"GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" (2022) Review

 

"GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" (2022) Review

Following the success of his 2019 murder mystery, "KNIVES OUT"; writer-director Rian Johnson created a standalone sequel called "GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY". The movie starred Daniel Craig, who reprised his role as the Louisiana-born master detective, Benoit Blanc.

Set during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, "GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" . . . or "GLASS ONION" . . . featured Blanc solving a case that revolved around a tech billionaire named Miles Bron, owner and co-founder of the Alpha tech company, and his closest "friends" at the billionaire's private Greek island. The movie began with several of Bron's friends each receiving a wooden puzzle box to decipher to find an invitation inside - an invitation to a murder mystery game. The friends travel to Miles's island, along with companions for two of the guests. Famous detective Benoit Blanc joins them. Miles claimed he did not invite Blanc, but he allowed the latter to stay, assuming another guest sent him an invitation as a joke. Among those invited include:

*Alpha head scientist Lionel Toussaint
*Connecticut governor Claire Debell
*Controversial fashion designer and model Birdie Jay
*Birdie's personal assistant Peg
*Men's rights streamer Duke Cody
*Whiskey, Duke's girlfriend and Twitch channel assistant
*Ousted Alpha co-founder Cassandra "Andi" Brand

Not long after their arrival and before dinner, Miles showed off his valuable glass sculptures, as well as the Mona Lisa, which he has on loan from the Louvre to his guests. Miles also revealed that his mansion is powered by "Klear", a hydrogen-based alternative fuel that Alpha will launch imminently, despite Lionel and Claire's concerns that it is untested and dangerous. Blanc managed to solve Miles's murder mystery game immediately before it could barely start. But he privately warned Miles that his guests have motives to kill him. Before the first day could end, a murder occurred inside the mansion.

Once again, Rian Johnson utilized a social issue as a theme for his second murder mystery. In the case of "GLASS ONION", one would think the issue revolved around Birdie's casual racism or Duke's sexism. But the real issue seemed to be the character of Miles Bron. It did not take me long to realize that Johnson had based Miles on tech billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page. But many have claimed that the Miles Bron bore the strongest resemblance to the most publicized tech mogul - Elon Musk. This movie seemed more focused on condemning the tech mogul types and probably the Internet celebrities than simply focusing on the usual social issues. I am not criticizing Johnson for this, especially since many of these tech moguls have proven to be influential on society today. Perhaps too influential . . . and for better or worse. In the case of Miles Bron, the worse seemed more obvious.

Miles' impact on the major characters seemed to be more personal than political. Both Lionel and Claire find themselves being forced by Miles to endorse his new alternative fuel, Klear; despite their fears that is untested and dangerous. Such endorsement would endanger their reputations and careers. Birdie needs Miles' financial support for her fashion line following the revelation that her factories were basically sweatshops. And Duke hopes Miles will give him a show on the latter's Alpha News network. Unfortunately, Miles has developed a sexual interest in Whiskey, Duke's girlfriend. However, Johnson's screenplay seemed more interested in the negative portrayal of Miles as the typical tech billionaire than his connections to the movie's other major characters. And this emphasis on tech moguls like Miles Bron, despite being genuinely interesting and entertaining, seemed to have a less powerful message than the one used in 2019's "KNIVES OUT".

"GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" featured some very interesting characters, who almost struck me as borderline cartoonish. Mind you, I thought some of the characters managed to avoid this slight cartoonish taint - especially Benoit, Andi Brand, Claire Debella and Lionel Toussaint. But I found some of the other characters slightly exaggerated, yet at the same time, entertaining. Whether I found their characters exaggerated or not, I cannot deny that this movie featured some first-rate performances. I did not have an issue with one performance in this film. Kathryn Hahn, Leslie Odom, Jr., Kate Hudson, Jessica Henwick, Madelyn Cline and Noah Segan all gave first-rate performances. The movie also featured entertaining cameos from the likes of Hugh Grant, Angela Landsbury, Ethan Hawke, Stephen Sondheim, Natasha Lyonne, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jake Tapper and Serena Williams. The movie even featured images of Jeremy Renner and Jared Leto on appear on bottles of hot sauce and kombucha. But there were performances that impressed just a bit more than others.

