Glass Onion (Knives Out 2) **Spoilers from post 84**

There were two twists in the plot but the actual most unexpected thing was how bad the movie was.

BruteStock

Not a twist rather an outdated identical twin trope we've seen a million times before. Even Bart Simpson had an identical twin in the treehouse of horror . Rian Johnson is a hack.

Penn

Even with Knives Out there was the thing where Marta got physically sick if she lied. Like the twin thing, it's a means to an end, because the movies aren't meant to be about the twist, but about the journey of putting the pieces together. It's why in Knives Out we got the supposed reveal of Marta killing Harland by accident so early, before it's revealed there was a bigger game being played. The twin reveal here is the same. We don't know about the twin thing until a while after Duke (and then supposedly Andi) are killed on the island. Then we get the reveal that the whole thing is an investigation into the real Andi's murder and Duke was killed as part of that.

Sure, it's a bit of a trope, but that reveal isn't the central mystery of the film.

trashcan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120041726#Comment_120041726

Same here. I watched it last night and found it enjoyable, if not earth shattering. Pretty similar to the first really. Don’t think it bears the over analysis that it’s getting from some here.

I think the most damming thing about the movie was just how boring it was at times.

For a piece of so-called entertainment this is unforgiveable.

"Knives out" centres around a dysfunctional family unit that made some sort of sense. The "Glass Onion" centres around a group of "friends" that aren't remotely coherent as a unit.

The awful "The Glass Onion" script seems to only serve to link together a sequence of "revelations" in a disjointed manner through mundane exposition which by the time it's done the "revelations" are obvious and have no impact.

"Knives Out" had a much better and much wittier script. "The Glass Onion" forced commentaries on social media and big tech seem old and redundant to be honest.

Benoit Blanc was effective in "Knives Out". In "The Glass Onion" he comes across as an overly hammed-up caricature that is nowhere near as integral. Indeed at times he feels like an irrelevant sideshow.

"The Glass Onion" itself only worked as a metaphor for me in terms of how empty it was.

cdgalwegian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120049341#Comment_120049341

I think this speaks to how 'of its time' the film is, and hence to the question of it's potential for being a 'classic', and its being re-watchable, the way Knives Out might be to some. Regardless of its effectiveness in structure and associated content, the contents' subject-matter and humour (for those with whom it hit it's mark) will be probably feel stale fairly quickly.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120049593#Comment_120049593

That's only one of the problems that I outlined.

In any case if it's done well with skill and thought this sort of current social commentary does not necessarily date a film badly.

Case in point, another film from this very year that deals with very current issues, also has comedic elements and a mystery but also has soul and heart and completely blows that other plastic turd out of the water.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11976532/

Homelander

Shockingly bad movie, and I really enjoyed Knives Out. This was so flat and boring, the story, characters and twists weren't remotely compelling.

I'd say a 4/10 would be about as much as it deserves. I can't get my head around the overwhelmingly positive reviews.

Mad_maxx

Liked knives out , found this hackneyed to put it mildly and I dislike Edward Norton as an actor which didn’t help

~Rebel~

Thought it was generally fine, but wasn't a fan of just how much time was spent unpacking the real story with such an overly spelled out 'heres whats really happening' retreading of the narrative. We're only just getting into it when it pauses and jumps backwards for another go round. I know this sum-up of the machinations is a trope of the genre but it's not normally a full half of the film.

Would have much preferred if we stayed much more in the present, and they were a bit more surreptitious about the story behind the story, with Benoit and 'Andy' having a side chat around the midpoint that clearly points to their previous relationship, ulterior goals, and the show he's been putting on, etc. Let that become part of the mystery for us to unpick as it goes on instead of just showing us every single beat so bluntly.

Still a fun enough movie, but I'd have expected more from Rian Johnson as a big fan of his. Brick is one of my all time favourite mysteries (and movies full stop), so would've liked a bit more of that mysteriousness brought in, which the first Knives Out also managed well.

