|
The next one should be in space
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
Murder on the Virgin Galactic Express
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
That was already an episode of Doctor Who https://i.imgur.com/atmTZ4A.mp4 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
I avoided trailers and thought this one took place on a cruise ship called the Glass Onion. Cruise ship or train would still be a good setting to (re)use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Murder on the orient express but everyone deserves to die
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Murder on the orient express but everyone deserves to die "There are no people here who deserve a chance to heal, only killers."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
Daniel Craig vs Eva Green but it turns out Blanc is the killer. And then the twist comes in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Daniel Craig vs Eva Green but it turns out Blanc is the killer. And then the twist comes in. Benoir's evil brother, Benblanc Noir, and he's played by Pierce Brosnan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Forgot to mention Norton's fantastic Frank T.J. Mackey dress up in the flashback scene.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Forgot to mention Norton's fantastic Frank T.J. Mackey dress up in the flashback scene. Dunno how reliable it is, but supposedly that was Nortons idea
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:He's got a bunch of nerd tattoos on his fingers (KOTOR, Superman, Trek, Avengers, etc; they're apparently Bautista's, but Johnson chose to make them very deliberately visible so they likely inform Duke's backstory too), so he's probably out of nerd fandom, being a gamer then gamergater fits. Joe Rogan used to post on shacknews.com before Fear Factor so there's your early gaming origin story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
Rogan spent quite a lot of money on a T1 setup for Quake 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
v disappointed that after Benoit said he needed a great case that Hugh Grant didn't say there was someone at the door with a great big case But maybe that was subverting expectations Rest of the movie was excellent though Xander B Coolridge fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Dec 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
  Zack Snyder is the blueprint. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
Lmfao owned
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 06:02
|
|
|
This is a thread about a good movie pls show a modicum of respect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:The cast isn't the only thing Johnson wasted though because how do you manage to shoot in Greece and seemingly not make any use of it at all. I know, right? I thought they did most of the shooting in Southern California till I looked it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
Several recent Netflix projects have been shot in Greece including Red Notice - there has to be some economic reason behind it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
Speaking of the location, I didn’t pay much attention to how the Disruptors got to the dock. Was there any reason that the audience would know that the private island was in fact in the Aegean Sea and that Miles’ reference to the Ionian Sea was another instance of the character being an idiot? Platystemon fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Dec 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:This is a thread about a good movie pls show a modicum of respect. I always show respect to the goat Kevin Costner
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Was there any reason that the audience would know that the private island was in fact in the Aegean Sea and that Miles’ reference to the Ionian Sea was another instance of the character being an idiot? I forget, but I assume they must name the city in Greece they're departing from in an establishing shot or something, since the Ionian Sea is on the other side of the Greek peninsula.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
I wrote a thing about Glass Onion and what it does and doesn't say about billionaires.quote:Already we have a fictional contrivance: the idea that for the creation of a tech company on the level of Facebook for instance there must have been someone who was uniquely talented. Andi Brand (a curious choice of surname) is the real talent in the duo, the true owner of the critical napkin that much of the plot revolves around. But the idea is ridiculous. Corporate creation myths are ridiculous. Facebook’s billion-dollar success story was fueled by a tech bubble and merciless exploitation of monopoly status. There are very few great ideas sketched out in margins, and none of them are about founding adtech firms — nobody ever scrawled ‘misrepresent video views’ on a snotty tissue. It’s interesting to note that this is the second film of the year with a scene where a money-making deal is noted on a napkin. In Elvis however, the napkin is representative of the scurrilous nature of the deal, the betrayal that must be hidden. Here it’s a case of good napkin v bad napkin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Was there any reason that the audience would know that the private island was in fact in the Aegean Sea and that Miles’ reference to the Ionian Sea was another instance of the character being an idiot? If I recall it'd be a little odd to be in the Ionian, the Aegean is where most of the islands like that are. But I don't think they established it solidly? MikeJF fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Dec 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
