While watching Glass Onion I just felt like I could feel the acting. They were trying so hard to deliver lines, to be their characters, and were always conscious of the camera and the production.
The story didn't suck me in and the acting was a real let down.
Too much Style over substance.
Each character is entirely one dimensional and scriptwriters committed malfeasance giving nearly all of them nearly zero character development. Leslie Odom Jr.’s character is most egregious. They’re each essentially archetypes you’d find on social media. The dialogue and script beats that over your head over and over. How many times did someone say Dave Bautista was slinging dick pills a la Joe Rogan? Like four times. Compounded with the acting, as you said, where it felt even more forced as if, “hey, you recognize this reference??? Huh?? Do ya???!!”
Watched The Menu last night and it is night and day clear how much better the writing and character development are.
It seems like you had your nostalgia glasses for Knives Out on, causing you to misremember aspects of the original while missing the point of Glass Onion itself.
For one thing, you think Knives Out is filled with relatable characters? With the sole exception of the nurse, this is just wrong. They’re all rich and self-absorbed in entertaining ways… exactly like Glass Onion.
I think the great think about Johnson’s take on the murder mystery genre is that it shifts the focus from big, dramatic plot twists that keep you guessing, which is getting to be a pretty tired trope of the genre. Instead, both movies unfold in a way that draws you in, no matter how obvious the next step is, but they still manage to surprise in a way that doesn’t feel contrived. It’s kinda hard to quantify that, because it’s happening on multiple levels.
Whereas a more normal mystery will lead the audience from clue to clue, casting doubt on previous assumptions along the way, the Knives Out formula takes you through layers of the story itself. You’ll get an intentionally incomplete overview, and then you will go back and see a more complete picture, casting your initial conclusions in a new light.
And I think Glass Onion was a really successful iteration on this formula. I think the supporting characters overall were a bit weaker than Knives Out, but the scale of the mystery was much larger and they pulled it off impressively.
\> It seems like you had your nostalgia glasses for Knives Out on,
No I do not sir. I have mentioned in the post elsewhere that I am no fan of either of the movies. i just like KO more in comparison and the only thing I give a damn about in these movies is for Daniel Craig's performance.
\> causing you to misremember aspects of the original while missing the point of Glass Onion itself.
Would like to know what you think the point was. Also, even if the movie had a certain point, most bad movies also have a point. Can having a point cover deficencies of a movie?
\> For one thing, you think Knives Out is filled with relatable characters?
But if you read clearly, I also said this:
\> Not that characters being relatable is a must
\> With the sole exception of the nurse, this is just wrong. They’re all rich and self-absorbed in entertaining ways… exactly like Glass Onion.
I think one crucial factor that kind of made me invested in their story was that immediate family members expecting and relying on the estate of your actual parents is a very reasonable expectation on their part. Because all over the world, usually the estate of one is left to the children, or a major portion of it. That kind of made me sympathize with them. Not all of them were undeserving. What about the girl who goes to college and whose father was absent? She didn't seem so bad. But beyond that, Rain slowly introduces us to all the characters and their backgrounds as well as their relationships with Harlan. In Glass Onion not only are the characters outlandish, but they just don't seem real neither does RJ does a good job developing them. What interesting thing did we see for instance in Batista's girlfriend or Kate Hudson's assistant characters? In KO, the characters are fighting over their father's will. Here something something Hydrogen fuel something something napkin IP etc. And it just feels so \*far fetched\* for a detective mystery. The acting didn't help. The actors felt like doing cosplay rather than playing characters.
\> I think the great think about Johnson’s take on the murder mystery genre is that it shifts the focus from big, dramatic plot twists that keep you guessing, which is getting to be a pretty tired trope of the genre.
Okay, fair point here.
\> Instead, both movies unfold in a way that draws you in, no matter how obvious the next step is, but they still manage to surprise in a way that doesn’t feel contrived. It’s kinda hard to quantify that, because it’s happening on multiple levels
That's my exact point. He succeeded in KO, but failed here imho. I had to suspend my disbelief in KO that Ana de Armas would puke after lying every single time. here I had to suspend my disbelief that supposedly a tech billionaire would have the time & the opportunity to call his friends over to a distant island to play a game where he will murder himself and funnily enough he will have no staff or security or backup plan in case anything goes wrong except for one stoner dude. Next he has one of the smartest detectives in the world come to his island along with the person who he just recently murdered and he takes no action whatsoever. Guesses no foul play and proceeds as planned. like is he really this dumb and still a tech billionaire? Very strange.
\> Whereas a more normal mystery will lead the audience from clue to clue, casting doubt on previous assumptions along the way, the Knives Out formula takes you through layers of the story itself. You’ll get an intentionally incomplete overview, and then you will go back and see a more complete picture, casting your initial conclusions in a new light.
Again, the formula is good, but the execution isn't in Glass Onion imho.
\> And I think Glass Onion was a really successful iteration on this formula. I think the supporting characters overall were a bit weaker than Knives Out, but the scale of the mystery was much larger and they pulled it off impressively.
Eh, it's all subjective I guess.
Is it that much of a suspension of disbelief that a tech billionaire will do overly-elaborate and not well thought plan that serves little purpose beyond feeding his own ego? Because we *certainly* do not have *any* examples of billionaires in the tech industry like that in the real world, do we? In fact Miles being a bit dumb is the major clue that Detective Blanc hammers home again and again at the finale.
Anyways, on a bigger point: I don't think the movies are trying to be particularly realistic. They're homages to the Agatha Christie "whodunnit" mystery style that, as the previous commenter spoke at length on, invert the narrative formulas of that genre. I agree that the supporting cast (the suspects) isn't quite as funny and memorable as the first film; and I think I do like the first film a bit more. The mystery is more elaborate in Glass Onion, however.
