User Reviews

Oh ce sont deux bien jolies nanas, Margaret et Aubrey mais hélas, chacune de leur côté, car Margaret (dans son rôle ici) aime à tondre la pelouse en Californie en tant que… détective privée ?… on n’y croit pas une seconde mais c’est pas grave. Elle rencontre surtout cette fliquette, dans le genre un peu camionneuse (dis camion… ah non, merde, des piercings !)… Une vague histoire qui ressemble vaguement à un polar en tout cas (?) tente de donner du liant à ce film très désuni, sauf en ce qui concerne son agenda woke LGBT bien sûr. Les Coen se font trop vieux, ils deviennent progressistes, eux aussi ! et à l’issue de ce navet qui ne dit pas son nom, on ne leur dit qu’une chose : don’t ! Non, vraiment, il ne fallait pas se donner la peine de commettre une telle bouse avec ses personnages qui ne sont que de vagues caricatures (ratées évidemment) et ce scénar chiant et inepte à la fois. Et pourtant, ça ne dure qu’une heure et demi, tout compris, ce truc… mais c’est déjà trop. Cela dit, il faut le dire, ça fait déjà un bout de temps que les frères Coen ne font plus que de la merde !

Yeah…this one didn’t really do anything for me. I’m afraid this one missed the mark, and that’s unfortunate because although I do like Aubrey Plaza, this was another cliche typecast role for her.

Why do modern movies include so many scenes where people are doing mundane tasks, e.g. driving, while bad music plays loudly? It’s boring and stupid and does not progress the story or contribute to character development. Instead, it compels me to turn it off. It's like a song that's mostly static or a book with large blank spaces. It's stupid. Being that it happens in so many movies they must be teaching this in film school. Whoever teaches that class is a moron.

Es una película bizarra, con personajes excéntricos, escenas subidas de tono, es entretenida para pasar el rato.

Career worst work by many involved in this, there is no cohesion to any elements of the story.

A truly awful watch. A film that had potential but was let down by its poor screenplay and surprisingly poor performances from Qualley and Plaza who usually deliver.

A solid cast is wasted on a frustratingly cluttered and equally disconnected plot that fails to resolve any of the numerous storylines unfolding.

Ethan Coen's second entry in his so-called "lesbian B-movie trilogy" is definitely an improvement over the first one, Drive-Away Dolls, which also starred Margaret Qualley, however, even though i prefer Honey Don't, i still don't think it's a good film, both movies suffer from the same fundamental issues. It's not the acting or the filmmaking, that's actually where both films done the best, the performances are fine, and the direction is competent, the problem lies entirely in the story and its execution, the writing feels uninspired and forgettable, nothing about it stands out or feels particularly engaging, instead of a cohesive narrative experience, it often feels like i'm just watching well-known actors share scenes, exchange dialogue, and move through a plot that never really grabs my attention or builds any momentum. Overall, Honey Don't is a step up from Drive-Away Dolls, but it's still another disappointment, if this trilogy continues in the same direction, i'm not expecting the third film to be much better, but i guess we'll see.

Plot doesn't connect to anything, abruptly ends without resolving plotlines. The entire movie seems to exist to have lgbt themes and make anti-right wing comments. Acting is fine, visually it's fine. The writing is just bad, we left the theater feeling like we wasted our time by the end of it.

"Honey, Don't" is the type of movie that puts its characters before the plot. And you really should be aware of that going in. It's also a neo-noir movie, which means it meanders and has a few twists and gets kind of convoluted. Not for one single second was I bored or frustrated by what I was watching. I feel like people tend to boycott movies about feminism and lesbians, and I think that's what's been happening with the general reception this movie got. By the end, you figure out 50% of the movie was red herrings. I mean, literally 50% of the plot is irrevelant. Does that make the journey less enjoyable? No, because when you watch this for the first time, you don't know those are red herrings. But even if you watch this a second time, you may still have fun. If this doesn't sound like your type of movie and you don't know whether to watch it or not: honey, don't. The Internet does not need your uber-negative reviews about a perfectly fine movie. We all know which movies starring Chris Evans you should be watching instead.

Not just contrived, not just juvenile, not just try-hard. This snooze-fest is a lot worse: It is sad, flatulent and angry. Like an aged Karen trying to be edgy by being dumb, immoral, ugly, crass and rude. Lame and embarrassing.

