criterionforum.org

Noiretirc wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 2:39 am

knives wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 1:53 am I’m probably the last person feeling this way, but I absolutely loved the newest movie.

Knives out!

Noiretirc wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 2:51 am No theaters near me are showing Wake Up Dead Man.

knives wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 3:04 am I can see people getting annoyed with Cy as a belabored political point, but that element is so minor it doesn’t seem worth discounting everything else for (and I personally enjoyed how Johnson twisted it).

Mr Sausage wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 3:15 pmSo I liked the movie, especially Josh O'Connor's character, but I did think its third act was less fun than the rest, and, as I said, a lot of the faith stuff had me rolling my eyes. Still, I will happily take more of these films.

Brian C wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 5:08 pm

Mr Sausage wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 3:15 pmSo I liked the movie, especially Josh O'Connor's character, but I did think its third act was less fun than the rest, and, as I said, a lot of the faith stuff had me rolling my eyes. Still, I will happily take more of these films.

I had something of the opposite reaction - I liked that it hardly leaned on "faith stuff" at all. Father Jud's faith surely drove him, but his faith was his own and not really a factor in the story, per se. The story was instead about how he viewed the ethics of his profession. That's why the phone call with the construction company secretary was a turning point for him, it didn't remind him of his faith but of his duty.

And I think it's an important distinction to make, because

Spoiler

Blanc was so moved by his ethics that he was willing to publicly make a fool of himself to uphold them, and sacrifice his prized intellectual reputation, perhaps the thing most central to his own identity and therefore a demonstration of his own humility ... all despite not sharing his faith even one iota.

I don't think the movie "abandoned" his character at all, it validated his devotion to his profession, the same way that the first film validated Marta's care and compassion through her profession in the first film.

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:10 am I've got good news for everyone: Glass Onion is vastly superior to its predecessor in almost every conceivable way. It's modus operandi will likely 'right' the wrongs of the first film for those who felt underwhelmed, and deliver more of the same for those who loved it. That might sound antithetical, but I assure you it's not. I've come to appreciate Knives Out quite a bit, but its lack of investment in developing its suspects, and general disinterest in its 'mystery' in favor of concocting an inviting narrative thrust, weighed it down a bit and threatened to alienate those not on board with the gratifications from its chosen path in friction with classic mysteries.

Well, this sequel takes a different approach while capturing the same light vibe. Johnson delivers what the first film promised to be: an actual whodunit committed to its setup and execution. There is a long windup before the pitch, and Johnson uses every minute of it to craft an actual mystery and carefully explore dynamics between real subjects who can relate to one another beyond a one-note gag or an isolated piece of evidence of deception, like in the last round. The first film's sociopolitical satire worked fine, but the doses were slight and shallow and relatively safe and muted next to the sprawling zeitgeist and class commentaries regurgitated here. Some are low hanging fruit but others are transmitted in very intelligent and hilarious ways- and very few are eye-rolling, even the jabs that aren’t remotely novel. There are clever gags throughout- with running jokes and punchlines coming from archetypes, stereotypes, antisocial humor, inanimate stimuli, and the occasional genius reflexive taunt: a late-act reveal about linguistic flubs we collectively failed to catch pulls one over on the audience in an exceptionally earned way, that has unsettling implications in positioning us right with the selfish bystanders we’ve judged throughout (but never overstating that the joke’s on us, since the target of evisceration on the screen deserves it far more).

However, after the midpoint narrative-stopping reveal (that owes a lot to Gone Girl and The Skin I Live In; not as profound or shocking as either of those, but sourced in the same strategy of narrative pleasures), kicking off a Russian Doll unraveling of intel, the liberties taken regarding withheld information and narrative shifts aren't playing very fair to the audience who sat through the first half. There’s just too much information elided through cheap editing to make it work, and it’s disingenuous even for an audience that signed up for a ride of deception. Johnson tries to have his cake and eat it too, and has an insatiable appetite, but I didn’t care, because 95% of a movie that works and contains this much... well, everything, has more to offer than most perfect movies and deserves a little slack. Even when the ending appears to peter out with predictability followed by seemingly-arbitrary pearl-clutching in a series of theatrical Grand Gestures, Johnson pulls a rabbit out of his hat to offer a cathartic payoff in lieu of the preceding faux-catharsis that appeared trivial and derivative.

What the sequel loses from the diffusion of a compelling surrogate lead into a more detailed ensemble piece, it makes up for by being a funnier, smarter, more entertaining, and generally interesting multi-mystery. It's also a lot sillier and more reflexively-aware of its ludicrous nature (there's way more fun-poking at Benoit Blanc's childish qualities- not just being Pynchon-illiterate, or whatever- which feels quite appropriate given how cartoonish these films can be). My biggest fear -that de Armas' absence would haunt the film like a ghost- is thankfully compensated, in a sleek manner that successfully reverses the assumed loss I just maybe-sorta lied about. This bait and switch might be the film’s most rewarding twist- and while I won’t reveal the Who, it’s a similarly rich and delightful star-making turn. The whole cast is on-point and clearly having a blast, particularly Kate Hudson, who admittedly plays one of the most easily-derided personalities, ripe for receiving a funnel of jokes at her expense. Oh, and while the influx cameos occasionally feel forced, the wins outweigh the failures.

Now, I've been a bit cocky here. I still expect some people who didn't like Knives Out to shrug or scoff at this one too, but I do think Glass Onion effectively responds to many of their complaints. For me, whose opinion on that pre-covid hit exists somewhere in the middle, this is as much fun as I’ve had at the movies all year.

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Dec 16, 2025 2:41 am Unfortunately I think it’s only on Netflix without a physical release.. a real shame

Mr Sausage wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 10:51 pm You're really just expanding on my "an anodyne version of [faith] so thin it's indistinguishable from stock morality"… It's the limpness of the faith aspect that leaves me unmoved. If it had leaned more into O'Connor's catholicism, treated more the specifics of his devotion, I would've preferred that to the non-specific but still religiously clothed moralisms of the actual movie.

Noiretirc wrote: Tue Dec 16, 2025 5:37 am
That's quite surprising. I cannot think of another significant film that didn't appear on disc within 3 years of release.

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:10 am rich and delightful star-making turn.