I legitimately don't think we have enough information about Andi or Alpha to make the assessment that she was "uniquely talented." Like, the napkin is nothing. It's a macguffin. It suggests nothing about either party because the initial "mission" of Alpha as a company is outside the scope of the narrative. And I don't think we should know, because that would be pointless. The important thing is that Andi died because of it, and everything else we know about Andi is filtered through Helen. e: it's also worth noting that Alpha seems to primarily exist in the first place because Andi brought in Miles, who already had money, as a partner (iirc, anyway) Arist fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Dec 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Dunno how reliable it is, but supposedly that was Nortons idea I think I recall Johnson bringing it up during the Alamo livestream Q&A. I believe he came to the set wearing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
Saw this movie with my family on Boxer Day. No-one thought it was great, my brother went to bed about 3/4 of the way in, and the rest of us finished feeling varying degrees of "well that was entertaining I guess". After thinking about it for a few days, here is where I'm at: The interesting thing about the movie is it's very intentionally attempting to occupy several genres at once, nearly independently of each other. This is interesting because this director has succeeded at making good movies in two of these individual genres(Brick, Looper,) as well as creating a movie which satisfyingly defies genre tropes(Last Jedi). It basically fails at being an enjoyable movie but partially succeeds on it's own terms if you accept the glass onion metaphor as a commentary on the movie itself and view the whole thing as a satire. The movie has many layers, but ultimately isn't saying anything interesting or complex and each individual genre-layer is facile and... dumb . Quite a shame really, given the talent of the director. On the surface level the movie is a "who-dunnit". The unreliable narrator and paper-thin characters sabotage any enjoyment derived from guessing who the murderer is. We don't even learn what the central crime is until halfway through the story. Trying to puzzle out "who dunnit" is doomed to failure and frustration given the detective has access to more information than the audience for nearly the entire movie. On the second level the movie is a tech thriller. This is undermined by the tech being dumb as hell(free energy, except it might explode lol), and the napkin McGuffin making no goddamn sense. The entire court case rests on the ownership of this cocktail napkin? Come on, that is not how the world works. On the third level the movie is a social satire comedy. This doesn't work because the politics of the movie suck, for reasons explored by Josh04. The Brand twins are not sympathetic protagonists. Miles is not a satisfactory villain. What a shame, again, because it's Edward loving Norton. Going back to the Glass Onion metaphor though, I wonder if this movie is actually intended as pure satire. Maybe under all the layers it's really a Bret Easton-Ellis style parody of the type of empty liberal Hollywood moralizing ever-present in all of the above types of movies. In that case I would argue it partially succeeds because it is quite funny in parts(for example Blanc immediately ruining the "murder mystery"). If that's the case though, it definitely didn't go far enough and falls into the classic "I'm writing bad poetry to satirize bad poetry but all you're left with in the end is.... bad poetry" pitfall. I do enjoy the Benoit Blanc character though. Oh well! Hopefully the third one is better. Superrodan posted:My pitch for the next one is to have the "second to last Gentleman Detective". The one who retired before Blanc, maybe even his mentor, played by someone like Tom Hanks who's equally charming in a different way. You think they're gonna be rivals and at odds, or even that the other detective will be a suspect (jealousy, to stump Blanc and get back in the limelight) and the story somewhat supports it... they keep coming to different conclusions about the same clues. Love this idea tbh GoodluckJonathan fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Dec 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Speaking of the location, I didn’t pay much attention to how the Disruptors got to the dock. Not that I recall. They might have mentioned the city in which they boarded Miles's ship, but I don't specifically remember that. Still, the fact that Miles does not know which sea contains his private island is just more evidence for the "Miles is a moron" case. And that "case" is important because the whole reason Blanc suspects everybody else except for Miles of Andi's murder is that "he'd have to be a moron to kill her himself after that trial, etc."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
josh04 posted:I wrote a thing about Glass Onion and what it does and doesn't say about billionaires. I know this is kinda nitpicking and maybe beside the point, but there are children in the very first scene.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
Hah, no, that's a good point, I'll amend it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
There's also Duke's relationship with his mom, he's very much a child in that scene.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I think all the underlings have some kind of awkward familial relationship going on, to Miles and to each other and their hanger-ons - like Birdie and Peg. It's only really Miles who has this group of protégés in place of children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
josh04 posted:I wrote a thing about Glass Onion and what it does and doesn't say about billionaires. Eh, honestly, I don't think the film does say that. The napkin is important because it proved who happened to legally hold a certain IP that would prevent her from being driven out and, later, prove perjury, not because it proved who was a 'genius'. It doesn't need to be brilliant, it just needs to be the inciting element.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I think I recall Johnson bringing it up during the Alamo livestream Q&A. I believe he came to the set wearing it. Very good instincts, Ed Norton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