One of those performances came from Dave Baustista, who was not only surprisingly effective as the sexist Duke, but also managed to convey more layers behind what could have easily been a cartoonish character in the hands of a less talented actor. I realize many would find this hard to believe but I did find the Miles Bron character a bit exaggerated at times. But Edward Norton gave such a fabulous performance as the arrogant and self-involved Miles that his exaggeration almost seemed natural to me. Janelle Monáe managed to attract a great deal of positive reviews for her performance as "Andi" Brand. And I can see why. She gave a phenomenal performance as co-founder of Alpha, who seemed embittered by Miles' ouster of her, following her refusal to support his new alternative fuel, Klear. More importantly, Monáe did an excellent job in conveying her character's edgy and intense personality, which kept everyone else on edge . . . and wondering if she had changed. Not surprisingly, Daniel Craig gave a perfect performance in his second outing as the New Orleans-born private detective Benoit Blanc. Not only did he managed to tone down his Foghorn Leghorn routine from the first film, I found myself entertained by his conveyance of Blanc's reactions to the lunacy and shallowness of Miles and most of his fellow guests.

But as much as I had enjoyed the movie's narrative, I had a few issues. Once, since this movie was set in May 2020, were audiences really supposed to accept Miles' quickie COVID-19 cure as effective? Considering Blanc's opinion of the billionaire, I rather doubt it. I suspect that Blanc, Miles and the latter's guests were forced to monitor their health, following their departure from the island. When the party's first real victim dropped dead, I immediately knew the killer's identity. This aspect of "GLASS ONION" bore a strong resemblance to one or two of Agatha Christie's novels. Also, I had a problem with the movie's revelation scene after Blanc exposed the real killer. I wish I could go into details about why I found the writing for that scene very contrived, but I do not want to spoil the movie. Oh well. At least I was impressed by Bob Ducsay's editing, especially in the film's revelation scene; and Steve Yedlin's colorful photography of the Greek locations, especially in the movie's first twenty minutes or so.

Despite my few issues regarding "GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY", I must admit that I still managed to enjoy it very much. The film benefited from Rian Johnson's screenplay and direction, along with first-rate performances from a cast led by Daniel Craig. Like I said, I enjoyed the movie very much. But I still believe "KNIVES OUT" was the superior film.

"GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" (2022) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY", the 2022 sequel to the 2019 mystery film. Written and directed by Rian Johnson, the movie starred Daniel Craig:




"GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" (2022) Photo Gallery

"HARRIET" (2019) Review

"HARRIET" (2019) Review

Many people are familiar with Harriet Tubman, the former slave-turned-Underground Railroad conductor-turned-Civil War operative-turned-political activist. She has appeared as a supporting character in a handful of television productions and the leading character in two other television productions. However, a full-length feature film has finally been made about the famous historical figure. That film is called "HARRIET".

As I had earlier stated, there have been two television productions about the famous Underground Railroad conductor. One of them was an episode from the 1963-1964 historical anthology series "THE GREAT ADVENTURE" called (1.06) "Go Down, Moses". It starred Ruby Dee. The other television production was the 1978 miniseries "A WOMAN CALLED MOSES", which starred Cicely Tyson. Following the latter, the Harriet Tubman figure appeared in a few television productions about slavery and the Underground Railroad until the release of this new film.

"HARRIET" basically covered Tubman's life during a nine-year period between 1849 and 1860, along with a sequence set in 1863.  The movie began in 1849 Maryland with Harriet (or Araminta "Minty" Ross Tubman, as she was known then), along with her husband John Tubman and father Ben Ross (both who were free) approached Harriet's owner Edward Bodress with a promise made by the latter's ancestor that her mother Harriet "Rit" Ross would be freed by the age of 45, along with their children (including Harriet). Bodress refused to acknowledge the promise. He also forbade Harriet from seeing her husband John. Brodess's adult son Gideon caught Minty praying for God to take Mr. Brodess. The latter died shortly afterward. Alarmed by this, Gideon decided to sell Minty as punishment. Suffering from spells that began after she had been struck in the head as a child, Minty had a vision of her being free and decided to run away. She convinced John to remain behind, in case he got caught and punished for escaping with her. Minty eventually reached Philadelphia and freedom. She managed to acquire a job, thanks to the assistance of Underground Railroad abolitionist/writer William Still and a fashionable free black woman named Marie Buchanon. After a few months in Philadelphia, Minty (who renamed herself as Harriet Tubman) returned to Maryland to retrieve John and discovered that he had remarried, believing she was dead. Instead, Harriet decided to escort some family members north to freedom and began her career as a conductor for the Underground Railroad.

I have been aware of Harriet Tubman ever since I was a child of nine years old. My mother had purchased a copy of Marcy Heidish's 1976 novel called "A Woman Called Moses", the basis for the 1978 miniseries. But "HARRIET" marked the first time that Tubman was featured as the a character in a motion picture, let alone the leading character. So naturally, I had to see it. I had some problems with the movie. One, I could easily see that it was not historical accurate. This is not a real problem for me. After seeing two television productions that erroneously featured Harriet Tubman operating in the Ohio River Valley, the historical inaccuracies in this film struck me as a piece of cake.

