Everybody Wants Some!! (2016) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
146 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
self-indulgent and pointless waste
aapple20015 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
A film with no plot, no drama, no conflict, a comedy with no laughs, filled with male characters I couldn't care less about, female characters only there for eye candy and sex, and there's a sappy "Frontiers are where you find them" attempt at philosophy in the final scene.

So boring the characters themselves fall asleep at the end. By the way, that was the spoiler.

Maybe if you like early 80's music and hair styles, and people in their late 20's and early 30's pretending to be be 10 years younger while wearing shorts there's something for you. Otherwise don't be fooled by all the good reviews this title received. This movie goes nowhere and then the credits roll.

"Everybody Wants Some!!" is a waste of time.
25 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Another rigged set of reviews and ratings...
jlipin25 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I can't stand when ratings/reviews are rigged in order to get people to watch or buy something. If you look at the 'top 1000 voters' for this movie, which are people who actually watch movies, they give it a 6.9. How in the heck did this get an 8+? (Well - it's because the movie producers were smart and got a bunch of people to review and rate the movie ahead of time...) The acting and writing is dreadful. Story goes absolutely nowhere and is pointless. I was at least hoping the water bed had something to do with anything. But of course, it didn't. Actors look like they're 35 years old, and you want us to believe they're college freshmen? Has the director ever been to a bar before or seen how awkward real people interact with each other at that age? Does the director know that people at bars or at parties are usually drunk, instead of the eloquently speaking, perfectly-dressed people in this movie? Really pointless, waste of a good amount of money to have seen this in theaters.
123 out of 182 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Why these choices?
mmaggiano23 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
If you're going to make a movie about Texas college baseball jocks in 1980 (especially jocks on the most successful team on campus), you're obliged to do something to let the audience know WHY those players are the most gentle, open-minded college jocks they have ever, ever seen. It can't just go unexplained, or it beggars belief. The movie is not intended to be a farce, quite clearly.

Even the two most aggressive guys (the great batter and the manic pitcher) are ultimately adorably harmless. This is not how it works. Their conflict at a practice without coaches should end in a fistfight when the manic pitcher won't shut up after getting beat. You don't run your mouth at a teammate after getting hit on. The manic pitcher's outburst in the bar should also be far, far uglier, and it should end in a real fight. And the stuff that comes out of their mouths most of the time should be filthy as hell. I am NOT objecting to "gentle comedy" as a genre. I'm objecting to the total lack of appropriate set-up in this one, and the ensuing unbelievability.

And I'm not faulting the characters for being horny, drunk 21 year olds (played by mostly 30 year olds, for putatively some good reason, but really because 21 year old actors wouldn't be able to handle the house of cards Linklater has set up here). I don't think that young men are monsters for getting laid and drinking on a free weekend before college. (There are complaints about this movie from some corners of the internet that have "liberal puritan double-standard" written all over them. I am not coming from that corner.) But having played college sports myself, and known other college athletes at the time and since, this is the LEAST awful group of 16 college jocks that I can possibly imagine, and the movie is set in 1980 Texas. They may as well be unicorns.

I understand that this is supposed to be a gentle, philosophical comedy, and I have no problem with that in theory. I would definitely watch a movie where a given collection of jocks are great human beings, just out of the sheer creative audacity of seeing where that goes, and the things you can do with genres that depict an idealized world. But I don't want to watch idealized college athletes (or any other group) unless I have some damn reason to know why there aren't horrible human beings in that mix of 16 guys. The answer can't just be "because the genre is gentle, thoughtful comedy". Give me something with a piece of verisimilitude that I can hang onto. 16 golfers at Brown in 2016 have worse people among them than this.

So, oddly akin to The Revenant or Boyhood, the movie doesn't work as realism, nor does it work as something heightened; on top of that it has 1-dimensional characters. I don't want to see Acclaimed Director, the movie. Every movie must stand or fall on its own.

ULTIMATELY MORE IMPORTANTLY, this weekend-before-college movie (like any slice-of-life type of movie) will sink or swim on the quality of the bits, the moments, the character sketches. If each scene or moment is golden, all is forgiven, and it lives on in the way that The Big Sleep or Short Cuts or Day for Night or The Big Lebowski are great movies. In those, perfect scene-by-scene charm wins the day. Truth through Beauty.

