I don't know if I like the story in this movie better than Knives Out. I saw a few things online over the winter, to where I had a pretty good idea who the murderer was going in, so I can't assess the quality of the mystery. It seemed pretty obvious who Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig), and Miss Brand (Janelle Monae) were ignoring as a suspect in the lengthy flashback that occurs halfway through the movie, but, would I have noticed that going into the movie entirely cold? I like to think so, if only because the character was such an obvious shithead it would really be no surprise that they turned out to be the killer all along.
But the explanation for why Blanc takes so long to figure it out, because of his peculiar weakness, was at least well-established for comedic effect early and often, and then paid off at the end. Chekov's Blind Spot. Craig seems to be having a lot of fun with the character, and even the amping up of his folksy Southern charm has a reason.
The setting is excellent. The whole ridiculous, overdone, faux-visionary design of the island. The sliding panel over the painting, which is triggered by someone getting alerts on their phone, because the "hack" was shoddily done. The random presence of Derol, who I spent the entire movie waiting to see if he would actually be important, or if he was really just some guy Miles Bron (Ed Norton) was letting hang around while he figured out some stuff.
Norton also seems to be having fun with Bron. I mean, I hope he had fun playing an Elon Musk stand-in. An imbecile who perceives himself as brilliant and visionary, but is basically the equivalent of a five-year-old saying, "What if the duck pooped ketchup?" To be fair, Norton is always good at playing guys I'd kinda like to see get punched in the face (him and Jonah Hill both), so this is right in his wheelhouse. There's a flashback when Blanc does his big explanation, where Bron gets a fax and he's wearing an old-school Adidas tracksuit with the collar popped, no less. Perfect look, somehow just said everything about the character.
Sadly, Edward Norton does not get punched in this movie (Jonah Hill doesn't get punched either, but he's not in the movie.) I was hoping it would happen right at the end, but the way things went was, mostly fine. I guess. I mean, yes, it's going to be a whole thing for his reputation, but the painting did get destroyed, which kind of sucks for humanity. Whereas, if he just gets punched in the face, the only person harmed is him! And maybe the knuckles of whoever punched him.
5 comments:
I was very torn on this one. On one hand I enjoyed the performances -- Daniel Craig seems to be having the time of his life, and Janelle Monáe was outstanding, I thought -- but I didn't like the film itself.
I didn't think it played fair with the audience. I think a good mystery is one where you can work it out alongside -- or more often after -- the detective, but I don't think there was any way of doing that with GO. Worse, there's one part where the film actively lies to the audience about something they may have seen. But then again, maybe that wasn't the point and it wasn't supposed to be a mystery at all.
To the extent I figured out the mystery, I was operating off my knowledge of tropes and the typical beats for a story like this. I knew Batista's character died because of an allergy to pineapple, and so the drink obviously wasn't really intended for Norton, that sort of thing.
What was the thing they lied to us about seeing? Norton switching the drinks or palming the smartphone, or something else?
Yeah, it was switching the drinks. I'd spotted him doing it, but then the first time we see the flashback it's amended, which I know is supposed to show that Blanc misremembers, but it's a bit dishonest towards the viewer, I think.
OK, that makes sense. I didn't even notice how the glass got into his hand, I was just sure that he must be allergic to pineapple and so however it happened, it was meant for him.
Like you said in your first comment, if it was supposed to be a mystery for the audience to solve alongside Blanc, then that feels cheap. If that wasn't, was more about the performances, then it can maybe be excused, but it still feels kind of cheap. I think there's a difference between, "this happened, but you didn't see it because your view was obscured (like Blanc handing the fuel crystal over at the end) or it happened off-panel," and "this happened, but I'm going to pretend it didn't."
Yes, exactly. If they hadn't shown the flashback, and just relied on Blanc saying what he saw (or thought he saw) then it wouldn't feel like the film was cheating.
Post a Comment