Triangle of Sadness Sarcastic T-Shirt

Product Information

Triangle of Sadness is outstanding. My only complaints are minor, including a few character moments that don't make sense -- and can't really be explained away by in-text stupidity -- as well as exactly one CGI donkey that doesn't look great. Still, this is the best time I've had in a movie theater in a long time, as is so often the case when the attendees are offered puke bags and at least one viewer is forced to leave the auditorium for some air. The first third of the movie was boring, a real snoozer that almost lead me to turn it off (wish I had of).

From there it got extremely unrealistic, there was no explanation for the mass puke and poop fest, and seemed like it was a food issue rather than a turbulent ocean issue, but they seemed to focus on the latter! Hard to follow. We shouldn't just slip into the stereotypical gender-based roles," Carl pleads with her, exasperated. Loading... Sadness of some shape will now perhaps forever be associated with this satire which won the Palme d’Or at this year’s Cannes film festival: its beautiful young star Charlbi Dean died in August of a freak infection. Her scenes are impressive, but the film itself is bafflingly overrated: strident, derivative and dismayingly deficient in genuine laughs, Ruben Östlund’s new movie is a heavy-handed Euro-satire, without the subtlety and insight of his breakthrough movie Force Majeure, or the power of his comparable Palme-winning spectacle about the art world, The Square. This film, on the other hand, congratulates itself deafeningly on being against the cruelty of the global super-rich, against the trite culture of fashion, against the vapidity of social media influencers. It uses a howitzer to shoot drugged fish in a barrel, inserts flabby lite-surrealism where the comedy might otherwise go and the plot turns out to be a retread of JM Barrie’s stage-play The Admirable Crichton. For long stretches of that scene, as the couple argue on the ride home and in the hotel lift, it's as if Carl has made the compelling point about his relative disadvantage as a male model. Actually, that's not entirely fair, because although Östlund makes his points with unapologetic frankness, the Swedish writer-director's first English-language film shows that he is still capable of quietly uncomfortable, penetrating social comedy. This is what we get in the opening scenes, when the film appears to be a straightforward lampoon of the fashion industry. In advertising shoots, notes Östlund, the more expensive the brand, the more grumpy the models have to pretend to be. As for the title, the "triangle of sadness" is the term given to the frown lines between your eyebrows.

What to know

Triangle of Sadness has received much critical acclaim and comes around with a plot that sounds interesting on paper. The truth is however that this movie is vapid, pretentious and exhausting drivel that doesn't deserve the attention it's getting. Let me point out how I have come to this conclusion. It's quite clear what's being attempted here, but the response is always, "so what?" Probably the best example is the whole ordeal involving gender roles, which is featured at the beginning and the end. The movie starts with influencers Carl and Yaya arguing at a fancy restaurant over paying the bill. Then, at the end of the movie when they're stranded on an island, Carl starts having sex with Abigail, the toilet manager on the yacht, for extra food and privileges. It's pretty obvious that what we have here is an inversion of stereotypical gender roles and power structures. So what? What is Ostlund trying to say about this? It's not at all clear what the point is supposed to be. Another great example is the contrast between Thomas (an American socialist), and Dimitry (a Russian capitalist). Sure, it's conceptually interesting, but nothing is done with it. They argue as the yacht sinks, that's it. But then on a film like Ruben’s, you’re being used all the time and you’re striving to be great in every way,” he goes on. “Your energy is depleted at the end of the day, you feel shattered, but it feels worth it.”

Swedish filmmaker Ruben Östlund wants to make films that get people talking, and his latest — Neon’s Triangle of Sadness, the 2022 Palme d’Or winner, now nominated for three Oscars, including best picture — did exactly that. Set on a yacht for the super-rich that sinks and leaves its guests clamoring for survival on an island, the film is a social satire that also happens to include a 15-minute vomit scene. What's most frustrating is that the elements for a great movie are right there. The acting is executed well and the movie is styled in a unique yet restrained way. Some of the humour even elicits laughs, a rare trait for a modern comedy. But none of this is enough to fully salvage the film and make it worth watching. Triangle of Sadness is a movie that has the trappings of great cinema, but it's all in service of a wretched, vacuous hole at its center. Woody Haralson is in this, but as per usual, he's weird quirky and really adds so little to the movie! Thompson, Anne; Lindahl, Chris (25 May 2022). "The Cannes Market Is Hot! Unless It's Not: Here's The Winners And Losers So Far". IndieWire. Archived from the original on 25 May 2022 . Retrieved 25 May 2022.