But in this particular movie, some of the bits, scenes, characters etc. are very good, while others are wholly bland, vague and threadbare. Could 'philosophizing jocks' get it right some times, and wrong some times, and just have some sophomoric marijuana ideas sometimes- sure, yes, why not? BUT EACH one of those scenes of 'philosophizing jocks' has to be somehow really interesting without feeling overly polished, or phony, or done to death, or otherwise uncharming. It's a pure fancy-footwork kind of storytelling art. And half of the bits/scenes in this movie have two left feet.

This is the second movie in a row from Linklater that is not about real life or real people but purports to be, while using facile characters and after-lunch philosophizing. The first, Boyhood, was a full-throttle melodrama with a grand gimmick. This one plays one sport with the equipment of another: College Hump-or-Die movie rules, but with handmade character comedy gear. If you don't see this, let me ask you one question: WHAT is it that makes the main character Jake a SPECIFIC person who hits it off with Beverly, another specific person, besides the genre fulfillment of 'the two sensitive people find each other'??

Nothing. Nothing but Blake Jenner and Zoey Deutch saying the lines with talent. Can you say that about Say Anything, or are those two characters specific as hell, and therefore a response to the High School Hump-or-Die movies, and not just a mutant version of one? Heck, college farce Animal House, the ultimate Hump-or-Die movie, has more to say than this movie does.

I'm now positive that Linklater is one director when working with actor/writers Hawke and Delpy, and quite another when he's not.
72 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Everybody Wants Less!
sage41116 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I would give it a 1 if I didn't enjoy the music. I started college in the 80's so I know what it was like. This is basically totally about some baseball jocks that are getting together and "male bonding" before classes actually start. With all the positive, and I must say idiotic reviews of the film, my expectations were probably way too high. There are a few moments of chuckles and laughter but if you have zero interest in baseball and aren't a past sport jock, this film is not for you. The background music was right on for the eighties and the party stuff was funny. Other than that, it just gets boring and too long. All the actors are "unknown" types and do fine job acting, but the storyline is a total mess. Is this a comedy or some type of sports, jock film or whatever? Many critics say it is a statement about the 80's and will be appreciated later. TO be appreciated later it needs to better at anything.

I am only glad that we didn't pay top dollar to see this one and this is one I will never purchase or look forward to seeing again. I just want less of this crap. If you are determined to see this, wait for cable or broadcast. Not worth anyones money.
59 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Nostalgic, maybe, but not funny
dhultgren-5942827 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I cannot compare this to Linklater's previous work "Dazed and Confused", but, a couple of months ago, I saw the trailer, and thought, "Man, this is going to be laugh out loud hysterics". Was I wrong.

The movie starts with Jake, the freshman pitcher prospect cruising in a Cutlass 442, not bad for nostalgia (nice to see cars that still have some gusto for real in films).

Jake is a pitcher who lives in a frat house with about twelve other ball players who like to party and talk about getting laid, and playing silly pranks on each other.

Yes, there is a decent soundtrack starting with "My Sharona" from the Knack that opens the movie, but, the flaw is here: "Urgent" by Foreigner was not released until 1981. Oops! And it seems a tad out of place for a bunch of rough and tumble kids to be singing word for word to a rap song.

The title of the movie is misleading "Everybody wants some!" is a Van Halen tune, that was released in 1980, but, we don't get much airplay from hard rock or heavy metal in the sound track. No "Back in Black?" No Judas Priest? No Iron Maiden? This was the pinnacle of New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and Ace of Spades from motorhead was released the same year. Plenty of hard driving rock to really pack a punch to enliven the film a bit.

Back to the plot: there really isn't one, except the countdown to the first day of school, where the ball players go from party to party and meet some strange characters along the way.

I'd have to say the most interesting character(s) are Detroit, the introverted, hard throwing, paranoid, humorless caricature that is funny for a bit, but isn't fleshed out enough to really meld in.

The bearded virgin who is later kicked off the team, is perhaps the most reflective and philosophical character in the entire cast. He talks about the progression of one song on an album while the others get high.

