Everybody Wants Some!!

🔥

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.

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

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...

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?

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.

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.

"Don't be afraid to let the experience find you." Willoughby (Wyatt Russell) Everybody Wants Some!! is a real comedy, not some reality show knock off about college athletes gone bad. It's 1980, it feels like 1980, and the kids are full of 1980's optimism expressed in their passion for baseball and hot chicks. The "experience" the very high, hippie philosopher Willoughby promotes in the quote above comes for most at college, where new experiences find and transform. The hero is Jake (Blake Jenner), a freshman pitcher joining the rest of the college baseball team in one of their two houses provided off campus, conveniently unsupervised. He represents the youthful idealism of a former high-school star athlete on scholarship at a small south Texas college. Linklater's plot is so charmingly rambling, like his favorite pinball motif, that character development is acceptably absent. With the pastiche of pranks that serve as episodes, seriousness can't prevail anymore than it did in Linklater's classic, Dazed and Confused. The most interesting character has to be Finn (Glen Powell), the ladies' man spouting Linklater aphorisms like the one above. He's a woman-con who nevertheless comes out with thoughts for life amidst his clowning. What makes this film different is that from the beginning these wisecracking jocks know they're not going to be picked up by the pros, but they still talk about that happening with the right realistic attitude. Director Richard Linklater, coming off his Oscar-nominated Boyhood, in which he showed unique insight into a growing boy, now paints a portrait of young men quickly transitioning into men who know what's up. During this coming of age story, the players play at college life with the same gusto they show for their sport, not always scoring but always in pursuit, as if both games were evidence of their right to success, an American characteristic to be sure. Seeing a possible scout painting a house near the playing field, the realization is that he may not be a scout. All everybody can infer is it's good to be ready when any of life's "scouts" should come by. The wit is omnipresent and occasionally brilliant, evidenced by these two insults: dipshitification and fuckwithery—used more than once to put someone down and toughen up at the same time. Amidst Twilight Zone VHS's, Van Halen, and Carl Sagan, Linklater has returned us to 1980). And dare I say it, gives a good name to nostalgia.

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.

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.