One example would be the scene during her own escape in which her new owner, Gideon Bodress, and a slave patrol cornered her on a bridge. Instead of surrendering, she evaded them by jumping into the river. Needless to say, no such thing happened, since her owner (Anthony Thompson), or any slave patrol were able to capture her during her journey to Philadelphia. But . . . I was able to tolerate this scene. Somewhat. I was also a bit confused about her relationship with John Tubman in this film. Director-writer Kasi Lemmons and co-writer Gregory Allen Howard portrayed Harriet or Minty's marriage as loving and trouble free. This has not been the case in another Hollywood production I could think of. Unfortunately, no one really knows whether the Tubmans had experienced any marital strife before her flight from Maryland. So . . . I tolerated this portrayal. However, the movie indicated that Minty had suggested John not run with her so that he would not be caught aiding a runaway. This is false. According to history, John did not want her to run in the first place. They also made it clear that John had remarried because he had assumed Minty/Harriet was dead. I do not know whether this is true or not. But it seemed as if Lemmons and Howard seemed hell bent upon portraying John in a positive light as much as possible.

But there were changes in the narrative that left me scratching my head. "HARRIET" featured Minty making her escape from Maryland in the middle of the day . . . which I found odd. The movie had her working in a garden when someone warned her that Bodress had plans to sell her to the Deep South in order to alleviate family debts. No sooner had she received the warning, one of the plantation's foremen appeared to grab her. Minty ran and . . . hid. She hid around the plantation for hours before she contacted her family and left. What made this even more odd is that Bodress did not learn of her escape from the foreman until hours later. Which I found very odd. Historically, most slave escapes began in the middle of the night, not in the middle of the day. Why did Minty wait so long to contact her family before her escape? And why did the plantation foreman wait so long to inform Bodress? Also, she made most of her journey by night and hid during the daytime. Which would have made that daytime encounter on the bridge with Bodress somewhat implausible. I can only assume Lemmons and Howard had added it for dramatic reasons.

In the movie, Minty/Harriet did not wait very long to return to Maryland and contact her family and John. After escorting several members of her family north, she returned to Maryland and helped others escape on several occasions before the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Now this is ridiculous. One, Tubman returned to Maryland to help some relatives escape at least three to four months after the law's passage. I find it very hard to believe that she had made so many trips to Maryland between her own escape in September 1849 and when the fugitive law was passed in September 1850. Another troubling aspect of the movie was the sequence featuring the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law. The movie featured a scene with former slaves - including Harriet - leaving en masse from the Philadelphia docks, while God knows how many slave catchers suddenly appeared to capture these fugitives. What the hell? I had felt as if I was watching a war movie with refugees escaping from an invaded city. Yes, many fugitive slaves were forced to flee the Northern states for Canada following the law's passage. But not like THAT. Not like a scene from "CASABLANCA" or "THE WINDS OF WAR".

I have two more complaints. Why did Lemmons and Howard added that . . . relationship between Harriet and Bodress? Why? It was bad enough that Gideon Bodress never existed. But Tubman had never recounted having to deal with the unwanted sexual interest or assault from any white man. And I got the impression that Lemmons wanted to include some watered down version of the Patsey-Edwin Epps relationship from the Oscar winning film, "12 YEARS A SLAVE" - but without the overt violence and sex. It was obvious that Bodress had never laid a violent hand on Harriet in the film, aside from the slap on the face after he had overheard her wish for his father's death. But I find it implausible that Gideon Bodress had never attempted to sexually assault her. Even when his father was alive. Another sequence featured Northern black and white members discussing the Fugitive Slave Act passage and whether it would be safe to continue the Underground Railroad. What I disliked about this sequence is that most of them seemed to have this attitude without the organization's conductors appearing on Southern plantations to lead them, many slaves would not be willing to escape or would not succeed in escaping. And this was far from the truth. One could argue that this scene was a perfect example of patronization from Northern abolitionists. But Harriet did not point out that slaves were capable of escaping on their own. Instead, she simply argued for the continuation of the Underground Railroad. Which simply made her equally patronizing to me.

One would think that I disliked "HARRIET". That person would be wrong. I actually enjoyed it very much. Despite some of the narrative choices, lightweight characterizations and historical inaccuracies; "HARRIET" was both an entertaining and interesting film. One, it is nice to see Hollywood produce a feature film about the former abolitionist. "HARRIET" is a thoughtful drama about a period in United States history about which very few Americans want to discuss, let alone contemplate. Like other Hollywood productions, the movie mainly featured Tubman's early career as an Underground Railroad conductor. I had assumed that it would also focus on her Civil War experiences, due to some publicity stills released before the film hit the theaters. But the movie only included a coda, featuring Tubman's participation in a raid during the war. "HARRIET" was, without a doubt, about her role with the Underground Railroady.