Who put Willis from Diff'rent Strokes in the cast? That isn't Todd Bridges, is it? He acted very well to fit in, but I don't see that happening in Texas. And where are the bell bottoms? We only start to get a glimpse of the underground music scene when Jake stumbles upon his long haired jean jacket adorned friend who wants to take the crew to a punk rock concert.

As for the pranks, the knuckle challenge between the thin mustachioed fellow and the long haired shorter guy (who wins the challenge) is the funniest bit, but hardly enough to warrant a great belly laugh. It's a sight gag.

I looked at the Tomatometer, and it was very good for this film. Uh, what film were THEY watching? Where's Pauline Kael when you need her?
42 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Dazed and Confused Repeat
cmjenks15 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Going in, I knew it would be similar to Dazed and Confused. This was like Fifty Shades of Grey is to Twilight but worse, the plot (if you can call it that) follows its predecessor more closely than Fifty.

Like Dazed (which is better btw), it's tough to put your finger on an actual plot. A freshman baseball player shows up to college, interacts with teammates/roommates, has fun, finds a girl. Shenanigans take place. So all you really have is a bit of character development, yet the characters remain relatively static.

I have to wonder, Who the heck has been reviewing this flick, paid shills? People that haven't seen Dazed and Confused and think this is unique?

Here are some of the characters to expect: Token well balanced protagonist, Token reefer head, Token self-absorbed whack job, Token witty womanizer, Token redneck, Token guy who is too old to be hanging out (same as reefer head), Token black guy, Token uber-competitive leader, Token immature character, Token below-average intellect character

I honestly can't believe they wrote in another character with an age problem--someone must have been a having a creative black void when this came to be. Another thing that didn't evolve since Dazed - misogynistic attitudes. Most of the women are portrayed as easy and air-headed, except the protagonist's love interest who the scriptwriters actually force the character to say is bright (unlike all the other airheads.) This type of portrayal is growing a bit tired. Give the female characters a voice, it would have been so much more interesting, especially given the time frame.

Pass on this one. Sure, it's about nothing and you'll leave with a feeling of nothingness. The guys are good looking and witty, their shenanigans are charming albeit not unique, beneath the wit and charm is the stink of douchiness. So what?
34 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Exactly what I needed
cb236926 March 2016
Everybody Wants Some!! was a perfect film for this moment: it consists of little more than a bunch of overly-competitive jocks joking with each other, partying, and trying to get laid over the course of three days before school even starts. It's intelligently written, fun, well-acted, and well-shot. What more could you ask for? Linklater, of course, does it all in a slice of life fashion: the opening of the film doesn't even attempt to describe what's going to happen and the end of the film barely describes what happened beforehand. The movie is almost meditative, and yet continually looking for stimulus in the largest and tiniest things... really whatever kind of stimulus they can get their hands on. Story-wise, it unfolds over almost every part of the era, which is, as far as I could tell, undefined yet seemingly somewhere during the 80s. Each night takes us to a different flavor of the time: disco, punk, you name it... but the genius of the script is that you don't really realize you've been given a tasting menu until you've already eaten everything. It just seems natural when it happens. Everything in this film seems natural, and that's a credit to the director, but also the actors. I imagine casting was the most important part of putting this film together and it seems to have been a success: every actor kills their part. Were they even acting? I have a feeling they were just being themselves. If you want to watch some kids mess around and laugh with them or at them, Everybody Wants Some!! not only is your movie, but probably will be your movie for a long time coming.
100 out of 174 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not up to Linklater's usual standard
alexrjharrison14 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I'll begin by saying I was hoping for something of a spiritual sequel to Dazed and Confused, which is one of my very favourite "coming of age" type films. I'm also a huge fan of Linklater; Before Sunrise and its sequels are three of my favourite films; I loved School of Rock and Boyhood.

So it was with no small amount of anticipation and excitement that I began to watch Everybody Wants Some!! and boy, did it disappoint. It felt false, the guys all seemed to old to be in college, their house and clothing seemed too new; it was trying too hard. In the club they go to early on they sit at tables with drinks on - the tables are spotless, no spilled drinks or condensation. The details in this film are lacking...

The only bit I enjoyed a little was the belated romance with the lead (who I didn't like) and the girl from the beginning - but that was too little too late.

