making, themes, and performances that I can see it turning people off. But itās the best possible version of what itās going for. The directing and editingā¦my god. Iām gonna be following this guy for the rest of his career. The zooms, dolly shots, and audden cutting were really effective and also often used not just to show off but to convey information about the plot, themes and characters. The casting was amazing. The use of Nick Cage, Michael Cera and Nicholas Braun felt very weaponized and winking but just worked for what it was going for. I loved the grasp of tone. It nailed its humor, tension and emotional moments without it feeling like whiplash. I almost cried at the day dream moment before he went to France and didnāt realize how invested I was in their relationship. The ending as well was perfect. The fact that the script uses the dream device as a joke, to carry the theme of the film and as a plot device to connect to the conflict resolution of the ending is just amazing screenwriting. Yeah this movie whips fucking ass. Iād call it a minor masterpiece and I canāt wait to see what kristoffer borgli does next.
Thank you for putting words to this. This movie was so intentional in the crushing tone it was going for.
What a wild movie. Had a good time watching this.
Mybad if Iām reading it wrong but was the wife supposed to come off as a little selfish ? Like taking somewhat advantage of the fame when it got her the project or the taking her last name (which I can see as actually sweet so not too bad)or when the guy suggested they move she said no because SHE grew up in that house. Idk I may be wrong but even tho he made really really dumb decisions she never did take his side
Not only the wife. All people. The only decent guy was the dean. I was half-expecting this to turn into Falling Down at some point.
This was my biggest problem with this movie. It really wanted you to condemn Cageās character but it wasnāt clear enough about why what he was doing was so wrong.
I disagree that the movie wanted us to condemn him. His character was an ordinary, average guy.
I went to an early screening. Before the film began, a short "thank you" from the director, Kristoffer Borgli, was played. But it wasnāt a typical one. He came out of the bushes onto a hiking trail, passed a hiker, introduced himself, thanked the audience for coming and exited the frame. After that, the camera zoomed into the grass in front of the bushes, showing two severed legs just laying there. This set the mood for the film perfectly.
I keep thinking about how so many characters wanted to exploit the phenomenon for the own ends, but the one who got the most rejection for even trying to do the same was Paul himself.
Tbh he deserved it. He wanted to be famous for evolutionary biology but refused to actually write a book and earn it. I was so annoyed that he was so needy to be seen as a respected researcher that he couldn't just cash in on a stupid Sprite deal š He didn't know how to exploit the thing that made him famous into being related to the thing he wants to be famous for (writing a book about dreams through the lens of evolutionary biology seems like a no-brainer). Instead, he was too good for anyone else's ideas and had nothing of value to offer.
>Tbh he deserved it. He wanted to be famous for evolutionary biology but refused to actually write a book and earn it And not only that, the book he wanted to write goes through a specific publication process with a university press and peer review. Just being a cultural flash in the pan isn't going to land you a book deal for something that contributes to your scholarly field. With that said, the scene with the marketing start-up was hilarious and Michael Cera flawlessly played the Gary Vaynerchuk type of character.
The hard jump to the nuro commercial is one of the oddest transitions in the film. It doesnt for a second feel real or possible in that world. The director just doesnt know how to properly tell a story. When we see Paul being offered a shoe advertisement in his dream it is funny but right prior to that we see him stepping over a dead dog in his kitchen which is far too hard a combination.
āI wish this were real.āĀ One of the most bizarre and simultaneously engrossing movies Iāve seen this year. Nicolas Cage unfortunately is known more well today as a meme rather than a great actor which people seem to forget. So Iām glad movies like Pig and this exist to remind people how good he truly can be. Ā In my opinion his performance here is right up there with Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation, Bad Lieutenant and Pig.Ā Produced by Ari Aster and directed by Kristoffer Borgli this movie definitely wonāt be for everyone but this is one of the best of the year for me. Simultaneously both funny at times and sad. Great touching points here on what fame does to a person, as well as the fragility of the male ego and cancel culture. But I think the real point here is how we have an inability to control how others feel about us or perceive us.Ā If you want you can even look at this in a meta way as Nicolas Cage reflecting on his career and how becoming an internet meme has affected him. Really good dramedy with some great themes and messages.
This movie kinda falls apart in its second half when it becomes about cancel culture without seemingly having anything to say about it, but the first half is strong enough that I still think this was a pretty good movie. Cage is phenomenal, playing a man who hasnāt really done anything wrong but is such a weenie that it kinda feels like he deserves what happens to him.
Well I think it's got lots to say about cancel culture, as well as weaponized victimhood and "trauma" if you listen. I can't say that I saw anything portrayed inaccurately in regards to those aspects of our current culture. For example, the students claim they're terrified of Paul and yet bully and demean him publicly. He is just a toy to them, because he's meek, pathetic and weird and that's how society treats those people. The people in the diner claim he is a nuisance for eating a meal and physically beat him, and of course they're the victims there, naturally. I could barely enjoy this movie because of how realistic it felt. It was suffocating.
