Knives Out - A Doughnut that turned into a Glass Onion

Glass Onion was one of the films I was most looking forward to in this years list of Oscar nominations not because I enjoyed the first Knives Out instalment but rather because the idea of a lavish whodunit with an all star ensemble cast appeared to be the kind of movie I would enjoy. Prior to watching Glass Onion I thought it would be wise to go back and revisit Knives Out, the prequel, which came out in 2019 and see if my negative opinion of the film would change upon seeing it in a new light today. Thus, I will first review Knives Out before getting into my thoughts on Glass Onion.

Knives Out:

Prior to seeing Knives Out I had seen several advertisements for it on television which I bring up now since those trailers made it seem like a pulpy fast moving whodunit with lots of fun twists and turns to keep the audience engaged. Thus, when I finally saw the film I was surprised to find a slow moving and stylish drama with heavy handed political messaging which ultimately bogged down the narrative and the mirage of fun alluded to in those commercials. Additionally, the movie never wowed me in that while there are a few twists none of them are that rewarding since they occur so late in the picture and are only interesting given that the initial mystery, which seemed to have been resolved in the first forty or so minutes, was so underwhelming and created little tension.

Getting into specifics, Knives Out chronicles an upper class family who all are seeking answers regarding who is responsible for the death of the patriarch of their family. In order to make a compelling whodunit you must ensure that the audience has an interest in figuring out who done it which this movie failed to do since almost all of the members of this family, aside from the patriarch played wonderfully by the late and great Christopher Plummer, lack distinction. Each member of the family bares the same attributes in that they are all greedy and lack any awareness for things that do not immediately impact them which is exemplified through the running gag in the film that each time they reference their house keeper they claim she has immigrated from a different country. The family’s inability to locate their house keeper's country of origin demonstrated that the family views all immigrants as one and the same which is one of the early signs of the political messaging present in this film which becomes unbearable as the movie wares on.

Scene after scene in Knives Out consists of the family members bickering back and forth in politically charged dialogue that is only ever intermittently funny and rarely meaningful which made me think that it was present in the film only to make it appear topical and culturally relevant though in the end it made much of the film feel like you were observing a heated Twitter thread. Much of the dialogue also sounds sitcom esque and overly intellectual to the point that it sounded more like word vomit with actors reading a script laced with trending buzzwords as opposed to an honest conversation between people. Furthermore, one of the characters being a social media influencer while another is seen vaping appeared forced as opposed to characters based in a film set in the present. Lastly, the daughter building a business for herself after receiving a loan of a million dollars from her dad is such a blatant gibe at Donald Trump it was hard to take seriously.

The movie is well made at times as I did appreciate the way the writer and director Rian Johnson cleverly introduced Daniel Craig, who plays the main detective in the film Benoit Blanc, in two key scenes those being the first time we are introduced to him during a police interrogation where he strikes a key on a piano in the background and later when he lights a cigarette to make his presence known to the housekeeper played by Ana de Armas. Speaking of de Armas she is really good in this film especially in one scene where she is seen crying silently in the background while Christopher Plummer speaks to and tries to distract a member of his family. There are also several genuinely funny moments that come up in the film including the one where Ana de Armas is spotted by a family member at the exact moment Plummer is heard in narration directing her to try and not be seen by anyone. I also appreciated the inclusion of a clip of Angela Lansbury (R.I.P.) in her famous role in the hit whodunit TV Show Murder She Wrote. The found it interesting that Christopher Plummer feels closest to his housekeeper, whom he employs and therefore has a reason to pay, as opposed to his family who see him simply as their personal ATM.

While the movie has some high points it is overwhelmed by lows especially those that directly undermine the credibility of the main detective in the film such that Daniel Craig seems to be easily outwitted at several points in the film making him seem incompetent. Maybe he was meant to be a parody of a classic movie detective since I cannot otherwise explain why these decisions were made. For instance, at one point after Daniel Craig chases a suspect who has fled from him he immediately allows them to go into a random building he has no knowledge of while they are totally unsupervised and could escape again proving that he lacks forethought.