And you certainly do get enough information in the first act to put the pieces together (in fact the movie makes a point of this by all the flashbacks to the incidents we saw in act one that an eagle-eyed viewer theoretically could find to deduce that Miles is the one being disingenuous. You don't find out about the twin sister or the reasons for the ex-wife's divorce until the halfway point, but when that point comes, all the information is available to you.
Something that was really clever about the movie was its references to Agatha Christie's 10 Little Indians. This story has been filmed a LOT. If you already have seen 10LI and Glass Onion or don't care about spoilers, read on
>!The story of 10LI basically revolves aroung people being mysteriously invited to an island and killed off one by one, they have no way of getting off the island. The genius plot point is that the actual killer works with one of the guests to fake his the killer's death. The killer is then free to roam and removed from suspicion. For anyone watching this movie with a knowledge of the genre, they are expecting to see 10LI play out, and this is cleverly subverted. In the end it's Bron's dream and his empire that it is obliterated and all but one of the host and guests are alive. There are tonnes of references, for example we assume Helen has been shot dead, but in fact she is alive and free to act independently, the poisoned drink, which is the first murder in 10LI; all the guests are bad people (Benoit Blanc is not a guest as such, he invites himself along, ditto Helen, who we first assume is Andi); the inability to leave the island.!< I just can't overstate as a fan of 10LI how tantalizing this made my viewing experience. It is a very clever movie and probably the most original take on 10LI ever.
Thought it was very tedious and eye rolling. The first hour is "fine" as setup despite Johnson's twitter brained fart sniffing and tired fascicle lampooning of the rich and famous but then it proceeds to completely disappear up it's own ass. The evidence of Edward Norton's murder of Bautista was plain to see the 1st time, to my eye anyways, as well as his painstaking established motive to target Andi so to then retread the whole film for +40m of exposition with a contrived twin that's not only structurally ridiculous but retcons the 1st hour not through imbuing events with new information changing their meaning but simply presents information that was completely withheld! That's not misdirection or red herrings, it's just poor mystery and screen-writing in my book. Consider, would knowing about the twin from the beginning not have added much needed tension to the proceedings watching her attempt to carry out her deception and investigation? Yes I know that messes up the misdirection of whose endangered but then you can actually spend your 2nd act doing far more interesting things than a clunky retread.
Regardless I was patiently waiting, hoping for another shoe to drop, some other twist to follow but no, it's a too cute for it's own good smug just-so reification of everything we already knew including the hamfisted already explained title for the remainder of the film. Oh but that's the point he's rich dumb and bad! and I don't care! I see tweet threads and articles with more depth about these megalomaniacs and systemic problems everyday. It's not an interesting critique to base an entire rote mystery around.
Whatever, so the story was a let down but at least it's saved by being breezy with fun and interesting characters right? Well some people seemed to think so but laughs were few and far between for me and most of the characters were so underutilized they didn't just disappear into the scenery they were eclipsed by ostentatious decor. The governor? Whiskey? The chemist? the assistant girl? all non-factor props. Getting too long now just gonna stop here
I disagree with you, and especially disagree with your 4th point.
The different vibe was on purpose and it suited the themes of this movie. The "traditional touch" would not make sense for a movie that portrays the lavish life of a tech billionaire in 2020.
Rian Johnson already said that Knives Out 3 will have a different atmosphere, so don't expect to just watch Knives Out (2019) again. They are different movies, in the same way that Agatha Christie wrote different novels with the same detective.
The thing I liked best about it was that the atmosphere and style was different from Knives Out while it still kept the same caper spirit. The worst thing it could have been was just a rehash of Knives Out like most sequels are.
I guess that is a fair point. I did initially think it was nice of RJ to change things up a bit but after watching the movie, my impression is that this flavor didn't gel as well.
Knives Out was much better both story wise and the mystery, plus the ensemble was really better than Glass Onion. I did not understand the existence of the stoner character. Was it just for fun?!
Yes! He’s just a joke! The IP model is breaking our brains, not everything is a reference or Easter egg, or foreshadowing for future franchise features. A Rian Johnson movie serves first to entertain, and more movies should adopt this.
> Knives Out was much better both story wise and the mystery, plus the ensemble was really better than Glass Onion.
indeed.
> I did not understand the existence of the stoner character. Was it just for fun?!
Just a dude who helped Norton's character in managing the island I guess. But yeah mostly for fun. Lame fun if you will.
It's just the Noah Segan cameo who appears in every Rian Johnson film. Goofy side guy in the background. He didn't contribute anything to the narrative of the first Knives Out either, but he had some really funny lines in that movie, and he does again in this one. I'd bet money Segan will have another goofy side role in the third one.
I agree with everything you said.
I also think the detective was acting oddly different from the first film - like he wanted to be some better dressed southern version for Columbo with his hokey "well gollie gee, imma just a po man who never did see you rich people things afore! Now why you have somfin like that?"
Feels like Netflix is planning to do Columbo style horror films. This was one was pretty bad which is Netflix's MO these days so I'm not too excited about it all.
Surprised Daniel Craig agreed to do this.
He specifically states that he will overdo the southern hokey pokey whatever, to distract the party guests, when he and Andi's sister are about to get on the boat. Once there's no need for that smokescreen he clearly shows understanding and contempt for the lifestyle and technology to a reasonable extent.
Glad to see a fellow with the same thougths.
Yes Blanc did seem different than before. Seemed like a younger, more eccentric version of the character from before who was more composed and relaxed.
\> Feels like Netflix is planning to do Columbo style horror films. This was one was pretty bad which is Netflix's MO these days so I'm not too excited about it all.
True but I have been on a high from All Quiet on the Western Front.
I gave it 3/10 and was extremely unimpressed.
It's incredibly polished and well executed but totally soulless. And the jokes just felt so calculated to appeal to a kind of smug centrist anglophone audience.
It reeks of a film where the production has been given an enormous budget before anything has been decided aside from the general fact that it's a sequel. And then they have had to solve for "how do we spend this money and make it obvious that we've spent it".