Dalton, Ben (2 November 2022). "Lionsgate buys 'Triangle Of Sadness' UK-Ireland rights from Curzon". Screen International. Archived from the original on 3 November 2022 . Retrieved 1 April 2023.

Either way, De Leon hopes Triangle of Sadness inspires viewers to “change the way they perceive people who they think are lower than them, or higher than them.” For me (and my fellow Swedish viewers, no doubt), it was especially fun to see revue legend Henrik Dorsin as a lonesome Swedish millionaire. He just has a perfect face and demeanor for comedy -- even the very first shot of him as a dejected, pudgy middle-aged man sitting by himself made me and my theater company laugh.

‘Triangle of Sadness’ won the Palme d’Or at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival

Triangle of Sadness" (PDF). Cannes Film Festival. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 May 2022 . Retrieved 21 May 2022. The Delusional Triangle of Sadness". National Review. 26 October 2022. Archived from the original on 22 January 2023 . Retrieved 22 January 2023. Alysha Prasad of One Room With A View called it "Utterly unhinged in the best way possible, guaranteed to elicit enough laughter to make your stomach ache, while also leaving you with plenty to think about afterwards." [33] David Kaplan of Kaplan vs. Kaplan praised the ensemble cast as "completely compelling, even if some of the characters are unsavory." [34] Aaron Neuwirth of We Live Entertainment described it as containing "what’s likely the grossest set piece I’ve seen in a movie awarded the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival." [35] Gabi Zeitsman of Channel 24 (South Africa) commented, "if you loved White Lotus and satire aimed at the beautiful and rich, this is a definite must-watch. The fact that it won the Palme d'Or is in itself almost satirical..." [36] "Don't go in expecting art-house intellectualism," wrote Kyle Smith of the Wall Street Journal, "The movie is as loaded with fun as it is with social implications." [37] Paul Byrnes of the Sydney Morning Herald commented, "For Östlund, subtlety is overrated. Triangle of Sadness shows us why he has a point. It’s a spectacular demolition of modern life, a disruptor movie full of ideas and nuance, as violent in its way as a Pieter Bruegel painting." [38] Kevin Maher of The Times detected more nuance in the film, however, stating: "Yes, the metaphor can seem very on-the-nose: the super rich, in this economic climate especially, are obscene and repulsive! But it's a film of great subtlety (really) and benefits from multiple viewings." [39]

And the ending wasn't good too. Again, as I stated in the title, too on the nose and too hellbent on pushing the same message down the throat of the audiences, who I'm pretty sure will have gotten it by end of act 2.Neglia, Matt (23 January 2023). "The 2022 Online Film Critics Society (OFCS) Winners". Next Best Picture. Archived from the original on 23 January 2023 . Retrieved 23 January 2023. Now, I love a slow burn. I like long films. And I definitely like films that have something to say. But in all honesty, this film could have been cut by 1/3rd and spared the audience a lot of pain. Every scene is too long, starting from the very first one. There certainly is a message of gender-reversed exploitation to be made, but how long does it really need to take? And the awkwardness of Carl and Yaya's evening is excruciatingly drawn out, exacerbated by the dull and fractional dialogue (though this could be mitigated by the characters being dull and fractional themselves). Even the aftermath of the Captain's Dinner is gratuitously long and boring (I won't even bring in 'disgusting', because that frankly isn't even the issue.) It must be meant for an audience unfamiliar with subtlety in film, but there's no way that target audience has the attention span for such a drawn out film. Why did you want to film on the Christina O yacht specifically, which was once owned by Aristotle Onassis? First of all, the movie exaggeratedly tries to criticize contemporary society. The world of modeling is fake and superficial. Influencers are self-consumed and shallow. The rich and famous are greedy and soulless. The poor are jealous and vengeful. This movie brings up so many tired old stereotypes that it doesn't become a satire of contemporary society but rather a satire of its very own kind: pretentiously moralizing films attempting to please trendy prejudices.