Really disappointing; I did "want some" but not this....
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Vanity project
gsygsy21 May 2016
Another vanity project from this soft-centred writer/director. A perfectly pleasant, oh-so-normal guy, played effortlessly by Blake Jenner, is our viewpoint as he befriends a bunch of caricatured late adolescents. Mr Normal is not even a thinly disguised version of the writer/director, who evidently saw his younger self as a beacon of sanity in the midst of all that hormone-fuelled excess.

The worst part of it is that Linklater has talent as a filmmaker. The piece is competently constructed and shot, and contains a couple of well-written scenes, notably a split-screen phone conversation between Jenner and the movie's only other credible character, played without affectation by Zoey Deutsch.

In CABIN IN THE WOODS the equivalent bunch of stereotypes gets ritually slaughtered, a fate I several times wished on the quasi-characters here.
118 out of 217 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not everybody wants some of this
E Canuck6 April 2016
This was put together in an entertaining fashion. Trouble for me is that I'd walk a mile to avoid the kind of people the film is about. Always did, when I was younger, avoid the bullying sexist jock and unless you are enamoured, you may not want some of a film that celebrates them off the Richter scale.

There is also the fact that in this Mudville there are only shiny happy people out of Hollywood wardrobe department and there's little resemblance to reality.

That shouldn't stop those who want college and youth myths big on All American ball-whacking, drinking, weed-smoking, look-how-crazy-we-all-are high spirits. There will be lots of people who want some of that.
95 out of 179 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
If the first ten minutes don't do it for you, it's not your type of humor
movieholik22 September 2016
I enjoyed this movie and love all of Linklater's works. Certain directors just mesh well with your world view and style. His humor works for certain people, and it doesn't translate well for international audiences. For instance, I can't stand Kevin Smith's style of comedy, but many people adore it.

This movie took me back to my college years. I attended the University of Texas and belonged to a fraternity. Although we weren't athletic jocks, there were similar dynamics, characters, and situations as with this movie's baseball team. Looking back it was immature and misogynistic fun, however it happened and I had great memories from then. This movie captured that very well.

That said, there was no tension or arc that this group faced. Everything came to them pretty easy, like on a silver platter. There are people like that in life, yet it doesn't make for compelling cinema. I also thought the lead had little chemistry or charisma with his girl. The character played by Glen Powell was the highlight, as was the soundtrack.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Not about a decade - just an amazingly specific character study that takes place over 3 days in 1980
tonyblass31 March 2016
I went because I thought it would be an "80's Dazed and Confused." But it was so not that, so much better than that. I got to tell you about it. Whereas Dazed was a "generalized" version of the 70's (with a bit too much 90's still in the lens), this movie is about a highly specific group of people (college baseball jocks) at a very specific moment in time (3 days before the start of fall semester 1980, which any nerd can tell you is still technically, not to mention stylistically still very much part of the 70's) at a Texas university (presumably UT Austin). Where Dazed featured over-the-top wacky 70's characters who repeated "catch phrases", this movie is about some very real guys dealing with the transition from being the best athlete in their high school to just an average player at the bottom of the heap who has to get used to being humble and proving himself. Trust me. Go to see the movie that proves 12 years of making "Boyhood" has transformed Linklater to an auteur without peer. This movie is so perfectly in tune, light as a feather but with the full weight of an honest character study, played by an ensemble cast very much in tune with one another. Memorable characters for sure, but never overblown and always breathtakingly real. This is an amazing film. And the soundtrack is sheer perfection.
62 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Uninteresting
Gordon-114 October 2016
This film tells the story of a man who enters college, and stays with his baseball teammates in a communal house. He explores his adult life, with the company and help from his baseball teammates.