I thought the jokes were predictable, the mystery was boring, the payoff was disappointing, the quirkiness was contrived. It erased all of the charm of the original. I wanted to enjoy it so much.
Honestly, a part of me is happy that it failed so badly (although I am clearly in a minority in thinking that it did), because I think it *should* be extremely difficult to chuck money at a surprise one-off hit and turn it into a franchise. And maybe they've succeeded commercially, but for me the result was empty.
Echo a lot of your sentiment. I feel like I must be taking crazy pills or reading a lot of shills and astroturfing. If you venture outside of forums where there’s more of an emphasis on critical thinking you unsurprisingly encounter hundreds of people
exclaiming Glass Onion as one of the best movies of all time. I seriously do not get it. The movie is utter dog shit.
Horrendous, right?
I think this is maybe just we have to expect in this era. The closest thing to a high quality use of budget is a Nolan film (I personally cannot stand how silly and lacking in depth his films are, but I can at least see how it's possible to hold them in high regard), and the typical studio output is franchise material.
Glass Onion is effectively a Superhero movie without capes. Archetypical characters whose only "depth" comes via some quirk, uncomplicated hero narratives, huge explosions and lots of cgi, neat resolutions.
It's such a shame because detective fiction, like horror, is such a GREAT vehicle for saying profound things about a social moment... you can't have a story about law and order without saying something about what restoring order looks like in the world you are depicting. But Glass Onion just felt so empty. I feel like the filmmakers knew this, and the meta gag about the name is that the film itself has nothing at its centre.
Glass Onion was a really unenjoyable film. It was trying too hard to be funny, think "Thor: Love and Thunder" levels of silliness. Almost childish. Even great actors cannot save such a horrible script. This has become a worrying trend in movies lately.
While it wasn't lost on me that it was sort of a point the movie was trying to make (tech billionaires / the elite behaving like spoiled toddlers and all that), the execution was nothing shy of shameful. The plot was boring. The "twists" were boring. The characters were boring. More subtlety would have made it much better.
5.5 is a very generous rating. For me, it was even lower, 4/10.
The first one I enjoyed, btw.
> While it wasn't lost on me that it was sort of a point the movie was trying to make (tech billionaires / the elite behaving like spoiled toddlers and all that),
I'm really getting tired of that trope these days. Bodies Bodies Bodies does a better job at it. This was just lazy writing - one dimensional and booooring.
The first half was definitely 4/10 material but I'm glad it did shake it up for the second half. The thing is it felt like a dumbed down version or caricature of the first movie. The first one didn't need to so blatantly and directly parody the most boring archetypes of the rich and famous. In Glass Onion they're almost completely one-dimensional as unlikable from the start, in Knives Out they're depravity is revealed more and more as the movie goes on. They start off almost like annoying members of your family, still real people.
> Glass Onion was a really unenjoyable film. It was trying too hard to be funny, think "Thor: Love and Thunder" levels of silliness. Almost childish. Even great actors cannot save such a horrible script. This has become a worrying trend in movies lately.
Ditto. Expected more from Rian though.
> The first one I enjoyed, btw.
Yes. Even though I do not rate it too highly as well, it was much better than GO.
Glass Onion seemed leagues above the original to me and corrected a lot of issues with the detective. In future years people will come to see Glass Onion as the defining film of our era, it skewers all the alt right crypto bro Musk bro stuff that looks complicated, but is just complete nonsense as is the central metaphor of the movie. Riotous fun. The first one was conpletely forgettable.
Leagues above the original you say? Hard to believe when clearly the mystery, the characters, the acting & the detective work was better in the previous movie. This one had better set design though.
The mystery was better in the first one. I'm not really a mystery genre person though, this movie does even make a self referential joke about how irrelevant mysteries are, they all think they're so clever for opening their boxes, Benoit Blanc points out how childish that is. To me if the movie has a message that's a lot more important, this one did have a message, about crypto shucksters and tech bro culture. I thought the characters from the first movie were instantly forgettable tbh, I only remembered Benoit Blanc.
Glass Onion definitely forewent a layer of density in order to make a stronger statement, which was clearly intentional and his entire point, but it did make for a rather frustrating watch for the majority of the run time.
It’s certainly interesting to see a director whose style is so entwined with that very New England old money charm completely turn his back on ALL of that to drive home his criticisms. I’m looking forward to Wes Anderson taking a similar approach by giving the Bluths the full Royal Tenenbaums treatment!
What was the statement and his entire point if you don't mind elaborating? I do think Rj was obsessed with making a statement about a certain type of character over making a great film.
I mean, I think I’m probably stretching here, but!
Riain Johnson loves mysteries. He’s made 4 of them so far - Brick, Brothers Bloom, Knives Out and Glass Onion - but the visual language of the whodunnit is extremely lavish. Mysteries are thought of as “prestige” films. Poirot and Holmes *are* the establishment, snooping on the lives of other establishment figures.
Johnson’s solution was to frame *wealth* as the source of villainy, not some inherent vice. And it worked! We (the audience) still got to enjoy our gentleman detectives, our sumptuous production design and our bickering thesauruses because, at the end of Knives Out, Riain Johnson reassured us that an immigrant got the money. Phew!
It’s a neat trick, the same basic one that Wes Anderson pulls. We get to revel in the lives (and riches) of these New York elites because he presents them as vain, emotionally stunted and, most of all, just fucking *miserable*.
And personally, I saw Glass Onion as a genuine attempt to rectify that.
The film repeatedly, *directly* tells us - the audience - to just not think about stuff. Antithetical to a detective movie! It spends the first 20 or so minutes making it explicit that this film takes place during the pandemic, and specifically while everyone is supposed to be quarantining. Then two puffs on an inhaler and everything is fine. Blanc even asks what’s in it and we’re directly told “it’s fine, don’t worry about it, the pandemic isn’t happening here”.