Due to the film's focus on Harriet's career as an Underground Railroad conductor, it did not focus that strongly on her family life . . . with the exceptions of her attempts to lead them to freedom. Many critics have complained about this. But I can understand why Lemmons only focused on one aspect of Harriet's life. This was a feature-length film that ran nearly two hours, not a television miniseries. Frankly, I thought it was smart of her to focus one one aspect of Harriet's life, considering the format she had used. And she focused on one of the former slave/abolitionist's most famous period in her life - namely that as an Underground Railroad conductor. Only through this story arc was the movie able to somewhat focus on her connection to her family. In fact, one the most interesting arcs in this narrative proved to be a sequence that featured Tubman's attempts to rescue her sister Rachel and the latter's children.

This focus on Harriet's career with the Underground Railroad allowed Lemmons and Howard to reveal Harriet as action heroine she truly was. The writers' narrative arc also featured some well staged action sequences. Among my favorite sequences are Harriet's initial escape from Maryland and her successful rescue of Rachel's children in the film's second half. Both struck me as well-shot sequences that featured a great deal of more tension and drama than action. And I thought the focus on these two aspects may have allowed the sequences to be more effective without the obvious action. I also enjoyed the movie's final action sequence in which Harriet attempted to rescue and lead her parents to freedom in the late 1850s. Not only was this sequence filled with the usual solid action for this trope, it featured a tense-filled final confrontation between Harriet and Bodress.

I certainly did not have a problem with the film's production values. I thought Warren Alan Young did an exceptional job in re-creating antebellum America, especially in scenes that featured the Bodress plantation, Baltimore (at least I think it is), Canada and especially Philadelphia. I believe Young was ably supported by John Troll's sharp and colorful cinematography, Wyatt Smith's film editing, Kevin Hardison and Christina Eunji Kim's art direction, and Marthe Pineau's set decorations. I also have to commend Paul Tazewell for his costume designs. I thought Tazewell did an excellent job of conveying the movie's setting and characters through his costumes, as shown in the images below:

I have a confession to make. Aside from a handful, I was not exactly blown away by the performances featured in "HARRIET". I am not claiming that most of the performances were terrible or even mediocre. I simply found them solid . . . or serviceable. There were a few that I found slightly above being serviceable - like Janelle Monáe, Leslie Odom Jr., Zackary Momoh, Tim Guinee, Henry Hunter Hall, Joseph Lee Anderson, Jennifer Nettles and Omar J. Dorsey. But like I had said, there were a few that struck me as memorable. One of them Clarke Peters, who gave a subtle, yet warm portrayal of Harriet/Minty's father, Ben Ross. I was also impressed by Vanessa Bell Calloway, who gave an exceptional performance as the abolitionist's emotional and slightly edgy mother, Harriet Ritt Ross. Joe Alwyn did an excellent job of portraying Gideon Bodress as a slightly complex character without transforming the character into a one-note, moustache-twirling villain. And I really enjoyed Vondie Curtis-Hall's subtle, yet colorful portrayal of Reverend Green, the local free black minister, who also happened to be a member of the Underground Railroad.

But the performance that really counted in "HARRIET" came from leading lady Cynthia Erivo. It is almost a miracle that Erivo managed to give such an exceptional performance as Harriet Tubman. I say this, because Lemmons and Howard had failed to fully portray Tubman as a complex human being with not only virtues, but also a few flaws. Their Tubman almost struck me as a borderline Mary Sue, due to their determination to basically portray her as an action heroine. But they did provide some intimate moments between Tubman, her family and friends. And this gave Erivo the opportunity to skillfully convey the warm, yet strong-willed individual underneath the heroic facade. This was especially apparent in scenes that featured Tubman's desperation to put as much distance between her and the Bodress plantation as possible; her determination to return to Maryland to rescue her family; and her discovery that her husband had married another woman. Thanks to her superb performance, Erivo managed to earn both Golden Globe and Academy Award nominations for Best Actress. And if I must be brutally honest, she deserved them.

Overall, I enjoyed "HARRIET". I have always been interested in Harriet Tubman as a historical figure and was happy to see a motion picture about her. It was not the best or most compelling biopic I have ever seen. Nor was it the best biopic about Tubman I have ever seen. But I cannot deny that thanks to Kari Lemmons and Gregory Allen Howard's interesting screenplay, Lemmons' solid direction and a first-rate cast led by Cynthia Erivo, "HARRIET" is a movie that I will be more than happy to watch on many occasions in the future.

"HARRIET" (2019) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "HARRIET", the 2019 biopic about fugitive slave-turned-abolitionist, Harriet Tubman, Directed by and co-written by Kasi Lemmons, the movie starred Cynthia Erivo in the titled role:



"HARRIET" (2019) Photo Gallery