Arist posted:I legitimately don't think we have enough information about Andi or Alpha to make the assessment that she was "uniquely talented." Like, the napkin is nothing. It's a macguffin. It suggests nothing about either party because the initial "mission" of Alpha as a company is outside the scope of the narrative. The napkin is 100% pure gibberish. I wish the camera had lingered just a little bit longer on the writing at some point; you see enough of the napkin to get the impression that it's full of technobabble but without freeze framing it's hard to appreciate just how stupid it is. It's not the roadmap to hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth, it's a VC lottery ticket that happened to pay off. The napkin unceremoniously going up in a puff of smoke in the finale is the realization of the fact that it was never any substance to it, a fitting end for a founding myth that was only ever just a smokescreen for the sheer stupid luck of the co-founders. Helen points out that Andi is just as much a phony as Miles is. She has no interest in trying to clear Andi's name and reputation as a brilliant innovative disruptor who deserves half of Alpha's wealth, because Helen never respected any of that in the first place. She lays out her motivation from the start as revenge on the man that killed her sister. I think the messaging about billionaires and their mythology is absolutely there, even though it does get a little muddled in the telling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Yeah the movie never presents Andi as a protagonist or hero at any point. It's strongly implied she's just like the rest of them - significant only because the rest of the pack turned on her. I love that the napkin ends up not mattering. You can't beat these people with clever technicalities or in a serious debate - you have to smash their poo poo up. Nothing else will work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
josh04 posted:I wrote a thing about Glass Onion and what it does and doesn't say about billionaires. I agree with this, and think you make a good point about something some other friends of mine have raised: the gun kind of goes ignored towards the end of the movie when you'd really expect someone to at least think about resorting to it during the final confrontation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
GoodluckJonathan posted:
I think having out and out virtuous protagonists and intentionally villainous characters would cheapen it. Miles's character is better at showing what the stupidity of evil looks like. He's not a Bond villain, he's a powerful idiot. A character that much more closely resembles so many real life people that have caused so much pain. Who knows if Brand would have been any different if she was the one in power? Maybe the movie is saying something about what that kind of influence and power does to somebody? I think it's saying nobody should have that kind of cult leader following and that much power and influence, doesn't matter who it is, Brand or Miles or Musk. stratdax fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Dec 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Everyone posted:Not that I recall. They might have mentioned the city in which they boarded Miles's ship, but I don't specifically remember that. Still, the fact that Miles does not know which sea contains his private island is just more evidence for the "Miles is a moron" case. And that "case" is important because the whole reason Blanc suspects everybody else except for Miles of Andi's murder is that "he'd have to be a moron to kill her himself after that trial, etc." Rian says they had more establishing shots for the city but ended cutting them all because it made the film too long. So not knowing which sea it is is probably a side effect of that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IM1AEbnGX4
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
Arist posted:I legitimately don't think we have enough information about Andi or Alpha to make the assessment that she was "uniquely talented." Like, the napkin is nothing. It's a macguffin. It suggests nothing about either party because the initial "mission" of Alpha as a company is outside the scope of the narrative. And Andi wasn't pushing the "one great idea" thing either. That was Miles's fabrication as he forced Andi out of the company. She saw herself as the adult in the room and was going to take her half of the partnership, but that was enough to foil Miles so he needed to claim all of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
josh04 posted:I wrote a thing about Glass Onion and what it does and doesn't say about billionaires. I appreciate the engagement with the material (and to some degree, this thread), though starting with a deliberately "exaggerated" fact about the Sherlock Holmes mysteries maybe wasn't the best idea. Especially as I don't see very much influence direct from Holmes to Glass Onion, which is far more influenced by movies. I have disagreements with much of what you say, but I think this point is inaccurate: "Of course the movie also quickly sweeps the subject of the pandemic aside with some ambiguous super-vaccine technobabble in the opening scene." The scene where they show up on the dock and get told they won't need masks isn't the opening scene. But Johnson is extremely careful to have our nameless agent say nothing at all about what he's just sprayed in the characters' mouths. Nobody even questions until we get to Blanc, and he receives a non-answer followed by "you won't need to worry about COVID" which implies, but never states, that the spray constitutes