In terms of the music the constant percussive score felt more like a sample of music from Birdman as opposed to a unique soundtrack to give the movie a distinct identity. That said the music that accompanies the final shot of the film was fun but was undermined by a lacklustre ending which again relied on unambiguous imagery. Specifically, and this deals with spoilers so skip this sentence if you have not seen the movie, at the end of the movie where Ana de Armas inherits Plummer’s immense wealth and mansion and looks down upon his family outside from her newly acquired balcony while holding a “my house, my rules” mug any sense of subtlety was stomped on and the heavy handed political themes present in the film overshadowed any single aspect of the film I had enjoyed up until that point.

In conclusion, this movie feels like an impersonation of a better movie which is a phrase I think can be used to describe much of what Hollywood has churned out lately. It never felt genuine and the political commentary is not brought up in service to the plot and instead became the plot. I gave this film a 5/10 as I did moderately enjoy it and I think it is a film that can be enjoyed. However, it is not one that I think will really stick with you due to its unambiguous plot which leaves little for the viewer to contemplate once the movie ends.

Glass Onion:

Glass Onion finds Daniel Craig playing detective Benoit Blanc again as he is surrounded once more by several new and even more aggressively modern wealthy antagonists as they unravel a murder mystery. While my expectations being high for the first movie may have led to me being disappointed I was more apprehensive going into this movie which may explain why for much of the film I enjoyed it a lot more than I did the first. However, that all changed in the last thirty minutes where the movie descends into such over the top chaos it is hard to even recognize this as being the conclusion to the movie you have been watching for an hour and forty minutes up to that point.

The film, again written and directed by Rian Johnson, from a technical perspective is more impressive than the first since several creative formal choices were made to enhance the plot. Specifically, at the beginning of the film when several characters are trying to find a clue to open a puzzle box one decides to unfocus their eyes in order to see if a clue is revealed which the audience bares witness to in the from of a point of view shot which I thought was a very creative choice since it allowed the viewers to see from the characters perspective thus furthering their sympathy for them as they struggle to open the puzzle box. Another great shot occurs later when Craig’s character looks upon a dead body and then scans the island locale as several characters, whom he suspects are responsible, approach the body in the distance which is all captured as the camera smoothly pans from one to the next. Another aspect of the movie that I really appreciated were the songs the filmmakers decided to include as they made the movie a joy to watch as the music helped to give the movie a fun and light feeling reflective of the tropical setting of the film on a remote island.

The main improvement this movie makes over the first is better defining its characters in a way where they each have their own personality as opposed to being similar variations of the same archetype. This was aided by some great performances most notably those by Kate Hudson, Dave Bautista and Edward Norton. Furthermore, while the characters do argue in the movie there is more substance to it this time around such that it was relevant to the plot as opposed to it being a vehicle to try and interweave trending buzzwords. The dialogue in general is much better including this quote from Daniel Craig, who was much better in this movie and his character shown to be more clever, that being when he says that “it is dangerous to equate speaking without thought as speaking the truth.” Additionally, the way Craig compares the mystery in this movie to that of a glass onion with many layers but whose centre can always be seen was much more interesting than his comparison of the mystery in the first movie with that of a doughnut. While discussing the dialogue I must make mention of one line that stuck out in the movie where a character shouts “I want the truth!” which was hard to take seriously as all I could picture was the famous scene including this phrase from A Few Good Men. The movie has a couple of nice subtle moments such as where Norton presents each of his affluent guests with a unique beverage tailored to their specific tastes while one of the guest’s assistants is handed a generic red cup showing that he only cares for his rich friends. That is not to say the movie is without its more blatant and unambiguous sequences though they are less numerous and thus more enjoyable such as the moment where Edward Norton, who plays the billionaire tycoon Miles Bron at the centre of the movie’s plot, claims that his island retreat is not your typical affluent dwelling while an electronic animal can be seen in the background transporting the guests luggage.

