What did you guys think of Glass Onion?

I can’t imagine thinking the climax was “out of place”. It’s literally the only way this conflict could have ended thematically. It’s Helen being the true disruptor- doing *exactly* what Miles describes as disruption, and echoing the opening sequence by breaking Miles’ game rather than playing by his rules. How on earth is it inappropriate in the context of the film?

I still prefer Knives Out over Glass Onion, but Glass Onion is a movie upon itself. I personally felt the climax of explosions and burning the ML was a bit out of place, though the final act is designed to be Miles' disruption theory acted out by Helen, so I can accept it as a fitting closure. I had no problem with the burning of the napkin. I thought it was a great subversion from the trope of "I have the evidence, and there's nothing you can do now." I've seen so many movies where evidence is dangled in front of the enemy and all he needs to do is reach out and destroy it, but he doesn't. I also loved that the idea had never occurred to him until Lionel mentions it, and then he acts on it. Giving Lionel credit with the smile and finger point. As Edward Norton said on a panel: "Miles Bron never had an original thought in his life." He dresses up as Frank Mackey from Magnolia in the bar. Steals the idea from Cassandra Brand. Dresses as Steve Jobs. Lets Lionel bring his stupid ideas to life. Has someone build his puzzles. Has Gillian Flynn write his murder mystery. Kills Duke Cody with pineapple juice (Please forward your dietary requirements). Steals the "loaded gun on the table and turning off the lights" from Benoit Blanc, and destroys the evidence after Lionel Toussaint says that's what he should've done in the first place. Miles Bron is an idiot!

I agree with the explosion scene and it feeling out of place and not satisfying. But someone then showed me the connection to that scene and the speech Miles has in the middle of the film. He talks about breaking things and people getting excited. He also says, but are you brave enough to break the thing (mona Lisa) that no one wants to break. I think that really ties in the ending for me.

The lighter is from the scene where the Mona Lisa's protection system is explained, and by the faint and pale blueish color of the flame you can tell it is using hydrogen as fuel, a nod to Klear being crystalized hydrogen. I didn't find the blocking jarring on my watch through personally, it seems like a plausible series of events made more so by careful editing. The climax was something I was concerned about from the beginning, as the moment I saw that there was an override switch for the Mona Lisa I was concerned for her safety.

I definitely agree that holding the only evidence you have directly in Miles face was a facepalm moment that came out of nowhere. It definitely pulled me out of it a bit

SPOILERS. Good analysis! I do disagree with the reasons you thought the ending was poor. Miles did not randomly have a lighter. Johnson established that Miles had a lighter earlier, when Miles was showing off the painting and how sensitive the security system was, by taking out a lighter to demonstrate the glass closing the first time. And sure, by cutting to close on the napkin and then suddenly it’s in flames Johnson does push the suspension of disbelief. Sure. Logically… yeah, Andi could have likely pulled the napkin away before that moment. But ultimately, doesn’t really bother me. For a few reasons. First, it’s Miles’ island. Even if he didn’t burn it, once Blanc revealed the whole plot, guaranteed Andi would have faced other challenges physically trying to get that napkin into the hands of the authorities. Two, the close up of bursting into flames matches the later shot when the painting burns, so the symmetry of that does bring some satisfaction. And three, it’s how Miles does it that makes me feel that sequence belongs precisely in this movie. Two beats before the napkin burns, when it’s revealed, Lionel clearly says to Miles, you didn’t burn it? As in, come on dude… anyone with half a brain would have destroyed this highly incriminating piece of flimsy paper. And in the middle of a fast paced scene that is already happening, right then, you watch Miles react to what Lionel just said. Edward Norton says it in interviews as “Miles Bron has never had an original thought of his own.” That’s why we have seen him try to dress exactly like Steve Jobs or Frank TJ Mackey, that’s why he stole Alpha from Andi, outsourced the puzzle boxes and the mystery game, as well as stealing the plot of his third attempted murder directly from Blanc. And that’s also why, right then, he decides to burn the napkin, because until Lionel suggested it, the idea had never once occurred to him. So yeah, the spatial logistics of the napkin burning didn’t really bother me at all in the long run. The movie was just too much fun! The tone, the characters, the plot twists, the humorous moments, the social commentary, the amazing costumes, and above all the style! One of my favorite movies in a while. Definitely the best film of 2023 😂

Other people have pointed out that the lighter was established earlier in the movie, also during the scene Helen was walking towards Miles. And, someone pointed out in another video, when the napkin is revealed and Lionel says "You didn't burn it?" A second later you can hear the click of the lighter as Miles pulls it out because, again as stated in a different video, Miles has never had an original thought in his life.

