[removed]
Comments
[deleted] t1_j28h3h1 wrote
[removed]
likebuttuhbaby t1_j28huzs wrote
That was what I kept waiting for. I really thought the automatic open/close was going to be some “Chekov’s gun” that would be instrumental later on (my first thought was that something ‘important’ was hidden there).
I know the override came into play, but I really thought the movie was setting us up for the auto feature to be a major plot point.
polywha OP t1_j27nfia wrote
Does he mention that? And if that's the case why have an override button at all?
Garrub t1_j27p4sg wrote
You shouldn’t, it’s dumb. But miles is dumb.
WarmMoistLeather t1_j27pqo1 wrote
It's shown. You can hear the glass retract. That's how it keeps closing over and over every time Duke's phone dings.
Outlog t1_j284jj0 wrote
OP is asking why it opens on its own (not closes).
BaronVonLazercorn t1_j287lo7 wrote
And they said you can hear it retract, as in open again
Outlog t1_j287y6u wrote
Here:
1.Ding
-
Security glass closes (because of ding)
-
Security glass then opens (why?)
Is it timed? How does the security system determine the threat is gone?
BaronVonLazercorn t1_j288dgv wrote
That seems like the most logical reason, yes. That and other sensors to determine active threats like heat, etc.
There is probably an initial dB sensor. If a sound occurs over a certain threshold, the barrier closes as a precaution. Then after say 10 seconds, if no further threats are detected, it opens back up.
In reality the painting would be enclosed at all times. But the opening/closing is clearly a thematic device that doesn't need so much thought put into the technicalities of how/why it works the way it does
queen-adreena t1_j28f9aw wrote
I can see why a billionaire wouldn’t pay that much to ship it round the world only to have to look at it through plastic.
That said, the Mona Lisa is painted on wood, not canvas. So either the film goofed, or they sent Miles a fake.
BaronVonLazercorn t1_j28jgl5 wrote
Considering the cultural and historical significance of the Mona Lisa, I can't imagine you would be allowed to keep it out in the open, even if you did somehow manage to buy it from the state.
Besides, you wouldn't want anything to happen to it considering how much you would've paid for it. Plus you would forever be known as the dickhead that destroyed the Mona Lisa, like Miles.
As for the wood thing, you're right, but after hundreds of years that poplar might be able to go up like canvas. But I can also imagine The Louvre giving Miles a fake. After all, Mus- I mean Miles is an idiot.
Outlog t1_j288mhj wrote
I understand thematic devices, but also happen to enjoy discussing engineering and technology. 🤷
Appreciate the input!
BaronVonLazercorn t1_j288oji wrote
Then you should've been able to figure out how it works, no?
Outlog t1_j288rgc wrote
Oh, you're actually snarky and rude? Got it. Moving on.
BaronVonLazercorn t1_j288ylq wrote
Not trying to be. You said you enjoy conversations about engineering and technology, so I thought you would've easily come to the same conclusion
CrosseyedBilly t1_j2a6w9i wrote
We’ll miles says he wanted the button installed so he could know there wasn’t anything in between himself and the painting
uglyowlet t1_j27tq6v wrote
Benoit Blanc has a whole scene talking about Miles' shortcomings that lead to one of my favorite lines in the movie.
King_Buliwyf t1_j280g38 wrote
No! It's just dumb!
abeeyore t1_j27pyhq wrote
It’s not mentioned, but if you pay attention, you can see it reopening in the background of some of the scenes.
My question was why it slammed shut the first few times she broke the glass pieces, but then stopped (presumably staying closed).
Prestigious-Owl165 t1_j27v4t9 wrote
It stayed closed because everyone started smashing stuff and the scene turned into chaos rather than one loud noise every ten seconds when she would break something
abeeyore t1_j29w72m wrote
That was my assumption, but at first glance it seemed like it was more complicated than a simple reset timer.
Outlog t1_j28483e wrote
I have zero clues to why you're getting down votes. There is no explanation to how the security system determines the "threat" is gone and can lower the glass again on its own. Is it just timed? Is it different based on the "threat"? When would the override be needed then?
figmentPez t1_j286us9 wrote
The override is "needed" because Bron likes having control. He wants to be able to view the Mona Lisa without any glass in the way, any time he wants, regardless of anything going on. He thinks the security is over sensitive, and it triggers too easily, so it put in an override that lets him have control. He's such a man-child that he can't even wait quietly for it to disengage. He's probably even touched the painting before.