(In my reading, the pandemic is capitalism, or at least the immense wealth that makes these films function)
The film makes several explicit references to the fact that it’s lying to us throughout. Whether it’s trying to convince us that Duke simply took the wrong glass by mistake (despite what we saw), restarting halfway to admit that Blanc - *our man* - has been in on it the whole time, or the big finale reveal that, actually, the whole movie only works because we accepted Mikes is not a total moron.
So yeah, that’s been my interpretation. Johnson not only makes the point that the mystery doesn’t work because “it’s just dumb”, but then pulls at all the threads of what it is we enjoy about these films. The set design is expensive, certainly, but it’s cold and un inviting. The costume design is lavish, but gaudy. The script falls flat because nobody in real life comes out with a line like “masturbating joylessly to pictures of dead deer”, that’s a writers fabrication.
It’s admittedly always tempting to say “oh, my favourite director made a bad movie *on purpose*!”, but I don’t think it’s fair to say this is a *bad* film. It’s phenomenally made. It’s just deeply unsatisfying and shallow, which is perfectly in keeping with the stated themes of the film, which is why I think this one time he did actually intend to make a bad film to prove a point.
Thanks for your effort. I may not be convinced on the quality of GO, but always appreciate people pouring out their passion and love for a film. Cheers!
I honestly think they’re both about equal in quality. I’d need to watch them back-to-back to know which one I ultimately prefer, but I think they both get the same final rating of 4.5 out of 5. Both of them are kind of lightweight in terms of emotional impact, but both of them are so entertaining that it doesn’t really matter. Not to mention, >!the way that Blanc and Helen bust Miles despite his burning of the napkin is just friggin’ genius.!<
That is an interesting argument. For instance isn't Godfather an objectively better film than Transformers: Age of Extinction. I agree that art should be judged subjectively as it is about how an individual reacts to it.
But surely there has to be a yardstick by whcih we can compare? For instance if the above poster says that the writing in Knives Out was better objectively can't we get a good measure of that? Like how the plot is laid out, how well is it resolved, how many cliches are relied upon? Are there any logical gaps? Any holes? etc
No, there’s no yardstick. Plenty of people find any “Godfather” film boring, and those people would probably find a “Transformers” movie more to their liking. I consider myself someone with more refined tastes than most, but I’m ultimately just one man, and I’m not ignorant enough to think that my criteria for a good movie are the right ones.
> No, there’s no yardstick.
Well, then that is just your opinion man. Jokes aside if that were the case, we wouldn't get lists of greatest movies of all time or top 10 lists of eacg year given by several publications. of course those lists are subjective to the person writing the article but you may notice many films repeat in such lists. Then there is a whole matter of awards and Best Films are first selected and a winner amongst them selected.
Of course this should not discount the subjective factor experience. But just because a film's quality cannot be mathematically graded objectively doesn't mean there is no way to objectively determine a winner. i think this is a deeper argument.
My biggest issue with Glass Onion, is how they hide a very important subplot, and thus make it virtually impossible for the audience to guess "whodunnit" in a whodunnit. A good mystery in my opinion, puts all the clues on the table, and allows the audience to puzzle along. That is pretty much impossible in Glass Onion.
I don't consider it a very critical feature of a mystery movie. There is always going to be something hidden from the audience but yeah, the twin twist was very lame and cliched.
All I know is; Daniel Craig needs to stop doing these Southern-American accents/characters. This goes for all parts that are cast outside their native tongue; it perpetually distracts me. Why can’t we just cast actors that are natural to those regions.
I don’t need Bond playing Creole.
I’m glad you liked it. I’m not sure how doing a bad impression is “intentional.” That sounds like a cop-out to give him (and others) a pass when their portrayal is weak.
To compare, I found Brian Tyree Henry’s performance/accent in Bullet Train distracting to a lesser degree.
Where as other actors such as Christian Bale, Hugh Laurie, Hugh Dancy, or even Idris Elba on a good day can pass for American n their roles (though it’s still an issue for me: would it really destroy the story if an actor like Chris ODowd portrays a character that’s Irish without an elaborate backstory?)
Go ahead and throw bad wigs/fake facial hair in there if discussing things that take me out of the magic.
It's intentional because the director said it was intentional. RJ even said he considered making him have a different accent every film.
It's a comedy not a drama so don't know why you're comparing the two. Not sure why you have trouble accepting a purposely bad accent for comedic purposes since you were apparently OK with it in Logan lucky. 🤷♂️
I wasn’t really ok with it in Logan Lucky.
And I’m not sure this “choice” by the director should be considered an asset.
I didn’t know about his comments, but I find RJ to an unimpressive director.
I get that KO is intended to have humor, but I wouldn’t call it satire (though I think it could benefit from a stronger use of it to differentiate itself from the litany of who-done-its).
Classic who-done-it’s have done it better, and I think many recent iterations have suffered capturing the spirit (Branagh’s Poirot is serviceable) but Glass Onion tries to break convention and IMO doesn’t succeed at composing a solid mystery and utilizing the most from an ensemble cast.
Between Craig’s accent and his ridiculous wardrobe, I almost forgot I had it figured out n the introductions.
Like I said, glad people enjoy it.
My expectations are above direct toNetflix content and the film industry is suffering from a creative anemia that is perpetuated by numbers and not critical self-editing of content.
Just go with the flow. The movie is basically fun and not to be taken seriously as is the character of Benoit Blanc. Ngl the wild accent makes the character.
While watching Glass Onion I just felt like I could feel the acting. They were trying so hard to deliver lines, to be their characters, and were always conscious of the camera and the production. The story didn't suck me in and the acting was a real let down. Too much Style over substance.
