Don't Look Up

To promote the film, on December 3, 2021, Ariana Grande and Kid Cudi released the single "Just Look Up", which is also performed in the film.[36] The original score for the film is composed by Nicholas Britell, who previously scored McKay's The Big Short (2015), Vice (2018) and the HBO television series Succession (2019–2022); McKay served as an executive producer of the latter. He used a wide range of instrumentation that reflect varied music styles and genres.[37][38] He did this so as to give a remainder on the existential crisis on the planet following a catastrophic event as well as the absurdity of how people react to it.[39] Apart from "Just Look Up", the film also featured "Second Nature" by Bon Iver, which was released along with Britell's score album on December 10, by Republic Records.[40]

On February 19, 2020, it was announced that Netflix planned to release the film in 2020.[19] Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, filming and release of the film were delayed.[41] The film premiered in New York City on December 5, 2021.[42] It received a limited theatrical release on December 10, and began streaming on Netflix on December 24.[43][44] The film made an estimated $260,000 from 500 theaters on its first day, and a total of $700,000 in its opening weekend.[45]

Don't Look Up was the most-streamed English-language film on Netflix during its first week of release with a viewership of 111.03 million hours,[46] the second highest viewership for a movie during its debut weekend on Netflix.[47] It was the second most-streamed-film of the week in the United States according to TV Time.[48] Per Nielsen, the film had a viewership of 1.6 billion minutes in the United States.[49] In the second week, it retained its first position with a viewership of 152.29 million hours,[50] which also set the record for highest weekly viewership for any film ever on Netflix.[51][52]

For its first 28 days, the film culminated a viewership of 359.8 million hours, making it the second most-watched film within 28 days of release on Netflix during this period of time.[53] By March 20, the film had been streamed in 10.3 million households in the United States according to Samba TV, including 641,000 since the Oscar nomination announcements on February 8.[54]

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 55% of 301 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 6.3/10. The website's consensus reads: "Don't Look Up aims too high for its scattershot barbs to consistently land, but Adam McKay's star-studded satire hits its target of collective denial square on."[55] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 49 out of 100, based on 52 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.[56]

The San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle praised the film and wrote, "Don't Look Up might be the funniest movie of 2021. It's the most depressing too, and that odd combination makes for a one-of-a-kind experience... McKay gives you over two hours of laughs while convincing you that the world is coming to an end."[57] Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film 2.5 out of 4 stars and said: "From Streep and DiCaprio and Lawrence through the supporting players, Don't Look Up is filled with greatly talented actors really and truly selling this material—but the volume remains at 11 throughout the story when some changes in tone here and there might have more effectively carried the day."[58] Reviewing the film for the Los Angeles Times, Justin Chang wrote, "Nothing about the foolishness and outrageousness of what the movie shows us—no matter how virtuosically sliced and diced by McKay's characteristically jittery editor, Hank Corwin—can really compete with the horrors of our real-world American idiocracy."[59] Amit Katwala of Wired concluded that "Don't Look Up nails the frustration of being a scientist."[60] Linda Marric of The Jewish Chronicle gave the film 4/5 stars, writing: "There is something genuinely endearing about a film that doesn't seem to care one bit about coming across as silly as long as its message is heard".[61] Shruti Kotiya of Sportskeeda, suggests that "Don't Look Up also feels similar to Mike Judge's Idiocracy, which is set in 2505 America, where mindless entertainment and violence are what really matter. It also sheds light on how the world's collective IQ has hit its lowest, which is why Don't Look Up is like a 21st-century version of it."[62]

In a negative review, David Rooney of The Hollywood Reporter called the film "A cynical, insufferably smug satire stuffed to the gills with stars that purports to comment on political and media inattention to the climate crisis but really just trivializes it. Dr. Strangelove it ain't."[63] Peter Debruge of Variety called the film a "smug, easy-target political satire" and wrote, "Don't Look Up plays like the leftie answer to Armageddon—which is to say, it ditches the Bruckheimer approach of assembling a bunch of blue-collar heroes to rocket out to space and nuke the approaching comet, opting instead to spotlight the apathy, incompetence and financial self-interest of all involved."[64] In The Guardian, Charles Bramesco wrote that the "script states the obvious as if everyone else is too stupid to realize it and does so from a position of lofty superiority that would drive away any partisans who still need to be won over."[65] In The Sociological Review, Katherine Cross accused the film of "smug condescension" and wrote that the film "is designed to flatter a certain type of liberal viewer into feeling like they're the last sane person in the world, surrounded by morons."[66]

Reviews from right-wing publications were nearly unanimously negative. Madeline Fry Schultz of the American conservative publication Washington Examiner wrote that "McKay manages to deliver nothing more than a derivative and meandering 'satire' of capitalism, Donald Trump, and climate deniers that will be forgotten in less than six months."[67] Kyle Smith of American conservative publication National Review wrote that the film "expends 140 brain-injuriously unfunny minutes... propelling low-velocity spitballs at social media, Washington, tech moguls, Trumpism, and (this detail feels thrown in last minute) anti-vaxxers."[68]

Nathan J. Robinson, editor of American progressive publication Current Affairs, believes that "critics were not only missing the point of the film in important ways, but that the very way they discussed the film exemplified the problem that the film was trying to draw attention to. Some of the responses to the movie could have appeared in the movie itself."[69] Slavoj Žižek, writing in Compact, said that "critics were displeased by the light tone of Don't Look Up!, claiming it trivializes the ultimate apocalypse. What really bothered these critics is the exact opposite: The film highlights trivialization that permeates not only the establishment, but even the protesters."[70] In The Guardian, Catherine Bennett viewed the film as astute and was caustic about the critical reviews.[71] British journalist and environmental activist George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that "no wonder journalists have slated it ... it's about them" and added that for environmental activists like himself, the film, while fast‑paced and humorous, "seemed all too real".[72]