Outlog t1_j28sjlm wrote
Well apparently the OP got enough responses from y'all to feel like deleting their original message in the thread.... lol. I was just trying to help them explain their question/intrigue better, as most were misunderstanding the original prompt. Reddit, you are a mystery like the thematic tools of cinema.
Appreciate your discourse.
Outlog t1_j28718e wrote
We're asking about the security system itself, not his desire to override. What is it about the system that makes it remove the glass protective barrier on its own (no override)?
figmentPez t1_j28aqkj wrote
There's an old question in writing: "What kills a vampire?" The answer is not garlic, or silver, or sunlight, or a stake through the chest. It's whatever the author decides kills vampires.
The security system, like a vampire, is fictional. It functions however the script says it functions, and the audience is not given a great deal of info about the system. We know it is sensitive, that it goes off when phones get notifications, and that the glass retracts on it's own. We are not told what triggers the end of the security lockdown, only that any lockdown Bron can't control is too much.
The glass goes down at some point, and ultimately that point is when it's convenient for the writer/director/editor for it to go down.
drillgorg t1_j28gwsc wrote
Yeah I'm an engineer and I came to terms with the fact that most of the science in this movie is hand wavey. That's ok! It's not a movie about technology, it's a movie about mystery.
The napkin of course doesn't even try to make sense, they never even explain what the central idea of Alpha is. The fact that hydrogen gas would leak out of residential natural gas lines is a known problem, but it's an easily solvable problem for a spacecraft or a power plant. In fact a breakthrough in hydrogen tech would be world changing if you just plan for it the right way. Like was said above, the case opens and closes based on when the plot needs it to. The robot dog carrying the luggage was a gag but how did it load and unload the luggage? The fire extinguishing system conveniently came on only once it was too late for the plot.
And again, I don't mind any of this. It's a good movie which isn't about technology, it doesn't need the tech to make sense.
leggpurnell t1_j28iz1n wrote
Sure they explained what Alpha was - on the napkin:
- Free app
- ?????
- Buy island
Whompa t1_j28bbwq wrote
I think it goes like this: No more noise, no more glass wall. Simple ping noise wasn’t a large enough threat for the system to stay closed. That’s how I saw it at least. It’s dumb, like Miles.
the-tacktelneck t1_j28wmbr wrote
It’s so he can stand close to it which would continually make it override
After_Hovercraft7822 t1_j27nky3 wrote
The painting sits exposed most of the time by default. When a threat is detected, the glass slams shut. This includes heat and anything that makes a loud noise, as a loud noise could hit a gunshot or explosion or something.
Miles arrogantly installs an override so he can drop the glass if he wants to. This way he can do things like play loud music or throw a party and not have glass between him and the painting.
As for avoiding glass on the ground, I see that they have shoes or are just walking around it. The glass isn’t everywhere, it’s just where the statues were smashed.
erst77 t1_j27wzos wrote
>The painting sits exposed most of the time by default. When a threat is detected, the glass slams shut. This includes heat and anything that makes a loud noise, as a loud noise could hit a gunshot or explosion or something.
The glass is continually shown covering and uncovering the eyes on the painting. It's a metaphor -- there's something covering our vision -- or is there? Or is it actually clear as glass even though we feel like there's something between us and the mystery?
comradejiang t1_j27zstm wrote
The mona lisa and the glass onion itself are the same thing - an anti-metaphor. Something people make deeper than it really is. The eyes in particular are something people focus on a lot, but in reality it’s simply a very well done portrait, archetypal of the sort of commissioned portraits by nobles in the Renaissance.
The fact that it’s even there is supposed to represent that Bron is tacky and doesn’t know anything about art, same reason the Rothko piece behind the dining table is upside down.
badstoic t1_j283gsk wrote
Oh that’s friggin brilliant about the Rothko good eye.
Bingleybingler t1_j285m82 wrote
He has the picture of him shirtless, which is basically Brad Pitts body from fight club with Nortons face. I do like how all the clues are in plain sight tho lol
MansfromDaVinci t1_j288z40 wrote
Rothko's get hung upside down at exhibitions rather often. A mondrian has been hanging upside down for 77 years. In a deeper sense modern art was adopted by Rockefeller and his cronies wholesale after Diego Riveria painted a mural that offended him on his building, the philistine had it smashed. Modern art was seen as vacous and inoffense 'free enterprise painting' which could be a commodity and status symbol without any inconvenient symbolism or meaning. It has since been heavily backed by the establishment, though deeply unpopular with the wider public. The CIA at the least destroyed the careers of critics and art lecturers to promote it.
Sonicfan42069666 t1_j28fjhx wrote
> though deeply unpopular with the wider public
Not sure what point you're making with this. Plenty of great art is unpopular in the time of its production. Widespread appreciation for the work of Van Gogh didn't happen until after his passing.
MansfromDaVinci t1_j28hzca wrote
Van Gogh never had a coven of spies and billionaires promoting his art. My point is there was little demand for it outside of as propaganda and a commodity but it was displayed everywhere and got loads of favourable criticism from complicit critics aswell as some dupes.
Blahkbustuh t1_j29gqrc wrote
This is my favorite fun fact and I don't talk about it much because it makes me feel like a tin foil nutter. What also motivated them was the Cold War and the abstract stuff seemed new and dynamic and befuddling to the communist world which was turning out heavy and somber "socialist realism" type art.
Alive_Ice7937 t1_j286h9z wrote
They must have been stoked when Musk so publicly confirmed the main theme of the film in the lead up to its release
BotSnifferOuter t1_j28i3vo wrote
Musk bad!
Alive_Ice7937 t1_j28qjk6 wrote
Burner shitposting accounts good?
polywha OP t1_j27nqck wrote
That 1st part makes sense. But the 2nd part, if you've ever worn flat open toe shoes like that before when glass smashes it's pretty difficult for it not to fly into your shoe or foot as well. I smashed a glass once while wearing flip flops and it got all over my feet
DeathByBamboo t1_j27x9hg wrote
Sometimes with movies you need to exercise your suspension of disbelief. This means, basically, that in order to enjoy movies, we sometimes overlook instances of the movie not following logical rules of the real world.
It would make the movie cumbersome and exhausting if they slowed it down to have realistic results of glass being all over the ground. In fact, the unrealness of it is highlighted when they slide cartoonishly across the floor as though the glass were ice.
Movies are rarely realistic, and ones that are more realistic tend to be slow and ponderous because life doesn't exist at an entertaining pace.
ryle_zerg t1_j288hzj wrote
With Rian Johnson movies, suspension of disbelief is basically a requirement.
BosomBosons t1_j27uds7 wrote
Also depends on the type of glass, some glass shatters in sharp shards, other glass shatters into more gravel like pieces.
ScamIam t1_j27v3we wrote
I thought all the “glass” was actually Klear? That’s why I assumed it functioned and broke differently than real glass
BennoDXB t1_j28ef94 wrote
The scientist and the mayor almost shit themselves with panic that the tiny little piece might have fallen when bron threw it. It doesnt seem likely that you can happily smash hundreds of pounds of it with no ramifications.
rawcane t1_j284c0p wrote
Oh was it? I didn't understand what the point of smashing all the glass was. In fact this would make the explosion more deadly. Need to watch again!
Orlando_the_Cat t1_j27t08y wrote
And especially when they all run out as the placd is exploding. There should have been glass flying EVERYWHERE.
KnitDontQuit t1_j27us7c wrote
And they all should have died in that explosion.
chrispy_t t1_j27tndy wrote
TBH it’s pretty hard to accumulate the billions of dollars needed for someone to own an island which takes away from the movie for me/s
Butch_Beth t1_j282zpd wrote
There aren't actually famous independent detectives in the real world, I found this hard to get over.
Scep_ti_x t1_j27uzom wrote
Just look how fast todays tech megabillionaires gained their wealth. When I was 20 nobody even knew Musk, Zuckerberg or Bezos...And Gates was at somewhat around 40 or 50 billions at that time. Today every second CEO of any medium Tech company has dozens of billions under his pillow.
FangornOthersCallMe t1_j27ur0h wrote
I think it’s just luck. If you look at the glass when Helen is running towards the Mona Lisa, there’s hardly any glass in the spots where her feet land despite being everywhere else.
blackbirdpie t1_j2862ua wrote
I was expecting this to be a plot point- where somehow Norton's shoes get stolen and he remains stuck on his little island surrounded by glass shards of his misspent fortune unable to walk out. Was left a bit disappointed that it was just smashing his stuff for the sake of it.