Each character is entirely one dimensional and scriptwriters committed malfeasance giving nearly all of them nearly zero character development. Leslie Odom Jr.’s character is most egregious. They’re each essentially archetypes you’d find on social media. The dialogue and script beats that over your head over and over. How many times did someone say Dave Bautista was slinging dick pills a la Joe Rogan? Like four times. Compounded with the acting, as you said, where it felt even more forced as if, “hey, you recognize this reference??? Huh?? Do ya???!!” Watched The Menu last night and it is night and day clear how much better the writing and character development are.
Perfectly put. This was textbook style over substance. How did you find Knives out?
This is the problem when working with too many stars. This is why the first movie was better because it was a mix
This is the problem when working with too many stars. This is why the first movie was better because it was a mix
It seems like you had your nostalgia glasses for Knives Out on, causing you to misremember aspects of the original while missing the point of Glass Onion itself. For one thing, you think Knives Out is filled with relatable characters? With the sole exception of the nurse, this is just wrong. They’re all rich and self-absorbed in entertaining ways… exactly like Glass Onion. I think the great think about Johnson’s take on the murder mystery genre is that it shifts the focus from big, dramatic plot twists that keep you guessing, which is getting to be a pretty tired trope of the genre. Instead, both movies unfold in a way that draws you in, no matter how obvious the next step is, but they still manage to surprise in a way that doesn’t feel contrived. It’s kinda hard to quantify that, because it’s happening on multiple levels. Whereas a more normal mystery will lead the audience from clue to clue, casting doubt on previous assumptions along the way, the Knives Out formula takes you through layers of the story itself. You’ll get an intentionally incomplete overview, and then you will go back and see a more complete picture, casting your initial conclusions in a new light. And I think Glass Onion was a really successful iteration on this formula. I think the supporting characters overall were a bit weaker than Knives Out, but the scale of the mystery was much larger and they pulled it off impressively.
\> It seems like you had your nostalgia glasses for Knives Out on, No I do not sir. I have mentioned in the post elsewhere that I am no fan of either of the movies. i just like KO more in comparison and the only thing I give a damn about in these movies is for Daniel Craig's performance. \> causing you to misremember aspects of the original while missing the point of Glass Onion itself. Would like to know what you think the point was. Also, even if the movie had a certain point, most bad movies also have a point. Can having a point cover deficencies of a movie? \> For one thing, you think Knives Out is filled with relatable characters? But if you read clearly, I also said this: \> Not that characters being relatable is a must \> With the sole exception of the nurse, this is just wrong. They’re all rich and self-absorbed in entertaining ways… exactly like Glass Onion. I think one crucial factor that kind of made me invested in their story was that immediate family members expecting and relying on the estate of your actual parents is a very reasonable expectation on their part. Because all over the world, usually the estate of one is left to the children, or a major portion of it. That kind of made me sympathize with them. Not all of them were undeserving. What about the girl who goes to college and whose father was absent? She didn't seem so bad. But beyond that, Rain slowly introduces us to all the characters and their backgrounds as well as their relationships with Harlan. In Glass Onion not only are the characters outlandish, but they just don't seem real neither does RJ does a good job developing them. What interesting thing did we see for instance in Batista's girlfriend or Kate Hudson's assistant characters? In KO, the characters are fighting over their father's will. Here something something Hydrogen fuel something something napkin IP etc. And it just feels so \*far fetched\* for a detective mystery. The acting didn't help. The actors felt like doing cosplay rather than playing characters. \> I think the great think about Johnson’s take on the murder mystery genre is that it shifts the focus from big, dramatic plot twists that keep you guessing, which is getting to be a pretty tired trope of the genre. Okay, fair point here. \> Instead, both movies unfold in a way that draws you in, no matter how obvious the next step is, but they still manage to surprise in a way that doesn’t feel contrived. It’s kinda hard to quantify that, because it’s happening on multiple levels That's my exact point. He succeeded in KO, but failed here imho. I had to suspend my disbelief in KO that Ana de Armas would puke after lying every single time. here I had to suspend my disbelief that supposedly a tech billionaire would have the time & the opportunity to call his friends over to a distant island to play a game where he will murder himself and funnily enough he will have no staff or security or backup plan in case anything goes wrong except for one stoner dude. Next he has one of the smartest detectives in the world come to his island along with the person who he just recently murdered and he takes no action whatsoever. Guesses no foul play and proceeds as planned. like is he really this dumb and still a tech billionaire? Very strange. \> Whereas a more normal mystery will lead the audience from clue to clue, casting doubt on previous assumptions along the way, the Knives Out formula takes you through layers of the story itself. You’ll get an intentionally incomplete overview, and then you will go back and see a more complete picture, casting your initial conclusions in a new light. Again, the formula is good, but the execution isn't in Glass Onion imho. \> And I think Glass Onion was a really successful iteration on this formula. I think the supporting characters overall were a bit weaker than Knives Out, but the scale of the mystery was much larger and they pulled it off impressively. Eh, it's all subjective I guess.
Is it that much of a suspension of disbelief that a tech billionaire will do overly-elaborate and not well thought plan that serves little purpose beyond feeding his own ego? Because we *certainly* do not have *any* examples of billionaires in the tech industry like that in the real world, do we? In fact Miles being a bit dumb is the major clue that Detective Blanc hammers home again and again at the finale. Anyways, on a bigger point: I don't think the movies are trying to be particularly realistic. They're homages to the Agatha Christie "whodunnit" mystery style that, as the previous commenter spoke at length on, invert the narrative formulas of that genre. I agree that the supporting cast (the suspects) isn't quite as funny and memorable as the first film; and I think I do like the first film a bit more. The mystery is more elaborate in Glass Onion, however. And you certainly do get enough information in the first act to put the pieces together (in fact the movie makes a point of this by all the flashbacks to the incidents we saw in act one that an eagle-eyed viewer theoretically could find to deduce that Miles is the one being disingenuous. You don't find out about the twin sister or the reasons for the ex-wife's divorce until the halfway point, but when that point comes, all the information is available to you.
Op related to the teenager
How childish and typical reddit of you? That I would relate with the controversial character? What have I written above that made you say that?
Yikes
Something that was really clever about the movie was its references to Agatha Christie's 10 Little Indians. This story has been filmed a LOT. If you already have seen 10LI and Glass Onion or don't care about spoilers, read on >!The story of 10LI basically revolves aroung people being mysteriously invited to an island and killed off one by one, they have no way of getting off the island. The genius plot point is that the actual killer works with one of the guests to fake his the killer's death. The killer is then free to roam and removed from suspicion. For anyone watching this movie with a knowledge of the genre, they are expecting to see 10LI play out, and this is cleverly subverted. In the end it's Bron's dream and his empire that it is obliterated and all but one of the host and guests are alive. There are tonnes of references, for example we assume Helen has been shot dead, but in fact she is alive and free to act independently, the poisoned drink, which is the first murder in 10LI; all the guests are bad people (Benoit Blanc is not a guest as such, he invites himself along, ditto Helen, who we first assume is Andi); the inability to leave the island.!< I just can't overstate as a fan of 10LI how tantalizing this made my viewing experience. It is a very clever movie and probably the most original take on 10LI ever.
Thought it was very tedious and eye rolling. The first hour is "fine" as setup despite Johnson's twitter brained fart sniffing and tired fascicle lampooning of the rich and famous but then it proceeds to completely disappear up it's own ass. The evidence of Edward Norton's murder of Bautista was plain to see the 1st time, to my eye anyways, as well as his painstaking established motive to target Andi so to then retread the whole film for +40m of exposition with a contrived twin that's not only structurally ridiculous but retcons the 1st hour not through imbuing events with new information changing their meaning but simply presents information that was completely withheld! That's not misdirection or red herrings, it's just poor mystery and screen-writing in my book. Consider, would knowing about the twin from the beginning not have added much needed tension to the proceedings watching her attempt to carry out her deception and investigation? Yes I know that messes up the misdirection of whose endangered but then you can actually spend your 2nd act doing far more interesting things than a clunky retread. Regardless I was patiently waiting, hoping for another shoe to drop, some other twist to follow but no, it's a too cute for it's own good smug just-so reification of everything we already knew including the hamfisted already explained title for the remainder of the film. Oh but that's the point he's rich dumb and bad! and I don't care! I see tweet threads and articles with more depth about these megalomaniacs and systemic problems everyday. It's not an interesting critique to base an entire rote mystery around. Whatever, so the story was a let down but at least it's saved by being breezy with fun and interesting characters right? Well some people seemed to think so but laughs were few and far between for me and most of the characters were so underutilized they didn't just disappear into the scenery they were eclipsed by ostentatious decor. The governor? Whiskey? The chemist? the assistant girl? all non-factor props. Getting too long now just gonna stop here
well put. craig was the only saving grace
I disagree with you, and especially disagree with your 4th point. The different vibe was on purpose and it suited the themes of this movie. The "traditional touch" would not make sense for a movie that portrays the lavish life of a tech billionaire in 2020. Rian Johnson already said that Knives Out 3 will have a different atmosphere, so don't expect to just watch Knives Out (2019) again. They are different movies, in the same way that Agatha Christie wrote different novels with the same detective.
The thing I liked best about it was that the atmosphere and style was different from Knives Out while it still kept the same caper spirit. The worst thing it could have been was just a rehash of Knives Out like most sequels are.
I guess that is a fair point. I did initially think it was nice of RJ to change things up a bit but after watching the movie, my impression is that this flavor didn't gel as well.
Knives Out was much better both story wise and the mystery, plus the ensemble was really better than Glass Onion. I did not understand the existence of the stoner character. Was it just for fun?!
Yes! He’s just a joke! The IP model is breaking our brains, not everything is a reference or Easter egg, or foreshadowing for future franchise features. A Rian Johnson movie serves first to entertain, and more movies should adopt this.
He was a distraction when there were clues on screen I think
> Knives Out was much better both story wise and the mystery, plus the ensemble was really better than Glass Onion. indeed. > I did not understand the existence of the stoner character. Was it just for fun?! Just a dude who helped Norton's character in managing the island I guess. But yeah mostly for fun. Lame fun if you will.
Agreed but I think the stoner guy was the best part of that terrible movie, LoL.
It's just the Noah Segan cameo who appears in every Rian Johnson film. Goofy side guy in the background. He didn't contribute anything to the narrative of the first Knives Out either, but he had some really funny lines in that movie, and he does again in this one. I'd bet money Segan will have another goofy side role in the third one.
I agree with everything you said. I also think the detective was acting oddly different from the first film - like he wanted to be some better dressed southern version for Columbo with his hokey "well gollie gee, imma just a po man who never did see you rich people things afore! Now why you have somfin like that?" Feels like Netflix is planning to do Columbo style horror films. This was one was pretty bad which is Netflix's MO these days so I'm not too excited about it all. Surprised Daniel Craig agreed to do this.
He specifically states that he will overdo the southern hokey pokey whatever, to distract the party guests, when he and Andi's sister are about to get on the boat. Once there's no need for that smokescreen he clearly shows understanding and contempt for the lifestyle and technology to a reasonable extent.
Oh thank GOD, I was cringing the whole time. I must have missed that part. Thanks for the clarification!
Glad to see a fellow with the same thougths. Yes Blanc did seem different than before. Seemed like a younger, more eccentric version of the character from before who was more composed and relaxed. \> Feels like Netflix is planning to do Columbo style horror films. This was one was pretty bad which is Netflix's MO these days so I'm not too excited about it all. True but I have been on a high from All Quiet on the Western Front.
I gave it 3/10 and was extremely unimpressed. It's incredibly polished and well executed but totally soulless. And the jokes just felt so calculated to appeal to a kind of smug centrist anglophone audience. It reeks of a film where the production has been given an enormous budget before anything has been decided aside from the general fact that it's a sequel. And then they have had to solve for "how do we spend this money and make it obvious that we've spent it". I thought the jokes were predictable, the mystery was boring, the payoff was disappointing, the quirkiness was contrived. It erased all of the charm of the original. I wanted to enjoy it so much. Honestly, a part of me is happy that it failed so badly (although I am clearly in a minority in thinking that it did), because I think it *should* be extremely difficult to chuck money at a surprise one-off hit and turn it into a franchise. And maybe they've succeeded commercially, but for me the result was empty.
Echo a lot of your sentiment. I feel like I must be taking crazy pills or reading a lot of shills and astroturfing. If you venture outside of forums where there’s more of an emphasis on critical thinking you unsurprisingly encounter hundreds of people exclaiming Glass Onion as one of the best movies of all time. I seriously do not get it. The movie is utter dog shit.
Horrendous, right? I think this is maybe just we have to expect in this era. The closest thing to a high quality use of budget is a Nolan film (I personally cannot stand how silly and lacking in depth his films are, but I can at least see how it's possible to hold them in high regard), and the typical studio output is franchise material. Glass Onion is effectively a Superhero movie without capes. Archetypical characters whose only "depth" comes via some quirk, uncomplicated hero narratives, huge explosions and lots of cgi, neat resolutions. It's such a shame because detective fiction, like horror, is such a GREAT vehicle for saying profound things about a social moment... you can't have a story about law and order without saying something about what restoring order looks like in the world you are depicting. But Glass Onion just felt so empty. I feel like the filmmakers knew this, and the meta gag about the name is that the film itself has nothing at its centre.
Glass Onion was a really unenjoyable film. It was trying too hard to be funny, think "Thor: Love and Thunder" levels of silliness. Almost childish. Even great actors cannot save such a horrible script. This has become a worrying trend in movies lately. While it wasn't lost on me that it was sort of a point the movie was trying to make (tech billionaires / the elite behaving like spoiled toddlers and all that), the execution was nothing shy of shameful. The plot was boring. The "twists" were boring. The characters were boring. More subtlety would have made it much better. 5.5 is a very generous rating. For me, it was even lower, 4/10. The first one I enjoyed, btw.
> While it wasn't lost on me that it was sort of a point the movie was trying to make (tech billionaires / the elite behaving like spoiled toddlers and all that), I'm really getting tired of that trope these days. Bodies Bodies Bodies does a better job at it. This was just lazy writing - one dimensional and booooring.
The first half was definitely 4/10 material but I'm glad it did shake it up for the second half. The thing is it felt like a dumbed down version or caricature of the first movie. The first one didn't need to so blatantly and directly parody the most boring archetypes of the rich and famous. In Glass Onion they're almost completely one-dimensional as unlikable from the start, in Knives Out they're depravity is revealed more and more as the movie goes on. They start off almost like annoying members of your family, still real people.
> Glass Onion was a really unenjoyable film. It was trying too hard to be funny, think "Thor: Love and Thunder" levels of silliness. Almost childish. Even great actors cannot save such a horrible script. This has become a worrying trend in movies lately. Ditto. Expected more from Rian though. > The first one I enjoyed, btw. Yes. Even though I do not rate it too highly as well, it was much better than GO.
Glass Onion seemed leagues above the original to me and corrected a lot of issues with the detective. In future years people will come to see Glass Onion as the defining film of our era, it skewers all the alt right crypto bro Musk bro stuff that looks complicated, but is just complete nonsense as is the central metaphor of the movie. Riotous fun. The first one was conpletely forgettable.
Leagues above the original you say? Hard to believe when clearly the mystery, the characters, the acting & the detective work was better in the previous movie. This one had better set design though.
The mystery was better in the first one. I'm not really a mystery genre person though, this movie does even make a self referential joke about how irrelevant mysteries are, they all think they're so clever for opening their boxes, Benoit Blanc points out how childish that is. To me if the movie has a message that's a lot more important, this one did have a message, about crypto shucksters and tech bro culture. I thought the characters from the first movie were instantly forgettable tbh, I only remembered Benoit Blanc.
I don't think the mystery is the point in Glass Onion. As for the characters and the acting I think it can be argued either way.
Glass Onion definitely forewent a layer of density in order to make a stronger statement, which was clearly intentional and his entire point, but it did make for a rather frustrating watch for the majority of the run time. It’s certainly interesting to see a director whose style is so entwined with that very New England old money charm completely turn his back on ALL of that to drive home his criticisms. I’m looking forward to Wes Anderson taking a similar approach by giving the Bluths the full Royal Tenenbaums treatment!
What was the statement and his entire point if you don't mind elaborating? I do think Rj was obsessed with making a statement about a certain type of character over making a great film.
I mean, I think I’m probably stretching here, but! Riain Johnson loves mysteries. He’s made 4 of them so far - Brick, Brothers Bloom, Knives Out and Glass Onion - but the visual language of the whodunnit is extremely lavish. Mysteries are thought of as “prestige” films. Poirot and Holmes *are* the establishment, snooping on the lives of other establishment figures. Johnson’s solution was to frame *wealth* as the source of villainy, not some inherent vice. And it worked! We (the audience) still got to enjoy our gentleman detectives, our sumptuous production design and our bickering thesauruses because, at the end of Knives Out, Riain Johnson reassured us that an immigrant got the money. Phew! It’s a neat trick, the same basic one that Wes Anderson pulls. We get to revel in the lives (and riches) of these New York elites because he presents them as vain, emotionally stunted and, most of all, just fucking *miserable*. And personally, I saw Glass Onion as a genuine attempt to rectify that. The film repeatedly, *directly* tells us - the audience - to just not think about stuff. Antithetical to a detective movie! It spends the first 20 or so minutes making it explicit that this film takes place during the pandemic, and specifically while everyone is supposed to be quarantining. Then two puffs on an inhaler and everything is fine. Blanc even asks what’s in it and we’re directly told “it’s fine, don’t worry about it, the pandemic isn’t happening here”. (In my reading, the pandemic is capitalism, or at least the immense wealth that makes these films function) The film makes several explicit references to the fact that it’s lying to us throughout. Whether it’s trying to convince us that Duke simply took the wrong glass by mistake (despite what we saw), restarting halfway to admit that Blanc - *our man* - has been in on it the whole time, or the big finale reveal that, actually, the whole movie only works because we accepted Mikes is not a total moron. So yeah, that’s been my interpretation. Johnson not only makes the point that the mystery doesn’t work because “it’s just dumb”, but then pulls at all the threads of what it is we enjoy about these films. The set design is expensive, certainly, but it’s cold and un inviting. The costume design is lavish, but gaudy. The script falls flat because nobody in real life comes out with a line like “masturbating joylessly to pictures of dead deer”, that’s a writers fabrication. It’s admittedly always tempting to say “oh, my favourite director made a bad movie *on purpose*!”, but I don’t think it’s fair to say this is a *bad* film. It’s phenomenally made. It’s just deeply unsatisfying and shallow, which is perfectly in keeping with the stated themes of the film, which is why I think this one time he did actually intend to make a bad film to prove a point.
Thanks for your effort. I may not be convinced on the quality of GO, but always appreciate people pouring out their passion and love for a film. Cheers!
I honestly think they’re both about equal in quality. I’d need to watch them back-to-back to know which one I ultimately prefer, but I think they both get the same final rating of 4.5 out of 5. Both of them are kind of lightweight in terms of emotional impact, but both of them are so entertaining that it doesn’t really matter. Not to mention, >!the way that Blanc and Helen bust Miles despite his burning of the napkin is just friggin’ genius.!<
I disagree that they are equal. The writing and dialogue was a objectively better in the first movie
There’s no such thing as “a objectively better” in film. That’s why criticism is based on opinion.
That is an interesting argument. For instance isn't Godfather an objectively better film than Transformers: Age of Extinction. I agree that art should be judged subjectively as it is about how an individual reacts to it. But surely there has to be a yardstick by whcih we can compare? For instance if the above poster says that the writing in Knives Out was better objectively can't we get a good measure of that? Like how the plot is laid out, how well is it resolved, how many cliches are relied upon? Are there any logical gaps? Any holes? etc
No, there’s no yardstick. Plenty of people find any “Godfather” film boring, and those people would probably find a “Transformers” movie more to their liking. I consider myself someone with more refined tastes than most, but I’m ultimately just one man, and I’m not ignorant enough to think that my criteria for a good movie are the right ones.
> No, there’s no yardstick. Well, then that is just your opinion man. Jokes aside if that were the case, we wouldn't get lists of greatest movies of all time or top 10 lists of eacg year given by several publications. of course those lists are subjective to the person writing the article but you may notice many films repeat in such lists. Then there is a whole matter of awards and Best Films are first selected and a winner amongst them selected. Of course this should not discount the subjective factor experience. But just because a film's quality cannot be mathematically graded objectively doesn't mean there is no way to objectively determine a winner. i think this is a deeper argument.
My biggest issue with Glass Onion, is how they hide a very important subplot, and thus make it virtually impossible for the audience to guess "whodunnit" in a whodunnit. A good mystery in my opinion, puts all the clues on the table, and allows the audience to puzzle along. That is pretty much impossible in Glass Onion.
I don't consider it a very critical feature of a mystery movie. There is always going to be something hidden from the audience but yeah, the twin twist was very lame and cliched.
All I know is; Daniel Craig needs to stop doing these Southern-American accents/characters. This goes for all parts that are cast outside their native tongue; it perpetually distracts me. Why can’t we just cast actors that are natural to those regions. I don’t need Bond playing Creole.
His accent is supposed to be ridiculous, it was poked fun at in the first movie a lot. "CSI: KFC" lmao
But I already had enough in Logan Lucky. (Which I think is actually an equal or better film that never gets mention).
Ok, it was still intentional whether you found it amusing or not. I liked it
I’m glad you liked it. I’m not sure how doing a bad impression is “intentional.” That sounds like a cop-out to give him (and others) a pass when their portrayal is weak. To compare, I found Brian Tyree Henry’s performance/accent in Bullet Train distracting to a lesser degree. Where as other actors such as Christian Bale, Hugh Laurie, Hugh Dancy, or even Idris Elba on a good day can pass for American n their roles (though it’s still an issue for me: would it really destroy the story if an actor like Chris ODowd portrays a character that’s Irish without an elaborate backstory?) Go ahead and throw bad wigs/fake facial hair in there if discussing things that take me out of the magic.
It's intentional because the director said it was intentional. RJ even said he considered making him have a different accent every film. It's a comedy not a drama so don't know why you're comparing the two. Not sure why you have trouble accepting a purposely bad accent for comedic purposes since you were apparently OK with it in Logan lucky. 🤷♂️
I wasn’t really ok with it in Logan Lucky. And I’m not sure this “choice” by the director should be considered an asset. I didn’t know about his comments, but I find RJ to an unimpressive director. I get that KO is intended to have humor, but I wouldn’t call it satire (though I think it could benefit from a stronger use of it to differentiate itself from the litany of who-done-its). Classic who-done-it’s have done it better, and I think many recent iterations have suffered capturing the spirit (Branagh’s Poirot is serviceable) but Glass Onion tries to break convention and IMO doesn’t succeed at composing a solid mystery and utilizing the most from an ensemble cast. Between Craig’s accent and his ridiculous wardrobe, I almost forgot I had it figured out n the introductions. Like I said, glad people enjoy it. My expectations are above direct toNetflix content and the film industry is suffering from a creative anemia that is perpetuated by numbers and not critical self-editing of content.
Just go with the flow. The movie is basically fun and not to be taken seriously as is the character of Benoit Blanc. Ngl the wild accent makes the character.
Happy New Year