Mic 1972

The final reveal is very predictable. There is only one white straight male character in the movie, who else could have killed the woman?

pixelburp

Oh and the thread had been going so well. Yawn.

Potatoeman

The ending was needlessly dumb, they should have had the main character put the explosive jewel into the envelope and Norton should have burned it, so he’s responsible for the destruction.

Instead the main character throws a tantrum, smashes and destroys irreplaceable priceless art and everyone just watches. It’s hard to cheer on a character that’s destroying the Mona Lisa. The note also doesn’t prove anything now, it too late the company has been lost and the friends already testified. Them switching sides at the end is way too late. I’m kind of at a loss as how bad the ending was, did they change this in post?

Kurooi

It was entertaining enough for a Friday evening watch, but doesn't hold a candle to the first Knives Out movie.

Dumbed down for the Netflix audience I guess...

Akrasia

Watched it with my 9 year old daughter over christmas. It was fun but not mindblowing or anything.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120059348#Comment_120059348

Whilst I enjoyed the movie more than others on this thread, I'd be lying if I didn't bristle a little at the Mona Lisa being burned - intentionally at that.

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120059678#Comment_120059678

It should have been the Norton the bad guy destroying it accidentally, not the character we’re supposed to be rooting for. The whole tantrum made them seem unhinged and unlikable. More unlikable than the other characters we’re supposed not to like.

"The Glass Onion" is what happens when a director turns to a web search for the central conceit of a movie and works backwards from there -> and you end-up with an exposition-led flashback vacuous clutter-bore.

Netflix paying $465 million for the rights to two "Knives Out" movies in advance is like signing up some international football manager up to 3 world cup campaigns and paying him a massive salary all up-front, regardless of the results to come.

"I'm always fishing for something fun that Blanc can grab onto as an overwrought metaphor that he can beat to death," he said. "This is all in plain sight from the very start. So, the idea of glass came to me, something that's clear. I'll be very honest. I literally got out my iPhone and searched my music library with the word glass. 'There's got to be some good glass songs.' I was like, 'Oh, is it a glass fortress? Is it a glass castle? Is it a glass man?' The first thing that came up, because I'm a huge Beatles fan, is 'Glass Onion.'"

Somewhat ironically (or perhaps not!), the Beatles have indicated that the song "Glass Onion" was partly a response to fans who read too much into the meaning behind their lyrics. The self-reflexive song nods to their previous tunes like "I Am The Walrus," "Strawberry Fields Forever," "Lady Madonna," "The Fool On The Hill," and "Fixing A Hole."

https://ew.com/movies/rian-johnson-beatles-inspired-metaphor-glass-onion-knives-out/

Penn

The entire part about smashing all the sculptures was related to Norton's earlier speech about being a disruptor. Norton was making out that he and his gang were true disruptors, but really Andi was the one who really changed things, and the rest of them were just hangers-on.

So when Blanc tells Helen he can't do anything and gives her the crystal, Helen's actions mirror Norton's speech. She starts with something small, something no one cares about. Then she gets bigger and bigger. Then the others do what they always do, they follow the person they perceive to have the most power in that moment. Then Helen destroys the place. Then in the last bit of Norton's speech, he says to be a true disruptor you have to destroy something big, something no one wants you to destroy. So she destroys the Mona Lisa. She even does the double middle-finger salute Norton did as she goes to run to it.

She shows Miles and the others the truth. They're entirely fake, superficial and shallow. She is the true disruptor.

The destruction of the Mona Lisa is also vital to ruining Miles. His place exploding due to the crystal hydrogen could be played off as an accident that they've fixed before going public with it. But it being responsible for the destruction of the Mona Lisa, as well as the reputational and financial damage that does to Miles himself, is irreparable.

It could be argued that maybe they could have created a piece of art for the film and just claimed it's a piece of extremely high value akin to the Mona Lisa, and just used that instead. But I think there'd be little point in that. The Mona Lisa is so recognisable, and it's mirrored in the final shot of Helen sitting on the chair in Mona Lisa's pose, so it's worth it in my opinion.