protection. There's certainly no "technobabble" given that no explanation is offered. And that is the point: a complete stranger gets off a ship, says Miles wants everyone to get sprayed, claims they no longer have to be concerned about COVID, and everyone (including the hyper-alert chemist) just believes it. Why? Because Miles is rich. Why in the world would you trust a tech billionaire to know the slightest amount about vaccination or disease? The assumption is that he paid someone who does know, but that's an assumption we see tested elsewhere in the film and it doesn't hold up. Self-interest? The film establishes that Miles doesn't believe he can ever suffer meaningful consequences for his actions, and in a COVID context, that critique extends itself far outside of the ranks of billionaires. As for my disagreements, a selection, with ending spoilers: More broadly, what I'd argue you've missed in the film is that, as disgusted as it is and as it wants us to be at the tech billionaire, the source of its anger isn't him. It is anger at what almost enables him to get away with murder, and what did allow him to cut Andi out of the company. It's all the shitheads in the film, which is to say, the surviving circle of "friends", who we're supposed to be angry at. The whole first half of the film is designed to make us think that one of these people will murder Miles because he has put them in an untenable position, of choosing to do something awful and immoral that could destroy them or of being destroyed by Miles himself. But in fact, none of these people have a motive for murder, because they have no moral or ethical center and make decisions purely on the basis of what benefits them personally, and they assess benefit in a vapid, if socially supported, way. That's underlined by the fact that Lionel "succeeds" by moving from teaching high school chemistry to a powerful position in Alpha; contrast with Helen, who is still a 3rd grade history teacher but doesn't see that as "failure." And it's underlined by the fact that the lone character who hasn't already done what Miles demanded of her, Birdie, is motivated to stall purely out of self-interest, because it turns out that she isn't lying by admitting she knew about the sweatshop all along, she's telling the truth. In short, the shitheads are the problem, and although the end of the movie arranges for a set of circumstances where they best benefit by lying under oath in order to reveal the truth and see justice done, while clearly establishing that they're still acting for the wrong reasons. Miles may be terrible in part because he elevated them to the positions they occupy, but they are as bad or worse. Miles may be a murderer, but so far as we know, inviting Noah Segan's Derol to stay on the island because he's "going through some things" may have been an act of generosity. It's more than we see from any of the others. Even Andi's objection to Klear was likely because it was bad business, not because it was dangerous, because she didn't share Miles' desire to be as famous as the Mona Lisa. Her closest friends were a bunch of shitheads; we should expect that she was the same. The movie doesn't press too hard on these aspects, because it wants the ending to seem happy, but for all that we get a conclusion, we really don't get a conclusion. Helen and Blanc get closure, maybe, but the triumph over Miles isn't about imprisoning him for murder, it's turning the dream he wanted to achieve, the selfish immoral dream, into so much shattered glass. The movie is also concerned with the question of people vs property. The shitheads don't really seem to differentiate. All those people at Birdie's party (her "pod") weren't her close friends, not like the people Blanc was playing Among Us with, they were status symbols, equivalent to her jewelry or clothing. Confession: when Yo-Yo Ma made an appearance, my immediate thought was "you are exposing a world treasure to COVID, Birdie," and I think even that was a deliberate part of Johnson's story. Contrast Yo-Yo Ma's value to the Mona Lisa's. When Yo-Yo Ma dies, something of great value that cannot be reproduced dies with him. We will have his recorded performances, some of his art, but the person will be gone. The Mona Lisa has many, many reproductions and will continue to exist in that form even if the original burns. The idea that we should use advanced technology to protect the Mona Lisa, a thing, while doing nothing to protect Yo-Yo Ma is a reflection of the broader values of capitalism, and speaks indirectly to the tendency of police to protect and value property above human life and safety, too. Miles is perhaps "better" than his shithead friends in that he is so wealthy, he places little value on most property, but that ultimately reflects how his identity is tied up in possessing specific and "unique" things. He values Duke about as much as one of those smashed glass sculptures, certainly not as much as his car, and I expect he values the Mona Lisa above everything on that island except for himself. But he doesn't value it for its art, for the "humanities" portion of its value, but rather for its cultural capital, its fame, its Q Score. What it represents to him is a spoiled and selfish dream: he wasn't an idealist who cut corners in the name of cheap, clean energy for the world, he was a narcissist who took the opportunity he saw to stamp his name indelibly upon human history without any regard for anything else. In that regard, the entirely property-focused destruction at the movie's end is tailored to illustrate the tipping point, to interrogate both Miles' assumptions about the value of property and our own as viewers. We've seen a range of responses to the Mona Lisa's destruction play out in this very thread, and I think Johnson wants to spur on those conversations, but he's also taking a pretty clear position in his film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 21:11
|
|