ethan coen's fascination with lesbian sex. ethan coen’s most recent solo effort is, above all, a peculiar narrative exercise, one of those films that seems to seek tone rather than destination. 'honey don’t!' is not built around a clear purpose or a definitive conclusion, but rather flows as a story that allows itself to wander, with moments where the anecdotal weighs more than the essential. that apparent chaos is not gratuitous: much of its appeal lies precisely in the way the film resists fitting into classical narrative molds. the dissection of the characters is perhaps the film’s most accomplished aspect. each one is drawn with surprising detail, even when the script throws them into extravagant or provocative situations. in this regard, chris evans once again proves to be an actor capable of handling eccentric roles with ease, bringing an ironic and playful touch that fits well with the spirit of the film. visually, the movie is a display of resources. the cinematography, the color palette, and the lighting reinforce the idea of being in front of a spectacle that, while not aiming for transcendence, commits to aesthetic impact. it is in that dimension that 'honey don’t!' becomes hypnotic, finding in its visuals what the narrative sometimes decides to leave in the background. the work recalls, in some way, the narrative drift of 'once upon a time… in hollywood': an experience sustained more by atmosphere than by plot progression. it is cinema that does not intend to deliver closed answers, but rather invites the viewer to observe, to be carried away by a cadence that combines the playful, the erotic, and the absurd. and although coen’s fascination with sex —so marked in the mise-en-scène— may seem excessive, he balances it with a storyline developed enough to keep the film from falling into mere provocation. ultimately, 'honey don’t!' is a film that both unsettles and seduces. it offers nothing more than entertainment and a play of forms, but in that apparent lightness lies a creative honesty: that of a filmmaker who, far from seeking classicism, delights in the freedom of making a film without a fixed destination. spanish: la fascinación de ethan coen por el sexo lésbico. la más reciente incursión de ethan coen en solitario es, ante todo, un ejercicio narrativo peculiar, de aquellos que parecen buscar más el tono que el destino. 'honey don’t!' no se construye alrededor de un propósito claro ni de una conclusión contundente, sino que fluye como un relato que se permite la dispersión, con momentos en los que lo anecdótico gana más peso que lo esencial. ese aparente caos no es gratuito: ahí reside gran parte de su atractivo, en el modo en que la película se resiste a encajar en moldes clásicos de narración. la disección de los personajes es, quizá, lo más logrado de la propuesta. cada uno está trazado con un detalle que sorprende, incluso cuando el guion los lanza a situaciones extravagantes o provocadoras. en ese terreno, chris evans se reafirma como un intérprete capaz de sostener con solvencia papeles excéntricos, aportando un matiz irónico y juguetón que se ajusta bien al espíritu del film. visualmente, la película es un despliegue de recursos. la fotografía, la paleta cromática y la iluminación refuerzan la idea de estar ante un espectáculo que, si bien no busca trascendencia, sí apuesta por la contundencia estética. es en esa dimensión donde 'honey don’t!' resulta hipnótica, encontrando en lo visual aquello que la narrativa a veces decide dejar en segundo plano. la obra recuerda, en cierto modo, a la deriva narrativa de 'once upon a time… in hollywood': una experiencia que se sostiene más en su atmósfera que en su avance argumental. es cine que no pretende entregar respuestas cerradas, sino invitar a observar, a dejarse arrastrar por una cadencia que combina lo lúdico, lo erótico y lo absurdo. y aunque esa fascinación de coen por el sexo —tan marcada en la puesta en escena— podría parecer excesiva, lo equilibra con una historia lo suficientemente desarrollada como para que la película no caiga en la mera provocación. en definitiva, 'honey don’t!' es un film que desconcierta y seduce a partes iguales. no ofrece más que entretenimiento y un juego de formas, pero en esa aparente ligereza hay una honestidad creativa: la de un cineasta que, lejos de buscar el clasicismo, se divierte con la libertad de filmar sin destino fijo.

Just more preachy lib femme-boss white-man-bad drivel extracted from the bowels of angry, middle-aged directors. The writers knew it was hot garbage, so they carried the show by inserting gratuitous nudity and edgy sexuality. The actors deadpan-mime their lines, much like the rest of us showing up for a boring job, eager to do the thing and cash a check.

My brother loved it. He said it was almost as good as Eddington. I personally thought it was just ok.

Great fun. Trashy. I laughed a lot. Philip Marlowe transposed from 1940’s film noir to 2020’s California, and he’s an attractive 30 something lesbian. Tarantinoesque. Kitsch. Great imagery and great music. I loved it

Seems to exists as an 88-minute excuse to ogle Ms. Qualley, and that’s as good an excuse as any.

I went in pretty blind to Honey Don't! Kept my expectation tempered, and had a great time! It really felt like a slice of life, noir, film centered around a private detective in a small time, but quickly grew in mystery in intrigue in ways that I honestly would have never guessed. The comedy was pretty dry humor which I enjoy a lot, and the cast of characters on display by Margaret Qualley, Aubrey Plaza, Chris Evans, and even Charlie Day were all fun and interesting. The film itself can seem a little disjointed and has a pretty abrupt end that leaves a lot of open questions. Still, it is worth the watch!

You can just feel old man's bitterness and hate by inserting his political believe nonsense mambo jambo in every scene possible. It took out of movie too much. Didn't expected this from Ethan Coen. He seemed solid professional dude. We just want quality movie, for god's sake, not being lectured by old man. Is too much to ask?