Nermal

The whole point is the stupidity of Norton, yet the cabbages in the audience have to have the irony of destroying the Mona Lisa actually explained to them in dialogue, rather than simply represented on screen. A film made by and for people who think they're cleverer than they really are.

odyssey06

It wasn't the real Mona Lisa, the French sent a copy OR

So embarrassed about it being destroyed, the French hush it up and use above as an excuse.

micks_address

watched it last night and enjoyed it. Easy to watch.

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120059931#Comment_120059931

But she is doing all this to make a point to an idiot. It would have been far better for her to trick Norton into destroying it himself.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120060135#Comment_120060135

I don't think she's trying to make a point to Miles, I'd see it as more of a taunt. Besides, that would be too much of a retread of Knives Out, where Marta tricks Ransom into confessing.

peteeeed

https://twitter.com/netflix/status/1610749018304548865?s=20&t=AhfayKh-tsSL4qcMuKYo9A

https://twitter.com/netflix/status/1610749018304548865?s=20&t=AhfayKh-tsSL4qcMuKYo9A

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120060135#Comment_120060135

The whole conceit about Miles being a complete idiot doesn't bear scrutiny for me, which is rather a problem when the whole plot resolution relies on it.

It needs him to be a complete imbecile, just as dumb as a bag of rocks in every way possible.

But this isn't a trust fund baby who was handed billions, it was a man who helped build what is implied to be one of the worlds most powerful businesses. Who was smart enough not just to steal an idea but to completely outmanoeuvre the other partners involved. Smart enough to have an elected official and a prominent scientist completely under his thumb. Smart enough to be able to broker a deal to get the goddamn Mona Lisa, (and no it would take more than just money to swing that one). Smart enough to commit a murder and an attempted murder and effectively get away with those crimes.

He may have been an idiot, but he simply could not have been the complete and utter moron that the plot needs him to be.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120059132#Comment_120059132

Oh for God's sake. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

TheIrishGrover

I enjoyed it. Not as much as the first but did enjoy it. I mean, I'm taking his insanely OTT accent as part of the joke. ("CSI KFC" as in the first one). It wasn't quite as focused as the first one - the first one was practically a play, but it was still fun. Kate Hudson was born to be a scream queen and Katheryn Hahn was doing her usual thing. I particularly enjoyed Blanc solving the initial "murder" instantly to the growing frustration of Edward Norton. And thought Norton was very funny as an idiot. Even before the reveal you knew he was an idiot. His monologue to Blanc basically just full of cliches and saying nothing. (Even down to him wearing Tom Cruise's outfit from Magnolia in the flashback. Although I did think "Why does he look like Tom Cruise from Magnolia" throughout the scene. Even though this was basically a PG movie, I was waiting for him to come out with a family-friendly "Respect the c*ck"). Every single one of the "Disrupters" were just spouting out TED Talk buzzwords without fully understanding them. All of them shallow idiots. (Bautista's ma, solving the riddles while not paying attention, all of them thinking they are so clever in solving the puzzle while "Andi" just says "B0ll0x to this" and smashes it open)

I agree, I thought the last third was the entire twist as opposed to a last min "J'ACCUSE!!!". I mean it's not novel but I enjoy those to see if it is planned out/executed well.

So, again, enjoyed it, would like to see one more (But no more than that. MAYBE another in about 15/20 years as he is older). But a bit tighter next time please.

pixelburp

That's the problem with the runaway successes: the sequels can sometimes be prone to bloat, and a lack of the kind of discipline & focus the original possessed. Suddenly the creators have more budget but (potentially) less time and freedom, as the studio's suddenly more intrusive in the process.

Of course, with Netflix throwing cash around, the chances of the third movie getting back to that more precise vehicle have become even more unlikely. It'll be "do that again, but MORE!"