Perhaps due to the fact that I am not interested in baseball, I find the story rather non engaging. All I see is a bunch of testosterone fuelled guys doing silly things, having parties, drinking and shouting. It doesn't have a real plot, as there is no central message or moral story to be delivered. We see the lives of these people in three days, condensed in two hours. I don't know what the point of the film is, but i certainly do not find their lives interesting.
32 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Very disappointed
aangelo-823681 July 2016
I honestly don't know what to think of this movie. I was hoping for so much more. Most of the actors did a good job but Some of the college kids looked like they were 35 years old. The story just stunk. After the fact that dazed and confused was one of my favorite movies I guess I was hoping for something just as good. This movie was beyond bad and something which looks like some high school kids put together. It bounced around so much from topic to topic without actually getting into any of them. I kept waiting and waiting for the movie to get good. Then the credits started rolling and I turned to my girlfriend and said that's it? what the hell did we just watch? I wasted 2 hours that ill never get back on a movie that the best part was the credits at the end. I'm sorry but i'm being honest. Not like a lot of these studio reviews to make you see the movie. Just bad. Very bad.
67 out of 128 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Linklater disappointed me
joseminolli24 March 2018
I really love Richard Linklater´s work....Boyhood, The Before Trilogy, Waking life, A scanner darkly.

I was actually expecting that this movie was as profound and as interesting than his other movies. But, instead of that, I spent two hours watching a film that goes nowhere. The history and its caracthers are quite dumb. They´re just stereotypes. I really don´t understand which was the motivation to film this.

It´s just another dumb and empty movie about college students.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
a bit too much of the college jock life
dmuel29 July 2016
Yes, the movie was realistic and there were a few, sparse moments of tenderness between Jake and his romantic interest, but I was disappointed by the imbalanced focus of this movie. As most college students, then and now, are not hardcore jocks, this is a skewed vision of college life in that era. We get scant input from other groups on campus.

Compared to Dazed and Confused, which featured a much broader spectrum of teenage life in the mid 70s, including jocks, budding intellectuals, burn-outs, etc., Everybody Wants Some is mainly focused on college jock life and the pervasive misogyny one might expect. At times insightful, and also humorous, the movie simply observes the lives of its characters. But it pales compared to its predecessor, and the overwhelming emphasis on the misogynistic and competitive sexual exploits of its characters tends to fracture and efface the movie's charms.
21 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What was the point?
jmpegasus-783-79702717 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
So good ratings in IMDb, i was expecting something great, funny and all... What was that? It gets nowhere... just a bunch of VERY COOL guys they make you follow for 2 hours... Sometimes you find them attaching (barely), a bit funny, but they are pretty much all the same, the very cool guys from college who play very good baseball (you just see a training session at the end of the film) and who can have all the girls they want... and who speak all the time in a cool and smart way... That's VERY little for a two hours film... I really don't know what was the point of that... Looks like a commercial for college life, or something... Not bad, but awfully flat!
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Flatland!!!!!!!??????
jdavis-8238514 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Can you say one dimensional? At the end I knew nothing about any of the characters. There was no hero. There was no villain. There was no goal. And what was the countdown to class all about?

The media hype implied a soft-core 70's type romp like "Squeeze Play" or "Hots!", but there was none of that. The one set of breasts was nice but really just a tease. The nice girl and the nice guy finally go on a date after bit of impromptu swimming in their underwear and immediately sleep together AND spend the night together. can you say "Tame"? I got a little excited when the bar fight broke out, but when I saw drunk jocks and 80's bouncers not throw a single punch I had to pinch myself. It was reminiscent of "The A-Team"...bombs and guns going off all around, but NOBODY ever got injured. Didn't deliver the advertised sex and violence of the 80's at all. "Dazed and Confused" it was not.

Oh yeah! Where was the cocaine?

I really want those 117 minutes back!!!

I would have given it a negative review if that was an option.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not Really
dcarsonhagy25 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
When I decided to view this, I was thinking (hopefully) an 80s version of "Animal House." I got nothing close to that.

"Everybody" is a boring tale about boring, pigeon-holed people, who, if they aren't drinking, smoking, or screwing have NOTHING else they would deem worth doing. That might have been okay once upon a time, but after an hour or so, it just gets real tedious and unfunny. A college baseball team, with an average IQ of, oh, 8, get together at their jock-house to smoke dope, womanize, drink to excess, act 13, and try to act bad-ass. Nary a book is cracked, so I guess as long as you could throw a ball back then, you did not have to worry about school that much. Oh, and it must be a requisite that you bed as many women as possible.

Another problem I had with this movie was the casting. Too many of the actors looked way too long in the tooth to be playing teenagers. The guy with the mustache looked in his mid-30s. Also, way too many of these guys could actually keep a beat when they danced. Most all guys like this that I was ever around wanted to hunch on the dance floor or at least cop a feel. Twinkle-toes they were not.