"Honey Don't!" is a deliberately knowingly light and funny mock escapist thriller, one that’s just trying to show you a flaky good time. If Ethan Cohen and his wife Tricia Cooke's intent is to make interesting B genre thriller movies, this has the funny spirit and energy of a fun noir detective thriller that's not taking itself too seriously and trusts its audience to go along for the ride. Unfortunately the multiple subplots, uneven tonal shifts and unanswered storylines make this more frustrating than funny. "Honey Don’t!" and "Drive-Away Dolls" (the first collaboration of Coen and Cooke) are tonal siblings by Ethan Coen and Tricia Cooke, both aiming for throwaway, **** escapism, but their thematic ambitions, comedic energy, and narrative impact diverge in notable ways. The films are pitched as part of a ‘lesbian B-movie trilogy,’ but while Drive-Away Dolls is a “deliberately loose, raunchy romp” with a screwball sensibility and zippy, cartoonish filmmaking that channels the madcap energy of early Coen works, Honey Don’t! has a more straight-faced, although meandering neo-noir vibe with “small-town scuzziness” and a hangout-movie feel. Margaret Qualley stars in both films in two radically different roles. In Drive-Away Dolls, she plays Jamie, a fast-talking, sex-positive agent of chaos who energizes the action and comedy of the film. As Honey O’Donoghue in this movie, Qualley is much more contained as a sharp-dressed and slick-tongued private eye navigating a desert mystery giving the film its noirish atmosphere. When a prospective client turns up dead in a car accident, Honey O’Donahue finds the coincidence more than accidental and launches into an unsanctioned and unsupported investigation of the death. As most things happen in a small town, Honey finds that her strange coincidence connects with others in the town and seems to center around a loathsome preacher of a local cultish church. In supporting performances, Chris Evans plays a despicable and disgusting but darkly humorous cult-leader pastor who is more than he seems. Aubrey Plaza plays an innocuous, uninteresting, and awkward police officer who becomes a love interest in the film. Unlike other noir murder mysteries, Honey is a smart private investigator who really doesn’t solve anything. She moves through the town, and answers seem to fall in her lap more than her finding them. She also seems to spend more time undressed and romancing women in the movie than actually interrogating suspects. The real mystery of the movie is how we got to a conclusion as Honey meanders her way through the film. 'Honey Don’t!" seems to revel in its aimless and sluggish pacing with a plot that is equally aimless and subpar, launching into various subplots and red herrings that don't get addressed later on and never establishing the central core of a murder whodunit. A movie that feels twice as long as its runtime actually is (it’s only 90 minutes). It’s not a noir mystery nor is it overtly humorous. Sadly, it doesn’t deliver on any of its intentions. The saddest part is that sometime soon, there will be a third movie plumbing these depths. I, for one, can wait.

It's crazy how badly Ethan Coen is doing without Joel Coen. The movie feels like a cheap imitation of Fargo with its small town murders, wacky characters but done so badly. Margaret's performance was extremely stiff and one note in here, not sure if it's her fault or the director's because everyone else's performance was also bad. It didn't even feel like they were talking to each other at times, just actors waiting for their turns to say their lines and do their quirky bits back and forth. The script is genuinely badly written with the final villain's motivation coming out of nowhere and make no sense. The audience at my theatre were all left confused by the end.

No matter how many elements a filmmaker may get right in creating a movie, none of them means anything if they’re not set within a coherent cinematic context, either thematically or in terms of the picture’s central narrative. And, regrettably, that’s the problem that plagues the second solo narrative feature outing from writer-director Ethan Coen. This pulpy comedy-drama-crime thriller, which follows the exploits of flamboyant, perpetually “thirsty” small town private detective Honey O’Donahue (Margaret Qualley) in her investigation of a series of unsolved murders apparently tied to mysterious church, successfully incorporates an array of truly captivating qualities – colorful character development, fine performances (particularly by Qualley and in the supporting portrayals of Aubrey Plaza, Chris Evans and Charlie Day), a well-crafted production design and a collection of knock-it-out-of-the-park one-liners. In fact, about the only thing that’s missing here is a solid, comprehensible story. The picture’s disjointed jumble of plot threads – many of them underdeveloped and/or extraneous – meanders along for roughly 90 minutes without ever really going anywhere or saying anything relevant or meaningful. To be sure, “Honey Don’t!” has its share of genuinely enjoyable moments, but a handful of modestly memorable instances does not a movie make. And that’s unfortunate, given that it seems the picture has many of the ingredients for what could have potentially been an outlandishly funny, wickedly engaging tale. Instead, viewers are left with a plot that aimlessly roams from tangent to tangent and never seems to coalesce into something substantial or integrated, no matter how visually appealing it might be or how effective it is in tickling one’s funny bone. And, when the film comes up lacking in this regard, it often falls back on titillating sequences driven by graphic sexuality or edgy violence to shore up its obvious deficiencies, a rather cheap and cheesy way to try and revive sagging audience interest. In that sense, then, this production reminds me very much of the films of such directors as Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson, whose releases, in my view, are often long on style and woefully short on substance. I find all of this rather disappointing, especially in light of Coen’s filmography over the years, particularly his many successful productions with his brother Joel. But perhaps that’s the key ingredient that’s missing here – the collaboration of the two siblings working together to produce truly outstanding works of cinema (and, thankfully, a reunion of the two is said to be in development). Whatever the case, though, it appears the filmmaker’s sophomore attempt at working on his own has not yet yielded cinema of the caliber that he’s capable of. Let’s hope that changes with his next project.