Bong Joon-ho, director of Snowpiercer and Parasite, included Don't Look Up as one of his favorite films of 2021.[73]

Since the film's release, numerous climate scientists and climate communicators have offered positive opinions on the film.[74][75][76]

In an opinion piece published in The Guardian, climate scientist Peter Kalmus remarked, "Don't Look Up is satire. But speaking as a climate scientist doing everything I can to wake people up and avoid planetary destruction, it's also the most accurate film about society's terrifying non-response to climate breakdown I've seen."[77] Climate scientist Michael E. Mann also expressed support for the film, calling it "serious sociopolitical commentary posing as comedy".[78] In an article for Scientific American, Rebecca Oppenheimer questioned the film's use of a comet impact as an effective metaphor for climate change, given the large differences in timescale of these differing potential extinction crisis events and the nature of their impacts, but praised its depiction of science denialism and depiction of a botched attempt to address a "planet-killer" comet.[16] Climate policy expert Ayana Elizabeth Johnson and McKay wrote a joint op-ed in The Guardian advocating for the value of humour in promoting action on climate change, in contrast with other media coverage.[79]

Writing in Physics World, Laura Hiscott said that this "genuinely funny and entertaining film" would appeal to scientists, who would appreciate the "nods to academia such as the importance of peer review, the 'publish or perish' problem and the issue of senior academics getting the credit for their PhD students' discoveries".[80]

One of the scenes in the film was compared on social media to a situation in Brazil. In that situation, microbiologist and science communicator Natália Pasternak Taschner criticized a news report made by TV Cultura on a live broadcast in December 2020. They told the Brazilian population to face the COVID-19 pandemic with "lightness", minimizing the risks. They also put pressure on the public to be content and uncritical of the Jair Bolsonaro administration's lack of effective response to the pandemic.[81] Hearing about the comparisons, Pasternak thanked McKay, DiCaprio and Lawrence on Twitter, with the video subtitled in English, for the "incredible" film.[82]

In the Journal of Science Communication, Niels G. Mede writes "the film depicts sharp partisan divides, strong affective polarization, high distrust toward science within certain social milieus, and pronounced news media sensationalism, which have been found to be characteristic of the United States but not, or to a lesser extent, of several countries other than the US."[142] From the same journal, writer Julie Doyle remarked that, "yet, as the film critiques existing structures and systems it does not imagine an alternative set of realities, nor explain the comet's cause. In focusing upon the fictional stories of scientists, politicians, and media celebrities, the film fails to center any marginalized voices, continuing to privilege global north perspectives, even as these are satirised."[143] Doyle comments that "climate communication needs to keep in place both climate mitigation and adaptation, making the historical and structural inequalities of capitalism and colonialism the interconnected stories of both."[143]

One solution to Mindy and Dibiasky's failed attempts to communicate the severity of the upending comet is undergoing media training, which was brought up in the film multiple times, such as at the conference room at the New York Herald where the Chief Editor proposes media training to Mindy before the show. The concept of media training can come in different forms. Samer Angelone, in a commentary journal on science communication, writes, "The style that scientists use to communicate science to peer scientists is mostly objective, complex, and full of technical jargon, which is difficult for the general public to connect to—even if it is in the same language."[144] Another way to mitigate science skepticism is through storytelling. Mede writes, "The film also illustrates that storytelling can be a promising strategy to mitigate these reservations... showing how Mindy is advised before a TV interview that he is 'just telling a story' and must 'keep it simple.'"[142]

Gendered discourse on emotions and mental health make its way into the film through the portrayal of the public's reaction to Mindy and Dibiasky's various media appearances. The scientists share their discovery on a morning talk show, The Daily Rip, in which Dibiasky has an emotional outburst over the show hosts' persistent attempts to sugarcoat the devastating news of the doomsday comet. Professor of media and communication Julie Doyle writes, "Gendered norms affect Mindy and Dibiasky's public credibility and the mitigatory comet actions they promote. Following his own emotional outburst on TV, Mindy is subsequently recuperated through processes of celebritisation... hailed as a 'sexy' scientist offering rational and calm advice to the viewers; becoming chief science advisor to the White House to monitor the drone activities of tech billionaire Peter Isherwell; and embarking on a sexual affair with Evantee. In contrast, Dibiasky is discredited and side-lined from rational public commentary through (climate) memes."[143]

Throughout the film, many historic figures from science and politics can be spotted, adding to the film's nuanced discussion about the relationship between science and politics.

The opening scene of the film features a figure of Carl Sagan on Dibiasky's desk. In a journal commentary for Science Communication, Samer Angelone writes that "Sagan was an astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, and astrobiologist but, above all, he was an upholder of scientific credibility and communication."[144] Sagan advocated for the urgency to battle climate change, and many viewers see the film as an allegory for him, but his image is juxtaposed by a painting of George W. Bush, "who later tried to downplay this urgency."[142] The film also "references the affinity of anti-science resentment and populism, showing how President Orlean and her team slander Mindy and Dibiasky using populist rhetoric...and gather in an Oval Office that has a portrait of the anti-establishment science skeptic Andrew Jackson."[142]

The film ends with a scene that reflects the Last Supper. Dr. Mindy, his family, Kate, Yule, and Teddy all sit around a dinner table and engage in a hand-held prayer, spoken by Yule. After the prayer, Kate Dibiasky gives Yule a kiss, and moments later Comet Dibiasky destroys Earth. The scene also resembles a Hieronymus Bosch painting.[145]