If your idea of a good time is watching boring guys do boring things, but still get laid, this one's for you. I was not impressed at all by this movie. In fact, it left a very bad taste in my mouth. Rated "R" for constant language, boobs, and simulated sex, I'd rather watch paint dry.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie SUCKS!!!!!!
vincesharma12 April 2017
I tried watching this movie twice and it is not funny, too long and very disappointing considering the Dazed and Confused director made this. I get the 1980's theme, I AM GEN X, but that is the only good thing about this movie.

A good comedy is 90-100 min. Making this go two hours is a waste of time, the nudity was good but that is it...........
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Self-indulgent, boring... nothing you'd expect from Linklater
bob_meg25 June 2016
I've been a fan of Linklater since Slacker and in film after film he's proved that you do not need a linear plot to create a satisfying and revelatory movie experience. That is, if you have characters that are richly crafted matched with actors giving indelible performances. Sadly (and I do mean that sincerely) "Everybody Wants Some!!" painfully exhibits none of those two saving graces. It's as needless as those two exclamation points in the title and as alluring as running into an old high school friend who wants to drag you to his house and show you old home movies for two hours.

I think I understand what Linklater was going for here, but it's still not an excuse for the snoozefest he delivers. I *believe* he was trying for something almost anthropological. That is, studying a very specific type of American male (high-school star jock) in a specific time and place (early '80s Texas) who come to terms with the competitive nature of college (in general, but college sports, specifically). Obviously this comes from Linklater's own experience but that alone doesn't make it interesting.

The fact that it shares many similarities with Dazed and Confused is only going to mystify and irritate most people, especially fans of that earlier film, which was a much more involving and true-to-life portrayal than anything you see in this film. If you'll remember, Dazed had an encapsulated version of Everybody Wants Some embedded into it --- namely Pink's (Jason London) disenfranchisement of the whole high-school sports scene. If you look closely at the mostly unknown cast, you'll notice more than a few similarities between the two character line-ups in behaviors and physical appearance. But Dazed is a rich film. The characters were anything but types (and they did not chant "catch phrases" as one reviewer states... the film's fans created those) and each had many dimensions. None (even Ben Affleck's character) were straight heroes or villains. By contrast, Everybody Wants Some's cast of jocks and jock-babes rarely give us anything we don't expect or transcend any of the rampant stereotypes.

For long stretches... I mean *LONG*... all you get are continuous party scenes that, while well-directed, still don't deliver anything that will keep your interest. There is little conflict, and nothing but the scantest surface interactions between the cast, none of whom give anything but the most vanilla performances. This isn't the first time Linklater's used a cast of unknowns (Dazed and particularly Slacker were exactly that) but Everybody Wants Some's crew is distinctly lacking in both style and charisma.

I don't think I've been as disappointed by any movie this year. And as other reviewers have said, the overwhelming positive critical reception this unstructured mess is receiving is disturbing, to say the least. Yes, Boyhood was amazing on so many levels and easily Linklater's most masterful film, firing on all his strengths. EWS consistently plays to all his weakest.

The more I think about it, EWS's aims are closer to Slacker than Dazed. Slacker was just that... a virtual anthropological snapshot of Austin Texas college life circa 1988-1989. Only Slacker's cast continually gave the audience thoughtful, crazy, disturbing, and provoking words and actions. By contrast, EWS is about as soulful as a kegger. A fun time in the moment, but nothing you'll remember after that. And that might be a very good thing.

** One footnote: If you have a surround sound set-up, you'll notice this film makes the same mistake as many others recently by putting primary audio in the rear channels, making the party scenes virtually impossible to hear unless you just jack the center channel through the roof. Maybe this is something related to Dolby Atmos. Whatever it is, it's irritating as hell. Nothing sinks a film faster than bad sound.
51 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Recommended for college movie fans (with all that comes with that). Otherwise; look the other way.
stonedraim26 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
**** May contain strong spoilers ****

This is a review made by StoneDraim... and that means that if you want to read a probably different kind of review, keep reading....

This is my personal experience, my personal point of view/perspective and my personal opinion... and my opinion is just one of like 7 billions in this world.