The setting of this movie is amazing as the cliché of having someone invite multiple guests to their mansion only for a murder mystery to follow is one of my favourite setups in film. While I was at first hesitant about the movie being set during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic since it is such a recent calamity that has yet to relinquish its grip on society this ended up working well in the film as a means of demonstrating the disparity between the haves and the have nots. Specifically, upon arriving at the docks before departing to Edward Norton’s island retreat Ethan Hawke appears in a great cameo playing an employee of Norton’s who gives each invitee a pseudo vaccine such that Hawke explains they will no longer need to wear their masks on the island. In terms of its discussion of wealth I found it interesting how the movie showed that money can be used to buy anything up to and including celebrity to the point that Norton is seen as being responsible for each of his guests careers due to his financial backing of them. The movie as a whole just seems more clever including the moment where one character runs away from another who is wielding a harpoon gun and shoots it at them which ends up being blocked by a statue of a marlin which I thought was hilarious. The setting of the movie on a remote island where an over the top murder mystery ensues reminded me of the great 2002 Scooby-Doo adaptation that I watched and thoroughly enjoyed last year. One last comment, which includes spoilers so move on to the next paragraph if you want to avoid them. The twist in the middle of the film regarding who invited Daniel Craig to the getaway was really well handled since his claim that one of the guests re-gifted a complete puzzle box to him would seem to eliminate Janelle Monae as being the one to give it to him since she was seen destroying her box but in fact Craig lied as it is shown that his box was from Monae. Additionally, Monae playing twin characters was a fun twist much in line with a classic whodunit trope which I enjoyed and I thought she did an excellent job even if she tends not to be an actress I enjoy seeing.

I find it interesting that at the same time it has become popular if not trendy to hate the rich and blame them for all that plagues society several of the most popular TV Shows such as The White Lotus and Succession, and these Knives Out movies, focus on the lives of the rich and famous. This hatred of the rich, which seems to be present in both Knives Out movies, is better explained here as greater insight is given to how being affluent can help grease the wheels of society so as to grant certain people advantages others could only dream of. However, these legitimate criticisms of those with immense wealth felt counter intuitive in a film that so often relied on name dropping celebrities and having them appear in several cameos which often proved unnecessary to the larger plot though it was nice to see Angela Lansberry in this film (R.I.P.).

The main problem with Glass Onion is the ending which I cannot discuss without spoiling the movie so if you wish to see the movie without it being spoiled I suggest you do that now or skip this paragraph to the next one where I will sum up my thoughts. At the end of the film it is shown that Edward Norton tried to kill Janelle Monae’s character since she had evidence that would have helped her in a legal case regarding who owned the company they ran together which he recently forced her out of through illicit means. In a fun twist Monae’s character is shown to have a twin sister who seeks out the help of Daniel Craig to try and find the evidence that was stolen from her sister’s property by going to Norton’s island resort where he has invited several of his friends including Monae’s dead twin who must have been sent an invitation before she was murdered. Having said all that it boggles the mind why when Monae arrived at the destination Norton did not have a more visceral reaction to seeing her having thought that he murdered her. The movie explains this by saying that Norton did not know if he had murdered her, but even though that might explain why he may not be shocked to see her alive it does not help illuminate why he would not be concerned that at the very least she would remember being drugged by Norton’s character and bring this to the attention of his friends upon arriving at the resort thus incriminating him. After all is revealed at the end of the film and the evidence is retrieved Norton destroys it meaning that the only way to bring him to justice would be if his friends decided to testify against him as they now know of his criminal acts. However, they decide not to act until after Monae destroys his property through the use of a new source of energy he was cultivating which will soon be proven unsafe since he will be unable to hide the news of his home being destroyed by this substance since the famous Mona Lisa painting was engulfed in the process thus exposing that his company’s new energy source is without merit which will bankrupt him. As his empire of wealth turns to rubble his friends turn against him not because they have significantly changed throughout the course of the movie and have come to see the error of their selfish ways but instead because Norton is no longer a viable source of income for them which I thought was an interesting comment on the nature of people though I wish this conclusion could have been arrived at without so many glaring plot holes and melodrama.

This is a very hard movie to come to a consensus on. While I was enjoying this movie more than the first due to its seemingly interesting plot and nuanced characters the third act descended into such chaos and mere nonsense that it is hard to balance these two halves. Ultimately this is a better movie than the first but it is a shame that it is not better still. I gave this film a 6/10.