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066717#Comment_120066717

I don't think he was ever really played as an idiot in the film, but it's more of a cult of personality. He was charismatic and friendly and knew how to make deals, and surrounded himself with people who he could build up, and then build himself up off them. But while he's not played as an idiot, he made himself appear as if he's a genius when really he just stolen all his ideas or had pretty simple but effective ideas. He kills off Duke and shoots Helen/Andi very quickly and in such a way that it even takes Benoit a while to figure it out even though there ends up being no real evidence that would hold up in court, but his plan is so basic that Benoit completely overlooks it.

The disparity between how he ended up and how Andi ended up (before the start of the film) was only down to the others siding with him over Andi because he would help them more than Andi would have. But almost all of his accomplishments aren't really down to intelligence, just personality. He's not an idiot, he's just a pretty normal guy (charismatic and manipulative), who thinks himself a genius (particularly in how he mis-uses words or uses other peoples ideas as his own).

Penn

I would say, the only part of the film that really fell flat for me was Helen's notebook stopping the bullet and saving her. That to me just felt incredibly cheap.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067810#Comment_120067810

But thats rather my point. The plot and most especially the denouement all hinge on the reveal or revelation that Miles is a complete and utter idiot. The very title of the film itself relies on that concept.

But as you say yourself, the rest of the movie does not support it. It doesn't play him as a complete idiot at all.

Throwing a few misused words into a monologue is a poor substitute for actually having a consistent character that matches the conceit the director was trying to claim.

cdgalwegian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067873#Comment_120067873

I saw this film as Johnson piss-taking the superficiality of social media types, in a knowing, 'meta' way, which is hard to pull off, because it can veer dangerously towards being too smug in its knowng-ness. The bullet/notebook scene - in using a well-worn trope - was intentionally corny as part of his 'meta' approach, which got an eye-roll from me, not because I thought it was cheap;it was just too corny.

cdgalwegian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067975#Comment_120067975

He wasn't played as idiot. He was exposed as a fraud, which Benoit, perhaps harshly, equated as being an idiot (probably condescendingly).

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067975#Comment_120067975

Like cdgalwegian says, I never got that Bron was being revealed as an idiot, just that he wasn't the genius everyone thought he was, or particularly that he thought he was. Even Benoit calling Miles' plan dumb, I saw that more as Benoit's disappointment that Miles' plan was just... kinda normal, or at least normal by Benoit's standards. It ties back to his conversation with Helen about being bad at Cluedo because it's too simplistic, and Benoit in the bath saying he needs a good case. He was more angry and disappointed in Miles' plan because it wasn't clever or interesting, and was instead simplistic by his standards.

Miles isn't an idiot, but as evident with most of Leonard's scenes (as an actual scientist), Miles just fires out ideas or bulls into them without thinking. Some of them work, but many don't. And Miles' ego is such that he believes he's a genius and can just bull ahead with the hydrogen crystal energy plan without it being properly tested for safety, even though he doesn't have a great understanding of it.

Miles' plan to kill Andi was fine, but unspectacular, and his own hubris led to him keeping the one bit of actual evidence tying him to it (the napkin, which proved both motivation and opportunity). He had to improvise the plan to kill Duke and Helen but again, it was fairly simple. Give Duke something he's allergic to, and straight up just shoot Helen when the lights go out with Duke's gun. Even just comparing that to Ransom's plan in Knives Out, it's incredibly simplistic.

Fysh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067975#Comment_120067975

I don't think it's so much that he is colossally stupid as that he vastly over-estimates his strengths and has seemingly no awareness of his weaknesses.

One thing I appreciate for its relative understatedness is that Miles' habit of taking the credit for things others have done is established early on - the influencers all wang on about Miles as they work through the puzzle box, but all he did was commission someone else with the right skills to make them.

He seems unable to differentiate between "I paid someone else to do a great job" and "I did a great job", and also seems to be very focused on credit and reputation - the only problem he is genuinely keen on solving is establishing an indelible legacy for himself, despite having few if any aptitudes that would lend themselves to the more common avenues for doing so.

In terms of the film, I thought that one of the underlying ideas is that the contemporary notion of "market disruptors" has bought the idea that they must all be far-seeing visionary geniuses, without accepting that some of them are charlatans with delusions of adequacy. In the IT world I've often seen the phrase "move fast, break stuff, spend a lot of money fixing it afterwards" - usually because the people insisting on the first two clauses had no understanding of what they were demanding (nor interest in listening to the people telling them what problems might happen). Miles, to me, was a very well-drawn caricature of that type of individual.

johnny_ultimate

As Norton himself has noted, there’s a very overt reference to Elizabeth Holmes here. A perfect example of someone who fooled huge amounts of people before being revealed as an absolute bullshitter.

https://twitter.com/edwardnorton/status/1610520222586535936?s=46&t=FeuVdCe_5lK7c3h6UYKBKQ

Or just look at Elon Musk, who with one foolish purchase (and the sense of humour of a 15-year-old Redditor) has completely undermined his well-cultivated ‘business genius’ reputation (not that there weren’t many hints before 😅).

The reality of ultra billionaires and tech start-ups is so absurd I think the heightening here is perfectly coherent within a film where everything is comically heightened anyway. And honestly I think that’s why the ‘idiot’ reveal works best anyway - it’s a (IMO, of course) funny bit, poking fun at both the mystery genre’s various absurdities / clichés and this film’s own playful, self-aware embrace of them.

The TV Show "Silicon Valley" did all that better starting way way back in 2014.

It's hardly something original or even particularly well-executed here.

joe40

I really enjoyed the movie. Not as good as knives out but still worth a watch.

My only gripe is burning the Mona Lisa. I know it will ruin Miles but still terrible to destroy an original artwork deliberately. Didn't sit well with me.

pjcb

did he not know she had a twin?

Sad Professor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078919#Comment_120078919

It's not really clear if he did or not, but presumedly yes. After Helen is revealed to the group, Birdie says "You told me about Helen, your sister". Also, Duke and Miles aren't confused about the imposter when they see the notification that Andi is dead and is survived by her sister. So presumedly they all knew that Andi had a twin and given her weird behaviour Duke and Miles were immediately able put two and two together. This still bothers me, mainly because the trope always involves nobody knowing about the twin and the film doesn't explicitly address whether they did know or not.

p to the e

The best bit for me was when I said "oh Blanc and Hugh Grant are housemates". My missus said "I think they're partners". And I thought she meant like Holmes and Watson.

Apothic_Red

I enjoyed it for what it was. 10 times better than the Banshit of Inishit anyway.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120068987#Comment_120068987

I dont see good parody here, shouldnt the character have been a parody of Holmes then?. Musk is one of the most effective people on the planet, if the character is supposed to be playing off Musk then the setup would need to be different, seems more like lazy writing

Fysh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093497#Comment_120093497

Firstly it's riffing overall on a type of person and not specific individual (though that specific shot was based on Holmes).

As for Elno, you are seeing the persona he likes to project rather than the reality which is more like "he buys into companies that are already set up, then declares that he was always a founder" (what happened with Paypal and Tesla). As johnny_ultimate mentioned upthread, watching him drop his pants in public with the Twitter takeover in 2022 was a fascinating look at just how foolish someone regarded as some sort of genius can turn out to be.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093497#Comment_120093497

Various shots and details are parodies of different people; he's dressed like Tom Cruise in Magnolia in the flashback, then he's dressed like Steve Jobs with the polo neck, then the shot imitating Holmes for the promo shot with the napkin, some allusions to Musk in there as well (though Norton and Rian Johnson have stated Bron isn't based on Musk, particularly as Glass Onion was filmed mid-2021 before Musk's actions over the course of 2022).

He's not based on or a parody of any of them in particular, it's just to highlight the type of person he is and his penchant for copying/stealing other people's ideas. The shot of Holmes with the blood sample became fairly iconic, particularly with everything that transpired after. So Miles Bron holding the napkin in the same way is a parody of that shot, but that doesn't mean he's meant to be a parody of Holmes.