Oh.... here we go! Thrust yourself into the 80's with... Knack, knack.... who's there... "My Sharona"! (pun intended in a special kind of important and beautiful way...just so you know....) Just the music in this one makes it hits some great goals and go for a really strong rate. Nice to hear the tune "Cotton Eye Joe", that were a HUGE hit when the group of Rednex did it.

Do you like college film were everything is focused on drinking, sex, exploring a "cool and popular" type of language and stereotypes and acting in the sign of testosterone... watch this. Then I can really recommend this almost at the highest peak. Otherwise... as I feel.... look the other way. Actually, I go as far as; I was so bored I wanted it just to end. I am interested in what purpose Richard Linklater has when making this one.

A hot topic (as written before in another review); everybody's name is Jake.

Another hot topic; this movie proves the long known fact; to everything, you can use duct tape.

Over to the movie as a product: - The production : Godd production. Great top notch music that elevates the experience and gives the nostalgic touch to the era. - The actors : Everybody is doing what they were payed for. - The story : Well. If the college life was like this in the early 80's, it is fascinating to watch. Otherwise... I sense the question mark after the word "Why"? - Entertainment : Some entertainment. Beer.... beer... sex.... women...party and party... and a lot of testosterone. Do you like that, this one is really for you... as written before. - Age : 15

4,2 out of 10. (The final rate is based most on my own entertainment of the movie. Short elucidation of the rating: 5 Approved. 4 Failed. Lacking in character.)
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Boo urns... This movie stinks
polyab15 May 2016
i have no clue how this movie is ranked so high... i feel like i watched a different movie. The one i saw was horrible. Do not watch this if you're hoping for something similar to Dazed and Confused. I knew it wasn't going to come close to dazed and confused but i had time to kill and already saw everything else that was playing at that time. A lot of the characters were useless. I can sit through almost any movie but there was at least 2 times where i wanted to walk out. in no circumstance will i ever watch this movie again. I can watch Soul Plane 10 times in a row but will kill myself if i had to watch this again. i am exaggerating a bit, but i need to fill 10 lines to publish the review
24 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not a comedy! Actually not worth watching at all!
aemilijan31 July 2016
Up until now I thought that IMDb score was a credible measure of how good a movie actually was and I thought that with 7.3 at the moment of watching and writing this review this movie would be slightly funny at least but boy, was I wrong... There was no build up of plot, not a single thing was even remotely funny and none of the characters had an actual background or a point to which the movie would concentrate to. This movie made me register and write my first review ever, even though English is not my mother tongue and even had to google some phrases. I wouldn't even bother in other cases but I was so disappointed in wasting my Sunday afternoon with this movie. So, decide for yourself...
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Many will not want some of this.
jwbeller2 April 2016
In my opinion, if you're over 25, there is a good chance you will not enjoy this movie. When we saw the previews in the theaters, my wife and I thought this movie would need a good review if we were ever going to see it. It looked like a complete loser, but how could it be that bad if it was made by Richard Linklater who made Boyhood that we loved.

When the critics' reviews came out, they were almost universally positive with a Metascore of 84, and the IMDb user score was around 8.0 The time was convenient, the theater (Arclight in Bethesda) was our favorite, the Washington Post critic Ann Hornaday (who has lost a lot of my trust) gave it three stars and a good writeup. How could it be that bad? Maybe I should have noticed that nearly 10% of the raters on IMDb gave it a 1.

The actors in the film, most of whom are unknowns, did a good job. The filming was very good. But the story, what little there was of one, was a real looser. It centered on the male bonding of a group of baseball scholarship athletes at a college in Texas. It took place during three days before the start of the fall semester in 1980. The first 75% of the film consisted primarily of partying, drinking, trying to hookup, more partying, more drinking, etc. The last 25%, where a real story began to develop, was good.

I rate movies on enjoyment. For instance, Horrible Bosses, which got mixed reviews, I gave a 9. It was very enjoyable and I got a lot of laughs from it. I hated Birdman, which had high ratings similar to Everybody Wants Some. I've come to the conclusion that you can't trust the professional critics, and you can't always trust users on IMDb. The question is, can you trust my wife and me who see about 100 movies a year in the theaters. You decide.
27 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed