A tired mother discovers she is the only version of herself who can save every universe — if she can first reach the one person closest to her: her own daughter.
Need an easier version? Read this lesson at A2/B1 level →
Work through the four short activities. Each word is shown in a situation that gives its meaning away — no need to know the film yet. Say your answer out loud first, then reveal.
Daniel Kwan & Daniel Scheinert's Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022). Read each part, try the quick check from memory, then discuss. (There are spoilers ahead — that's the point; we're here to talk about it.)
Evelyn Wang runs a struggling laundromat with her gentle, endlessly patient husband Waymond, who has just decided — quietly, almost apologetically — to file for divorce, though he can never quite find the moment to tell her. Evelyn is too busy: her ageing father, Gong Gong, has arrived from China expecting to see a successful daughter and a respectable family; her own daughter Joy is trying, again, to introduce her girlfriend Becky properly; and above it all hangs a summons from the tax office. Tonight, the family has an audit.
In the lift on the way up to face the auditor, Waymond suddenly changes: his eyes widen, his voice steadies, and a version of him from another universe takes over his body just long enough to tell Evelyn something impossible. There are infinite parallel universes, one for every choice she never made — and she, this exhausted, disappointing, laundromat-owning Evelyn, is the only version capable of stopping a catastrophe unravelling across all of them.
To fight, she must "verse-jump": performing strange, statistically near-impossible actions to borrow the skills and memories of other Evelyns — a movie star, a kung-fu master, a chef. Something, or someone, is destroying the agents sent to protect the multiverse, and it is heading straight for her audit.
1. What is happening in Evelyn's ordinary life at the start, and what does the alternate Waymond tell her in the lift?
2. How does Evelyn access the skills of other versions of herself?
1. Her marriage is quietly failing, her father expects a successful daughter, her own daughter wants acceptance, and the family faces a tax audit; in the lift, an alternate Waymond reveals the multiverse and tells her she alone can stop a growing threat.
2. By "verse-jumping" — performing strange, statistically improbable actions that let her briefly borrow another universe's Evelyn's skills and memories.
The enemy has a name, Jobu Tupaki, and a shocking identity: she is Joy, Evelyn's own daughter, from a universe where an experiment pushed her across so many lives, so fast, that her sense of a single self shattered. Having lived every possible experience at once, Jobu has arrived at a conclusion that feels, to her, like simple mathematics: if you have done everything, nothing can matter, and nothing is worth wanting.
To prove it, she has built something monstrous out of the most mundane object imaginable — an everything bagel, piled with every topping, every regret, every possibility, folded in on itself until it becomes a black hole that can swallow all existence. Alpha-verse agents want Evelyn to hunt Jobu down and stop her before she steps into it and takes everything with her.
The fight spills across universes both ridiculous and dazzling — a world where fingers are hot dogs, a world where humans never evolved beyond googly-eyed rocks, a world where Evelyn became the film star she once dreamed of being, with a devoted, elegant Waymond at her side. In each one, chaos and comedy sit beside something achingly sad: a mother chasing a daughter she has never really seen.
1. Who is Jobu Tupaki really, and how did she come to believe nothing matters?
2. What has she built, and what is Evelyn asked to do about it?
1. She is Joy, Evelyn's daughter, pushed by an experiment across so many lives at once that everything blurred into meaninglessness for her.
2. An "everything bagel" that can destroy all universes at once; Evelyn is asked to find and stop her, by force if necessary.
In one quiet, near-wordless universe, Evelyn and Joy exist only as two rocks side by side on a hillside, their thoughts appearing only as subtitles. Stripped of chaos and bodies, Evelyn feels, for a moment, the pull of her daughter's nihilism: perhaps nothing does matter, and the easiest thing would be to stop trying.
But Evelyn chooses otherwise. Facing enemies across a dozen universes — the tax auditor, cruel alternate selves, and finally Jobu herself — she stops fighting and starts being kind instead, echoing something Waymond told her at the very start: that in a universe of chaos, being kind, especially when you don't have to be, might be the only thing that makes any sense.
She finds Jobu, and instead of a weapon, she offers acceptance — of Joy, of Becky, of a daughter she never fully saw. It doesn't erase the multiverse's chaos or fix the family instantly, but it is enough. The film ends back where it started: in the same small, mundane laundromat, the same unresolved tax bill on the counter — except that everything between them now feels, quietly, different.
1. What almost happens to Evelyn in the "two rocks" universe, and what stops her?
2. How does Evelyn finally reach Jobu Tupaki — and where does the story end?
1. She almost gives in to nihilism, feeling that nothing matters; she pulls back and chooses kindness instead, following Waymond's philosophy.
2. Through acceptance and love rather than violence; the film ends back in the ordinary laundromat, the family's problems unresolved but their relationships changed.
No film needs mixed conditionals more than a story about a woman confronting every version of the life she might have had. Regular conditionals keep one time frame; mixed conditionals deliberately cross two — a past cause explaining a present state, or a present truth explaining a past outcome.
Read the meaning in brackets and complete the sentence.
1. If Joy had never been pushed across every possible version of herself, she (not / see) reality as one big meaningless joke. (true now)
2. If Waymond had stopped being patient with Evelyn decades ago, they (not / still / be) married today. (true now)
3. If Gong Gong had approved of Waymond from the very beginning, Evelyn's relationship with her father (be) far less strained right now. (true now)
1. wouldn't see (past condition, effect still true now)
2. wouldn't still be (past condition, effect still true now)
3. would be (past condition, effect still true now)
Read the meaning in brackets and complete the sentence.
1. If Evelyn weren't so afraid of disappointing her father, she (introduce) Joy's girlfriend properly years ago. (past result)
2. If Jobu Tupaki didn't feel completely alone in everything she had experienced, she (not / build) the everything bagel in the first place. (past result)
3. If the agents weren't so certain that force was the only answer, they (try) kindness long before Evelyn arrived. (past result)
1. would have introduced (present truth, past result)
2. wouldn't have built (present truth, past result)
3. would have tried (present truth, past result)
Fill each gap with the correct mixed-conditional form. Read it aloud when you're done.
If Evelyn (not / spend) her whole life saying yes to everyone else, she might actually feel free by now. And if she weren't so used to running from her problems, she (face) her marriage and her daughter's pain long before either of them exploded across the multiverse. As Waymond likes to say: if people (be) a little kinder to each other from the start, so much of this chaos would never have been necessary.
hadn't spent · would have faced · had been
Notice the pattern: a past cause that still shapes today uses if + had done, would + base; a present truth that shaped the past uses if + past simple, would have + done.
Carry both patterns into the Speak tab: the film's whole tragedy and its whole hope live in these two directions — what a past choice explains about today, and what a present truth explains about the past.
Underneath the hot-dog fingers and the googly-eyed rocks, Everything Everywhere All at Once is built on three real things: a genuine, if speculative, idea in physics; a serious philosophical debate; and an entirely true story about immigrant family life.
The film's central gimmick — countless parallel universes branching off from every choice — echoes a genuine, serious idea in physics: the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, proposed by the American physicist Hugh Everett in 1957. Everett argued that when a quantum event has several possible outcomes, reality doesn't collapse into just one of them — instead, the universe "splits," and every outcome happens, each in its own separate branch. Separately, some cosmologists have proposed a "multiverse" arising from theories like eternal inflation, in which our own Big Bang was only one of countless "bubble" universes. Both ideas are taken seriously by some physicists and philosophers of science — but neither is proven, neither can currently be tested, and neither is accepted by all scientists. It's real, published physics; it is not established fact, and it may never be.
Jobu Tupaki's despair dramatizes a real philosophical position: nihilism, the view that life has no inherent meaning, value or purpose. The film sets nihilism against a different, more hopeful tradition: absurdism, most closely associated with the French-Algerian philosopher Albert Camus. In his 1942 essay The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus argued that the universe truly is indifferent and meaningless — but that giving up, or pretending otherwise, are both mistakes. Instead, he said, we should recognise the absence of meaning and choose, anyway, to act, to care, and to find our own reasons to keep going.
Evelyn's answer — meeting her daughter's void with deliberate kindness rather than violence or despair — is a fairly precise dramatization of Camus's "revolt": not solving meaninglessness, but responding to it with a chosen act of love. The film doesn't claim the universe has a purpose. It claims that you get to choose what matters to you inside it, even if — especially if — nothing was ever guaranteed to matter at all.
Beneath the multiverse, the film tells an ordinary, true-to-life story: a Chinese immigrant family running a small, exhausting business, caught between a homeland's expectations and a new country's demands, an ageing parent's disapproval, a marriage worn thin by decades of grinding work, and a daughter whose identity her mother struggles fully to accept. Directors Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (credited together as "the Daniels") built the multiverse chaos around this very grounded, very common story of generational and cultural strain.
The film's impact was historic, and entirely real: at the 2023 Academy Awards, Everything Everywhere All at Once won seven Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Original Screenplay. Michelle Yeoh became the first Asian actress to win Best Actress; Ke Huy Quan (who plays Waymond) won Best Supporting Actor decades after leaving acting behind; and Jamie Lee Curtis won Best Supporting Actress. The laundromat and the audit are invented; the ache of an immigrant family trying to hold itself together is not.
This is the heart of the lesson — do it all out loud. The timer keeps you going; fill the time with detail.
Tell the story of Everything Everywhere All at Once in your own words, as if to someone who has never seen it. Move through the arc: the mundane life buried in paperwork and family tension → the lift, the multiverse, and the call to fight → Jobu Tupaki revealed as Joy, and the everything bagel → the chaotic battles across strange universes → the two rocks, the choice, and the return to an ordinary laundromat that finally feels different.
Work in at least five key words (mundane, estranged, audit, burden, futile, chaotic, nihilistic, fleeting, reconcile, absurd), and use mixed conditionals at the turning points: "if Joy hadn't been pushed across every possible life, she wouldn't see the world as meaningless now."
Jobu Tupaki's despair rests on one claim: if you could do everything, nothing would be worth doing. Evelyn's answer is to choose kindness anyway. Build an argument: if nothing you did mattered in any lasting, cosmic sense, would kindness still be worth choosing — or is meaning only worth pursuing if it's real and permanent? Bring in examples beyond the film if you can.
Choose one of these and run with it — or make your own case about meaning, choice and family.
Stuck for an idea? Pick one of these and run with it: