Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery

Tools    





Very much this. I think the root idea was a good one. And I'm glad he veered off from just a reboot (even though in this case I'm sure it would have ultimately been preferable)
Right.

I actually quite like the idea of the
WARNING: spoilers below
fugue, a melody that overlaps with itself. So we see large stretches of the film, then see it again with new understanding. As soon as she started drinking the kombucha, I was like "Oh, THAT'S why she leaned against that wall earlier!" It was a satisfying moment.


Unfortunately, the way that the film is structured (and the TIME it takes setting up and then executing that structure) did not yield nearly enough rewards to be worth it.

It really doesn't help that
WARNING: spoilers below
the murder victim is a total goober. Someone who we have learned sold iffy supplements to underage kids, rants against feminism, and is willing to overlook a murder just to boost his YouTube numbers.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to a murder victim being an unlikable character. At this point it's a very established trope. But to have no one else be likeable--bar a single character--simply did not work for me.

I would have loved if this film had gone the whole Murder on the Orient Express route and fleshed out the characters via their relationship to the victim. But in the end they are all just selfish and dumb.

And the worst part is that the REAL mystery (who killed Andi) gets like 12 real minutes of screentime.



Hahn is great in it! Whatever you think of the film, I'm sure you will enjoy her performance.

I thought that it was okay as a movie, but I much prefer the first film Knives Out.
i can see that in the trailer, shes really hilarious!. yes that would be true cause loved her on wandavision and crossing jordan etc .
i respect ur opinion



This was okay. It's definitely not as good as Knives Out (which got a boost, at least from me, after a second viewing).

Things I liked:

WARNING: "Glass Onion" spoilers below
1. The central conceit, the flashback-to-redefine-everything, is a solid one. I'm a sucker for that kinda thing.

2. I'm down with the Bond villain, over-the-top setting, for the most part. Some of it works, some of it's just weird, but I enjoy the extravagance.

3. The idea of solving the murder but not proving it is interesting. Blanc promises the truth and nothing more. It's a nice little wrinkle that allows us the mental satisfaction of finding out what happens without having everything wrapped up in a little bow. The mystery genre is inherently formulaic, and that's fine, but I thought this was a nice way to tweak the formula a little.

4. The cast is really good. Duh.

Things I didn't, so much:

WARNING: "Glass Onion" spoilers below
1. It was kind of weird how most of what the flashbacks "redefined" were minor interactions that didn't feel particular germane to the plot. Half of them were guessable at the time. And man, even in a really over-the-top film, the idea of a world-famous person that nobody knows has an identical twin sister is still really pushing it. I'm a big believer in the idea that you have to try to grant each film its premise, but the wilder the premise the more it has to deliver on it, and I think the delivery was a little lackluster relative to the absurdity.

2. Miles being stupid. It was vaguely amusing but...what did it matter? I don't see how it factors into the solution. The only reason to do something like that, mystery-wise, is to establish that he couldn't have done such-and-such. Instead, it just feels like an inelegant digression to take a shot at someone.

For the record I noticed Miles messing up all those words but couldn't fathom what it could possibly mean for the mystery, so I thought little of it. So it was a weird mix of gratifying and frustrating to have it referenced later, even if it didn't seem to matter.

3. Too many other, smaller digressions. I love a good cameo (more than is reasonable, probably), but I have no idea what Hugh Grant was doing there. I really like Johnson's work overall but it feels like he's just shoving in every fun little flair that occurs to him sometimes, particularly if it means squeezing more famous people into the production.

Also, boy does Johnson love his red herrings. There's a veritable sea of them. Sometimes I can appreciate it, but you can go too far with it, to the point where the audience is just kind of guessing which things will or won't end up mattering. The key to a good mystery is that it has to seem a little obvious in retrospect, and while I like both Blanc efforts in a binary sense, I think this is one thing they mostly lack (this film more than the first).

WARNING: "Glass Onion" spoilers below
I mean, come on, if you're gonna name a character Whiskey, and poison a drink, and have everyone's names on their glasses...




WARNING: "Glass Onion" spoilers below


3. Too many other, smaller digressions. I love a good cameo (more than is reasonable, probably), but I have no idea what Hugh Grant was doing there. I really like Johnson's work overall but it feels like he's just shoving in every fun little flair that occurs to him sometimes, particularly if it means squeezing more famous people into the production.
WARNING: "Glass Onion" spoilers below
Speaking of cameos, Ethan Hawke too... I sat there thinking when is he going to show up again?
__________________



Oh yeah, I forgot about that! I said to Courtney "I didn't know he was in this." And after a few minutes, he wasn't.

I sometimes appreciate the "everybody's involved!" vibe but it got kind of ridiculous.



A system of cells interlinked
We started this last night, but a comedy of interruptions involving everything from my cat, to family phone calls, to my daughter who kept waking up and wandering out to the living room prevented us from getting very far into it. Will try again tonight!
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Things I didn't, so much:

WARNING: "Glass Onion" spoilers below
1. It was kind of weird how most of what the flashbacks "redefined" were minor interactions that didn't feel particular germane to the plot. Half of them were guessable at the time. And man, even in a really over-the-top film, the idea of a world-famous person that nobody knows has an identical twin sister is still really pushing it. I'm a big believer in the idea that you have to try to grant each film its premise, but the wilder the premise the more it has to deliver on it, and I think the delivery was a little lackluster relative to the absurdity.

2. Miles being stupid. It was vaguely amusing but...what did it matter? I don't see how it factors into the solution. The only reason to do something like that, mystery-wise, is to establish that he couldn't have done such-and-such. Instead, it just feels like an inelegant digression to take a shot at someone.
Regarding the two points above:

WARNING: spoilers below

I think that you can take two things from the "twist" about the sister. The first is that people are less tuned into Andi (who is a more subdued personality) and more tuned into Miles who has the charisma. But also, the other characters wouldn't have a reason to suspect it's her sister because they don't know that she's been killed. Even if they knew she had a sister (and it's only Duke and Miles who would even be wondering "How is Andi here?!"), it seems just as likely that Andi survived and is playing some sort of mind game with them. I have several times discovered that an actor/actress I liked had a sibling or even a twin I had not previously known about.

As for Miles being stupid, it matters because it goes to the heart of Blanc's solution. Miles has someone write a murder mystery for him that involves rigged crossbows and all that jazz. But Miles himself is not creative or smart in that way. So the killing of Andi wasn't some complex conspiracy. Miles found out that Andi found the original napkin, it would have sunk him, so he went and killed her in a pretty basic manner. Miles is good at showmanship, but not the actual planning/thinking. He's very good at getting people to do those things for him, but obviously it's a lot harder to outsource an actual murder


I agree, though, that both of the above elements don't feel like they have as much splash or impact as they should considering they are a major part of bringing the whole conclusion together.



I saw this recently. I thought that it was decent, but nowhere near as good as the first film. To me, the first film had a much more interesting story, which flowed better, and which was more cohesive. I also preferred the first cast to this one, missed Ana de Armas, and thought that the first movie had better writing and execution overall.



Society ennobler, last seen in Medici's Florence
Saw it couple of days ago.
I'd say: skip it.

I like Edward Norton and Daniel Craig as a whole but all of the rest: acting, screenplay... are rubbish. Just a colorful video for selling tickets to the masses.
(one star more because of Norton and Craig)
__________________
"Population don't imitate art, population imitate bad television." W.A.
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." M.T.



Discussion Question: Why on Earth did they pay Rian Johnson, the director, $400 million to make two more movies in this series? Who has thoughts on that? I know the first movie was very commercially successful, but that seems incredibly excessive to me given the type of movie that this is. The first film was reported to cost $40 million to make, and this isn't a particularly demanding series to produce. It's a simple story, with likely not particularly costly special effects, etc. This isn't James Bond!