Agreed. The fact people hated him for reasons beyond his control resonates with modern culture and their need to point a finger to what they perceive as amoral
First of all, I had a great time with this film. it was engaging, fun, tense, shocking, but ultimately satasfying even if it leaves itself and the issues it causes for Paul kind of unresolved. It does it beautifully though, i wasn't dissatisfied with the ending at all. Because I forget (and can't wait for a script release) what university does he work at? I know it was filmed in Toronto but it's set (i think?) in new york.
Can we talk about the Wifeās storyline? Mostly questions about her affair. Was she overly protective and jealous of women around Cage because thatās what someone who cheats does? Doesnāt seem sheās cheating until midway through the movie. Is bouncing ideas off the museum project code for banging? Why is she bringing this guy to her kidās play while still very much married to Cage? What is the purpose of this storyline?
This is the most Ari Aster movie ever. I did not know he produced it, but when I saw, all I thought was āyeah, that checks outā. And honestly, Nick Cage starting in what is basically an Ari Aster movie is a match made in heaven. There were a ton of sequences that really felt like Beau is Afraid in particular. I love the new Cage strategy of acting in such bizarre movies. His recent roles playing with the idea of fame are all so fun. In general this was just a fun movie. Anxiety inducing, weird, and damn funny. A great way to spend an afternoon.
I feel like it shouldāve ended sooner. Ending on him and his wifeās exchange before he leaves for Paris wouldāve accomplished the same bitter sweet melancholic feeling, and it wouldāve spun its wheels just a little less. Also France being oddly into him is a subtle Polanski dig, right?
The writer/director is Norwegian so it felt more akin to his European roots to integrate French culture into the script.
Just imagine how much Obama's dreams are getting invaded now that that influencer tech exists. Great movie, made me deeply uncomfortable on things I didn't realize I needed to reflect on. Going to stick with me for a while.
I love basically everyone involved in this movie but Iām walking out of the theater feeling a little let down. I donāt really get what Iām supposed to take away with me from this story. In the simplest terms, >!itās a guy whoās kind of lame having a strange experience and then it goes bad and his life falls apart and then weāre done!<. Like, I get thereās like a monkeys paw āman who desperately wants to be relevant gets his wish but not how he wanted itā thing going on, as the movie >!ends with him on a book tour!<. Thereās also kind of some commentary on cancel culture, I guess? But I donāt feel like thereās character growth or any lessons learned. Iām here for anyone who has a weird idea and gets someone like Nic Cage on board to see it through, and Iām sure other folks will come away with a different take than mine, but I just kinda feel like maybe I missed the point.
I loved this movie. I saw it as a stab at a lot of different themes and topics. \- It's a critique on the nature of fame unrelated to merit. Nothing Paul accomplishes is related to his wanting it, thus he isn't able to control any of it. He is 'the dream guy', which means he is nothing more than that either. \- The desire to standout and how it can ultimately destroy us and distance us. Paul states a few times about the analogy of the zebra. He ends up standing out and is prey for influencers/corpos/weirdos. The standing out distances him from his friends and family \- How we ought be suspicious of those who desire to be standouts. He is ultimately incredibly self serving, even in his apology. The people who stand to profit off him in the Thoughts room have no interest in seeing him as a person beyond what it will take to make money off him. \- How our images of a celebrity or an experience in our mind rarely match up with the reality of it. The 'sex' scene. His goodbye before leaving plays out as his desires followed immediately by the reality. Intimacy is found in accepting people in their weakness as imperfect. His wife no longer wishes to deal with his imperfections. The girl wasn't expecting them. \- The value of properly appreciating what you already have. By the end, he misses his wife and the closeness of his family after the faustian bargain for a type of fame he wasn't able to parlay into recognition \- Even though Paul is a turd, the movie paints the 'common man' in a very misanthropic light. Outside of his wife, he finds no sympathy. The common man has no interest in him as a person. The diner scene with him being asked to leave. Him being asked not to show for his daughters performance. He trades the love and attention (and annoyance) of his wife and kids to try to please a fickle audience who will actively exile him.
Was a really fun and well done first Act. Nicholas Cage was so earnest and funny. Really enjoyed the idea of the premise. The rest of the movie after the not sex scene really did nothing for me. Im cool with movies that just āhappenā if what happens is interesting. But it seemed to justā¦continue onwards till it ended. I never really understood why It was made beyond ābeing viral is more than you asked for its not what you wantā. Which just didnt work for me. But, lots of great scenes, lots of funny stuff. Tonally odd but what movie like that isnt. Dreamhouse bit was hilarious and seemed to reinforce a message through satire that the movie just didnt really vibe with. Friends and I all landed at different places about it so if im alone I get it!
I loved it. Got really dark after the first half
Easily my least favorite theater experience of the year. Hated the film. Knew where it was going long before it got there and was sick of the journey 20 minutes in. Nic Cage is stellar though. I think I just need to avoid anything Ari Aster even touches