When this happened, I actually assumed that Helen had already used Miles's fax machine to send the image of the napkin to all his businesses and relevant contacts.

If Benoit wasn’t legit invited to the game, why was a biometric wristband readily available for him?

Somehow what bothered me most was that Helen happily set the hydrogen on fire, causing an explosion that even though everyone had pointed out how dangerous it is doesn't even hurt anyone and she wasn't even worried about it killing people. I though she would kill everyone living on and around the island.

I enjoyed both films. For me KO felt more grounded while GO felt more fun. As for Miles teleporting, I just assumed he moved closer to see the bottom of the napkin. The weird thing about the flame I figured was a result of M’s powering his house w Klear. The lighter everyone’s explained lol. Considering the night Helen’s had I forgive her for waving the napkin and such. Head cannon can sure make good movies better~

I had a similar moment with the journal stopping the bullet. Not because of that specifically, but when they show the twist of her suddenly sitting up and then craig splashing her with hot sauce, I kept thinking how the person who shot her was still behind the mirror and would have seen everything.

they literally constantly telegraph how Miles' stupid idea of a hydrogen based fuel means a build up of highly flammable and explosive gas in the ducts of any home that will make it like the Hindenburg, like Claire says in the end just before the explosion and I believe like she says in the beginning when Klear is first introduced. it's the thing that Lionel is talking about on his video call with the Alpha, it's what Claire and him both sign off on legislatively and scientifically/manufacturing that they say will blow up in their faces if Miles is wrong about it, and it's supposed to be the thing that skyrockets Miles to true genius-hood if it wasn't so dumb. it's shown that Miles is carrying a lighter with him during the initial tour of the glass onion, he plays with it, lights it, and we hear the noise it makes. this noise is heard in the background a few seconds before the burning. it is literally a plot point that the characters do not pay attention to what Miles is carrying in his pockets, with him being able to steal Duke's phone and no one knowing until Blanc steals it back out of his pocket. the blocking between Helen and Miles when he burns the napkin is at most two arms lengths away, and that's shown by Miles taking a short step forward towards Helen to then sticking out his arm to close the gap. the house blowing up is the ultimate Chekov's gun for this movie, seeing as it was mentioned the whole time that Klear was a terrible and dangerous and explosive idea but Miles believes in it and Lionel and Claire are stuck to his golden teet so they jump in the deep end with him. We literally get introduced to Klear and its explosive possibilities right as they see the onion the first time, reminded of its existence and danger and what the other characters have to do with it by Claire and Lionel, and then it ends up being exploded by Helen, the one person who did not care about preserving the system of the "disrupters" keeping them rich and powerful. Disruption theory is outlined okay by Miles but the whole point of him and his backup "disrupters" is they say they're taking down the system itself but they work entirely within it to keep themselves wealthy and powerful, and it takes true revolutionary action to break the system, and theirs was relying on Miles to give them all the money and influence they could ever need and be entirely loyal to him for it. they do not break the system, Helen does, and burning the Mona Lisa because Miles was arrogant enough to install an override switch on the millions of dollars worth security system is yet another set up and payoff as we are shown the security system reacts to a flame as small as a lighter. there were no mistakes and it all works thematically. It's not a great take to fail to notice how everything is based around Chekov's gun, and how all of the ultimate payoffs are thematically important.

Plus Miles could never have an original idea of his own. It was Lionel who said "You kept the evidence? You didn't burn it?" Poof, unoriginal Miles had his solution. Miles had his lighter from proving how the security for the Mona Lisa worked. And yes, it seemed like the flame just appeared there like a magic trick because it didn't seem plausible that Miles had the reach to harm it from where he was. I did like the Easter Egg of mentioning Gillian Flynn. Her Gone Girl was written very similar to having 2 parts. The first part was misdirection (or the lies the wife set up) and the 2nd part shows the real truth. Glass Onion distinctly felt like it had 2 parts.

The napkin moment feels like a wierd thing to get hung up on in terms of the moment that breaks suspension of disbelief, and iirc from my rewatch was when set up halfway decently with a few clues in the lead up. On my first watch i definitely felt the climax was overdrawn out. We all know the Mona Lisa is toast, just get on with it. But I saw a video essay earlier paralleling Helen's actions with Miles' poolside talk on 'disruption' that made me think 5x better of it.

I don't think her letting him burn the napkin was an accident. In fact, it's heavily implied that it wasn't. Helen's goal here was not to prove her sisters right to the company. The goal here was justice for Andi. What better justice than to prove his miracle energy source was incredibly dangerous (something Andi herself was trying to do) to the world while getting revenge on destroying everything he cares about? I think it's the perfect ending and makes complete sense. Proving andi had anything to do with anything doesn't help anyone now. She's dead.

i love how theres an entire half a minute section at the end of the video with miles with a mustache

This is the first video that manages to put into words what bothered me about the movie. Knives Out requires you to be paying attention. And its a pleasure even on rewatches because there is so much to digest. On the contrary Glass Onion requires you to turn off your brain to accept the ending. The excuse of "Plot twist: Miles is actually an idiot" is no excuse for all the lazy writing. Also it is not much of a twist. That man screams idiot (and guilty) since the first time he is on screen. Not only him but also all the other "disruptors". The actual twist would have been someone being smart. Even Helen, Andi and Benoit Blanc end up being disappointing in this movie. (With one of the many examples being the napkin issue you point out). To the argument saying that it was supposed to be obvious (or transparent) I would have to reply that if the twist was not the point and it was supposed to be obvious, at the very least the rest of the movie should have made up for this lack of satisfaction. Instead it builds up and builds up to a great reveal that is just not that great. The individual characters are cartoonish and unbearable (I get its satire but it god at least make it entertaining), and their friendship links to each other are too unlikely. Even with Andi as an influence, this group of people makes no sense together at all. In Knives Out they were all evil and selfish, but a lot more humanised, you could believe they could be real people even with their theatrics. And them being together made sense since they were a big family. I am not saying making this group work for the sake of the story would be impossible. But the movie does not sell it well. If Miles was supposed to strike us as anything but a fraud from the beginning, it does not succeed. Nothing really defies expectations apart from Helen pretending to be Andi. But we also don't get enough of them to make me care. I like the whole idea of the movie on paper, and the ending matching Miles speech is pretty brilliant. As well as the concept of the Glass Onion, the dialogue is pretty great, etc...but the entire execution + the characterisation of the characters makes for a pretty disappointing sequel to me.

i don't know there is a parallel between Helen and Andy not taking Miles serious enough at a crucial time. Which ties rather perfectly into the theme of taking idiots not serious enough. But also she drank quite a lot hard Kombucha throughout the day, Jared Leto's hard kombucha.

I’ve watched it like 3 or 4 times now and I just noticed that the floor of the glass onion quite literally has a layer design into it. that’s great detail right there

The dumbest scene was probably where all the associates of Miles turned against him even though they will face jail time for falsely testifying. I think the movie tried to shove it under the bed and acted like the only thing those people will lose is financial support if they turn on Miles.

The editing in the napkin-burning moment is really awkward and feels like a patchwork of reshoots rather than a smoothly flowing beat. Even the way she posts to "glass onion" embossed on the napkin looks super weird. But notice that he takes the lighter out early, right after Helen says "Andi's handwriting." He'd been processing the question, "You didn't burn it?" and takes a few seconds to decide to grab the lighter (further illustrating he doesn't have ANY ideas on his own). So she was focused on his face when he put the lighter in his hand. I think that explains at least that aspect.

The climax to this movie was awful. They had a tape recorder. The whole time I was like "Oh well he just admitted to all of his crimes in a cliche villain monologue and they recorded it right?" Nope. Instead Helen blows the whole building up and just crosses her fingers that they all won't die in the process. And Benoit just sits outside smiling completely unconcerned with the possibility that they're all dead.

It's a pretty confusing space but from the location (close to the glassware) and the eye lines (especially Norton's, looking from Helens eyes to the note) they seem to be a couple of metres apart and the lighter was with him all along, but the holding up of the note was a bit too dopey for Helen and too smooth for Miles. They definitely could have done a little better there... I feel like Miles was more of a clumsy lunge, lucky grasp, THEN fumbling to burn it kind of guy

It also doesn't make sense that Andi mailed the napkin to all the people she was betrayed by instead of going straight to her lawyers.

To me the fact that Norton had a lighter or was close to the napkin was not surprising, what was stupid was that she showed it to him. She should have just kept the napkin hidden and then leave the island and publicly show it to everyone and burn everyone. The ending was poor because she had everything and all she had to do was just leave the island and hide the napkin and not mention the napkin at all.

My husband and I thoroughly enjoyed the sequel. I loved the first one and I feel this one was still a strong contender. My husband kept hoping the Mona Lisa actually had a camera on or around it that would catch the napkin being burnt.

Norton destroying the napkin in the blink of an eye isn't a plot hole, or error on Monet's part, he clearly just used Flash Step.

I agree that napkin burning was so stupid. Took me out of it too right up until the moment the Mona Lisa burned, when you realize what they were setting up for.

Also how the sister finds the napkin by throwing everything over to have it revealed by a book toppling. Themes of destruction as solution

You’re probably the only page who has said this. I’ve seen at least a dozen reviews and analysis and Easter egg videos of Glass Onion. Not one of them has said that the final act was weak, which it was. The movie was a total blast just the final act gave a sour taste.

After the burning napkin i was waiting for a twist. That andi tricked him into burning it. That the scene was streamed live. That it was a copy. That breaking the glass objects reveals something. But no - she just trashes the place, triggers a huge explosion that magically causes no harm to anybody?!??? And then just leaves. It was so unsatisfactory. Having the shitfriends finally become "good" doesn't feel like a redemption, but like an angry tantrum aimed at miles. Andi is still alive somehow, but was unable to get back what was rightfully her sister's (and is now hers). While all this film we felt their broken heart from being betrayed by everybody, she remains in a place of injustice. The film was kinda fun, but very strange and ultimately with an disappointing end.

I couldn't agree more. not only the burning of the napkin so absurd but also Helen not recording all the conversation like when she threw a recorder in Byrdie's bag. She could've recorded Miles admitting to all the crimes he did.Benoit being so smart did not have any plan B?

Ya know I was thinking her living after being shot was a weird thing. It didnt feel right and felt a lot like obvious plot armour.

Craig's speech aboot how dumb this all was was the only thing that validated how stupid this film made me feel. It insulted my intelligence, tried to backtrack to explain its stupidity, and even had a not so subtle rant from Ed Norton aboot disruption that was obviously a remark from Johnson on how and why he dismantled Luke Skywalker and Star Wars

The lighter was massively set-up. My big problem is that they set-up the cool recurring moment of the Mona Lisa protection barriers coming up and we should have seen that happen before we saw the napkin on fire.

Fun fact about hydrogen being so dangerous is that in fact, even though it's smaller molecule, it leaks about as much as natural gas which we use to heat homes. The difference is that hydrogen quickly leaves buildings while heavier methane builds up. It means, that hydrogen is actually safer than natural gas, we don't use it because it's more expensive. It's also used as rocket fuel (including in the Apollo - with people on board). So the entire premise of the movie is wrong. A week after the events in the film, this guy's company will announce that they have this wonderful fuel and you just need to remember to add a vent to make it safe. Btw. Nobody has seen where the napkin came from or what was on it, so the fact that everyone is willing to testify in the end means nothing. They simply haven't seen if it was the original, nor would they be able to recognise it.

I like the napkin scene because miles got the idea to burn it from someone else moments earlier . Just showing his lack of originality

It wasn’t the layers that made me doubt the obvious, it was the fact that I couldn’t half believe the most famous actor’s character did it again. And I gave up on realism with the twin substitution. But it was fun.

Actually Edward Norton does reach back for the lighter, just before burning the napkin, you can see his right shoulder go back as he reaches for his back pocket.

here from the other Knives Out video. Good stuff! Keep up the hard work. people are appreciating it.

I was invested until the twin reveal, that killed it for me. No twins are that identical that close friends wouldn’t notice. It just got silly and downhill from there. And yes, the napkin getting burned was also really stupid. So was Miles being able to take the gun out of the holster without the guy noticing.

Personally, I loved the climax. The Chekhov's Mona Lisa finally going off was both hilarious _and_ deeply satisfying, just for the schadenfreude alone. First Miles' hubris causes the destruction of *_the single most valuable object in the world,_* but then reality sinks in for his wretched sycophants that their lives are thoroughly fμ¢ked, all because they eagerly slayed their golden goose to follow the fool who stole her eggs. ...I'll give you that the napkin thing was a pretty dumb move on Helen's part, but if you have ever read Agatha Christie, then you'd understand stuff like that is pretty on-brand. Also, I don't think the explosion was out of place at all, as it was foreshadowed from the very beginning even before Chekhov's Mona Lisa. I'm a scientist, and so it was obvious to me what was going to happen the moment Miles mentioned "condensed hydrogen". I appreciate the little nod Rian Johnson gave to those who understand chemistry without being hand-holdy, although he ended up doing just that with Claire's whisper of "Hindenburg" right before the Big 'Splody. Am I the only one annoyed by that? They already explained *exactly* what the hydrogen thing meant during the pool scene, with Claire explicitly alluding to the Hindenburg disaster. Having her pointlessly call back to it at the worst possible moment (effectively ruining the tension of the scene), made me think that line was added in after test screenings because of the lowest common denominator of humanity not bothering to pay attention.

He had the lighter from back when he gave the demonstration of the Mona Lisa's security panel that goes up whenever danger is near. In that same scene in which he burns the napkin, Lionel says the following: "And after all that you... you still kept the envelope? You didn't burn it or anything?" This piece of dialogue is exactly what gives Miles the idea to use the lighter from earlier to burn the napkin. This also alludes to Mile's scheme from before, when he steals it from Blanc's "It's like putting a loaded gun on the table and turning off the lights!" I agree that it was an infuriating scene, but in the end, it all leads back to Miles being an idiot and screwing everything up. Miles abuses his influence over the others to do what he wants, but in the end, he gets what he deserves when his mansion and the Mona Lisa go up in flames.

Regarding Helen's not expecting Miles to burn the napkin... I took it as her assuming (as I did), that if Miles was going to burn the napkin, he would have done it before. Which is itself an interesting commentary on how we often give the super-rich more credit for intelligence than they deserve, even after we've learned better, and how this can be a fatal flaw on our parts. (The truth is that it simply never occurred to Miles that he should burn the napkin until Lionel said it.)

Basically, I agree with everything that you said. Glass onion absolutely tails-off poorly near the end, but it's fun in a lot of ways. And I absolutely love Knives Out. I think it'll be one of my favorite movies for the rest of my life.

The entire time she was showing Miles the napkin my only thought was “don’t get to close, keep it away from him, you’re way to close” And then it was ashes lol

Miles, being unoriginal as always, does exactly what Lionel suggested he do to get rid of the evidence. And if you listen closely, you can hear Miles grab the lighter when Lionel mentions it.

Ridiculous that you can call the ending 'horrendous.' That's a huge overstatement.

Yes... you can tell when Miles reaches for the lighter... you can hear him get it out. Also, people like him would have lighters on him, most people who smoke would.

I think it’s funny that you someone managed to correctly analyze the movie up to a point and then someone totally lost the plot. The lighter is shown about an hour before it’s used, when Bron is demonstrating the security system on the Mona Lisa. Then, Helen walks toward him to confront him, giving him the opportunity to burn it. He was always going to destroy the napkin, because Miles Bron was never going to be defeated by the system he and all of his friends thrive in. They call themselves disrupters, claiming to change the system, but they *are* the system, and Helen is the only true disruption to that system in the movie, disrupting everything by burning a priceless piece of art that that system values as “the most famous painting in history”. That’s disruption: changing things irrevocably, not caring what others say. That’s the point of the movie: it’s villain and his friends function by thriving within our society and its system, so to defeat them, you have to start setting things on fire and destroying what that system holds dear.

I agree the editing on that scene can be a bit jarring but there's nothing unrealistic or illogical about the way things transpired. Miles had a lighter, it was stablished, and Helen got cocky. And to be fair she probably even would've gotten away with being cocky had Leroy not suggested Miles should've burnt the napkin two minute before. Also, even if you don't agree with the logic, narratively and thematically the whole thing is really airtight. Seems like a weird detail to get caught up on imo.

Your comments about that scene with the napkin got me thinking about characters’ motivations and what makes endings ‘happy’ or satisfactory. If Andi had been able to hold onto the napkin, then she could have proven in court that the original idea for Alpha was hers, and that Miles (and all of the others) had lied in the first trial. Only, that’s not Andi - it’s Helen, and her motivation in this isn’t to regain control of the company (which was never hers); it’s to vindicate her sister and punish her killer. This she accomplishes, and in an even more spectacular fashion than a court case could ever have been - Miles is well and truly ruined after the ‘Klear’ fire and the destruction of the Mona Lisa. If Helen had been able to hold onto the napkin, she could have proven that the others had perjured themselves, and won a rather narrow victory. But now, with the only real evidence destroyed, each of those other characters gets to make that loyalty choice again, and this time they choose to support Andi. “I saw it” each says in turn, and now rather than being potential defendants in a perjury trial, they have a chance to be on the right side; a chance at ‘Redemption’, if you’ll allow the word. Thus Helen accomplishes her goal of revenge; but perhaps more important than simple vengeance or defending Andi’s reputation, this ending restores her original friendships, gives those friends a chance to clear their consciences - and leaves Miles with no-one.

I can't for the life of me remember what video it was but another KZfaqr pointed out you can actually hear the "click" as Miles pulls the lighter out and gets it ready.

I think I probably would've enjoyed the movie better if I had seen it in theaters where I couldn't rewind. The whole sequence of Ed Norton getting up, getting the drink, telling everyone to look at Kate Hudson and then handing his drink to Dave Bautista just seemed so strange to me that it really stuck in my memory. Then, when Ed noticed the glass and they showed that "flashback", since it didn't match my memory, I rewound to doublecheck, which confirmed for me that Ed had intentionally given Dave the drink. So then, for the entire movie, I was really unclear as to where they were going with the whole thing (and, of course, every new layer didn't do anything to complicate the mystery). And then, the execution of the climax just felt so off to me. I didn't notice Ed teleporting, but I was so flabbergasted as to how no one else saw the napkin. And then the glass-smashing sequence went on for way too long. And then the whole thing that they kept foreshadowing with the highly sensitive glass case protecting the Mona Lisa just didn't end up adding anything to the movie. It all just felt so... deeply... unsatisfying. And the fact that it was the sequel to such a wonderfully complicated mystery movie was just really disappointing. I think the over concept of the glass onion was pretty cool, but man, I think the execution just didn't do it justice. (Of course, if I hadn't been able to rewind and confirm my suspicions, who knows? Maybe I would've enjoyed it better.)

What bothered me more was the glass breaking! Why? What purpose did it serve?

I don't think the explosion was out of place. I think it was on the nose, but in a great way. In the pool lionel and claire, they talk about how it could blow up like the hindenburg. And it did.

I didn’t like that miles didn’t get any red flags from the girl that he killed a week prior bringing the worlds greatest deceive with her. Bro just went with it.

Genuinely my only complaint. It doesn't ruin the movie for me, but all I could think watching for the first time was "just get out of there!"

For me it was everything that happened after the lighter scene. A: Breaking of the glass sculptures had 0 purpose in the great scheme of things if I am not mistaken. Miles couldn't have given a bigger duck about it, it didn't help set up the explosion and it made her seem like a petulant child. Maybe it gave a bit of confidence to the rest of the group? Dunno. B: Andi has 0 ducking clue about how big an explosion the fossil fuel is gonna make or how the fossil fuel reacts or if its even triggered by fire. ( Sure the chemical compound sure is flammable but I don't think we ever got an explanation of how it works and in the movie that supposed to be clever I am not tolerating this MARVEL logic). C: Blanc casually enjoying and not looking into the explosion while there were several smaller explosions going on around the island. He couldn't have known where the explosion are going to go off and he sure as duck wouldn't be this calm about his safety or the safety of Andi. D: Andi casually running through sht ton of broken glass that has been shown to make people trip like clowns on ice. E: Freaking burning a masterpiece to hurt/ frame a douchebag murdered...not clever, not worth it. ( Debatable for some, not for me) F: Freaking claiming he is gonna get in trouble for burning the original Mona Lisa and fossil fuel debacle. Like yeah, it would be harder to cover up but it is the same as with the napkin. Who really knows what happens on the island. Miles is still a rich guy who can spin this. Less plausible, but still. Bonus point that I went with: Bullet stopping journal was amazingly placed right where the bullet. In 2022 and in this clever of a film? Weak, Ryan. Weak. The movie wasn't bad at all. There is clever stuff and great performances but god damn I ain't watching it again anytime soon. Maybe there is an explanation for all of this that I would be glad to hear about but the first time watching emotions were sour.

I completely agree with the napkin scene being unforgivable.

I couldn’t agree more. The ending feels rushed and the whole redemption arc for such a group of scummy characters feels totally unnatural and not earned at all

Context-wise, the ending did fit. Miles becomes a true disruptor by destroying the Mcguffin-Napkin, and Andi responded by disrupting his house. The problem is, that it's too BadAss for its own good. This was supposed to be a mystery movie, and the ending could have happened 15 minutes after the movie started, or even earlier. The first KO movie had a smart ending, but this went the Die Hard route because it was out of ideas.

"The one piece of evidence that can prove..." The point being the truth that stares everyone in the face wouldn't have mattered. The "disruptors", the media, and the legal system would all instinctively and actively find ways to back "Mr Genius"

I agree, I hated this scene, why wouldn't she hide the napkin and get off the island?

You grossly misunderstood the film and it’s ending. The burning of the napkin was great though because it’s what forces Helen to become the one true Disrupter. Starting small, breaking things, as the other join in with this seemingly childish tantrum, then proceeds to break bigger things, starting a fire and smashing a prized piano, until she destroys the entire house and the Mona Lisa with Miles’ own fuel - breaking “the thing that nobody wants to break… the system itself.” Helen does exactly what Miles describes and disrupts the disrupters, breaking their system and destroying Miles, ending with the other shitheads, no longer having reason to protect Miles as he is soon to be destroyed and ruined, telling the truth. Birdie saw the napkin. Claire saw Miles take Duke’s gun Lionel saw Miles driving from Andi’s on the night of her murder.

I think that the climax was a nice juxtaposition to the main storyline whilst also being a nice release of tension that had been built throughout the movie, and demonstrated the meaninglessness of the layers that the characters went tyhrough so much to unravel

Unfortunately, it seemed like it was the writer's curse of "wouldn't it be cool if..." and tried to wedge the ending into reality. He mentioned Hildenberg, the set up was there, but the pay off collapsed in like the roof of a burning house

The first one was waaay better. Everything in this one is just dumb, like Helen casually getting all the information she needs in one hour.

Helen was smart the whole time until the napkin scene

What ruined the first film for me was when the nurse supposedly gave the father morphine by mistake. He should have felt a morphine injection IMMEDIATELY and the nurse should have know that’s what would happen. That slip ruined the premise for me and I haven’t been much interested in the 2nd installment.

I loved knives out better, but I loved this one, too. She was looking at his eyes, not his hand. Both are definitely rewatchable.

Finally, a video about Glass Onion that gets to the point and speaks about that painfully butchered ending!

Personally, I dislike how the flash back was like 20 minutes long

My issue with the movie was the played out twin trope, that’s about it

Two things: Ed Norton's long flame lighter is established early on, so we know he carries it with him. And Helen is drunk. She rarely drinks but has been drinking all day. So yes, it's reckless of her, but she IS BEING RECKLESS. So I don't really see what your problem is with this scene.

For me the climax was out of place not because it didn’t make sense but because it was such a departure from how the rest of the film went. Clue gathering, people watching, and sniffing out a murderer jarring devolved into a Michael Bay finale. The same thing could’ve been accomplished without such a departure from the way the movie was setup to that point. Also overused slo mo, but that’s just a personal gripe.

That scene bothered me too. It always bugs me in movies/other media when a character either fakes out the antagonist or has an incriminating piece of evidence that they then reveal/gloat about right in front of whoever they were trying to expose? I feel like most of the time it’s for a dramatic moment, like an “I caught you” sort of a thing, but now they’re just gonna be after whatever you have and your evidence will be gone. Save the gloating for when the evidence is seen by whoever needs to see it. Oops that was kind of a long comment, but this trope bugs me lol

I loved the ending. We knew at that moment what was at the centre of the glass onion it was Mona Lisa. We only had to peal one layer to win.

The bullet thing bugged me also, books 100% do not stop bullets. At least napkins actually burn.

I think this is a simple case of “if I was in that situation” with hindsight being 20/20. Truth is, we don’t know what we would have done or reacted in a situation like that because we’ve never been put in a situation like that. Especially if we’re just a pleb and not trained on how to react to situations similar 😂 but that’s just my two cents

Bottom line, it's a movie that centers on revenge. I love those type of movies.

I would claim that even if that lighter was not setup, it was still important. You see, the difference between a good coincidence and a bad coincidence is the former sets the story up while the latter is used to end it. The lighter would have been a bad tool if the story has just abruptly ended. It didn't, in fact I would argue it made the story better because this caused the real disrupter to smash the house (or shall we say, the system) and the entire façade to rubble. If the napkin had never been burned and rather there was a cutscene in a court where the shitheads get what they deserve, I would have not liked that end. The napkin burning was what really pushed the story to it's ultimate great end.

SPOILER: A huge explosion that did not even scratch anyone who was inside the building was just too silly.

also is everyone gonna ignore the murder!?! Duke's dead body that was burnt and also the pineapple can and the glass bottle that contained evil ned's fingerprints! This is still a murder! even if he can deny The girls poison, Duke is right there! its still fresh.

Between this and The Last Jedi, Rian Johnson really appears to hate art and culture and feel an irrational need to destroy it.

I wouldn't say it was a horrendous scene, or even any worse than in Knives Out when Fran inexplicably goes to meet someone she doesn't trust and thinks is a murderer *by herself* in a secluded warehouse, or whatever that place was, (which could have easily been got around with a bit of effort). Don't see a difference. Also, I thought she was close to begin with (otherwise Miles wouldn't have been able to see it!). Remember, she wanted him to see the Glass Onion logo on the small napkin. Also, I have no problem at all with the climax. Looked fine to my eye, and I like that it was very different (more of an action climax) than Knives Out. It was a very different setting and plot structure. Thought it was excellent. Both that scene and the Fran scene from Knives weren't ideal, but I'd hardly say they came close to ruining the movies. I think at some point Johnson, as lot's of writers do, says okay the flow of the story is more important than getting the exact actions to all make complete sense.

I was expecting an in-depth criticism of the movie. Not what I got from this video.

I like this video, though after the first 15 minutes of glass onion I still could tell the plot pretty easy

I thought it was autobiographical and a confession. The whole movie is about Rian Johnson and his tragic love affair with himself.

Why is it that everyone making these "The Problem With Glass Onion" videos seems to have only seen the movie once?

I liked this movie almost as much as the first, the napkin thing was strange but I accepted it easily the first time watching..

I really enjoyed glass onion, but I liked knives out even more. I’m a new subscriber and I’m really liking your videos so far, keep them coming.

Had Miles somehow shot a razor beam to destroy the paper, it would have been a master play.

Since when do you get super powers from drinking alcohol ???

In the movie you can hear him get the lighter after Lionel asks him why he didn't burn the napkin

Totally true. Was liking the movie a lot up to this point. When this happened I had to stop the movie and go back to see that I didnt missunderstand anything. Like, seriously, she just let him burn it like that!? THE FUCK!? The movie fucking slipped at the finish line hard. Such convinient bullshit. From hero to zero in the last 20 minutes. Such a shame.

Yeah, everything is just 10/10 but the ending. It really wasn't satisfying as the first movie, the move to burn the evidence make sense for the villain, but the dude killed two people, so maybe he could have ended with the company but in jail. And then the main character actually comitting arson?

The climax showed that the new Hollywood doesn’t have the intelligence to conclude a mystery intelligently. It has to be resolved violently just like any Marvel movie. But the insulting part was, director putting that thought in the male lead’s mouth “did you get closure now…well, that was a stupid punk rock move” etc.