Butch_Beth t1_j282rwe wrote
This isn't a problem with the film, it's a cinema sin.
maxwellmaxen t1_j28bvcl wrote
it’s a movie.
bitesized314 t1_j28hoga wrote
I had a cup shatter on a counter and a shard got stuck in my hand and neck. I'm sure the chance is there that they could get glass in their eyes easily doing this. But it's a cool scene.
tylerc23 t1_j27xfbf wrote
It's everywhere when the Glass Onion explodes lol
PanchoVillasRevenge t1_j2833ik wrote
He has the glass open so he can look directly into its eyes, he says this in that scene
lopakjalantar t1_j27u4gg wrote
If their feet hurt will it contribute anything to the plot?? It'll just be a few additional dialogues or changing everything after which is something they don't want. pls don't treat a movie like real life or at lease ask something that made an actual hole in the plot.
Randomd0g t1_j281vp6 wrote
Cinemasins is really responsible for a lot of braindead movie takes.
Butch_Beth t1_j283b24 wrote
The worst part is filmmakers are beginning to respond to them, films increasingly have complicated and pointless explanations for things that just don't matter.
DoctorTwoB t1_j28d4st wrote
Seriously. That's what's keeping OP up at night?
Studstill t1_j27uvyc wrote
Preach
FatherofthePens t1_j27nn4f wrote
I don’t believe it’s mentioned but it’s inferred the first few times it’s triggered. Override is cuz he’s a douche
Ch3_B4cca t1_j280hev wrote
This movie coming out just in time for Elon Musk to be revealing himself as a bumbling ignorant buffoon and thus these two events (this release of this movie and Musk unraveling) synergistically coming together to shatter the genius benevolent billionaire narrative that has been shoved down our throats for the past few decades puts this movie in a particular god tier category for me.
[deleted] t1_j28hg51 wrote
[removed]
ifisch t1_j27p9gn wrote
I was really loving the movie until the ending.
Rian Johnson has a habit of writing scripts where the big reveal is....nothing.
In this case, the entire movie was building up to a big clever satisfying reveal, and the reveal was...nothing. Basically there was no big mystery, just a guy acting stupid and obvious.
I get that the big twist is supposed to be that Ed Norton's character is actually really dumb, despite being a billionaire, but is that really a good reveal when the character was acting dumb the entire movie?
seanmharcailin t1_j27s2sp wrote
The movie isn’t leading up to a twist. It’s leading up to the Whodunnit. The twist is in the very middle, where we learn about the twin swap.
If you’ve paid any attention to the movie you already know Miles is an idiot and the murderer by the time we get there. I mean, you know it when he hands the glass to Duke.
If you were expecting a third act twist, you’re watching the wrong script.
dalefmcfarlane t1_j27wb1s wrote
You see miles take the gun and the phone too.
But, the glass thing is what primes you to keep your eye on him.
ebietoo t1_j28xkqa wrote
The casting for this is brilliant. By the time we get down to it, I can’t wait for somebody to knock that smirk off Ed Norton’s face.
davidw_- t1_j2866x7 wrote
You say that like the genre of the movie is not a clue kind of movie
TeqTx t1_j28cjrg wrote
What an incredible nonsensical cop out lmao
I can't believe people are upvoting this shit
"It leads to the Whodunnit" Jesus fuck lol
elainemasi13 t1_j28hhn1 wrote
Ew.
[deleted] t1_j28i4s6 wrote
[deleted]
elainemasi13 t1_j29kffn wrote
It is. Creepy that you looked. I double down on the ew.
[deleted] t1_j29s13k wrote
[deleted]
elainemasi13 t1_j29y68k wrote
Ew.
[deleted] t1_j2danyy wrote
[deleted]
elainemasi13 t1_j2djxgx wrote
Lol ew.
[deleted] t1_j2djzmk wrote
[deleted]
ifisch t1_j280qki wrote
Ok but shouldn't the climax of a Whodunnit be the reveal of...who dun it?
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that in a murder mystery movie.
Also if the big twist is the twin sister thing, that's a pretty lame twist.
Imbrown2 t1_j27pnhb wrote
I think you really didn’t get what the movie is going for. There’s a whole bunch of stuff going on, and Miles being dumb isn’t supposed to be the singular “reveal” point of the movie. It’s just a part of it.
ivandragostwin t1_j27slad wrote
Yeah I felt like it was pretty clear the “big reveal” was the fact it was >! the twin sister and they were investigating a murder before they even got there as opposed to random shit happening while on island because he’s an idiot. !<
drelos t1_j28ffue wrote
And also part of the reveal is the fact Benoit wasn't invited at all he just appeared because Helen asked that.
ifisch t1_j281ivf wrote
Ok well that's a pretty cheap "big reveal". I didn't find that very clever or satisfying. I was kindof hoping the movie was building to something bigger.
[deleted] t1_j27sb5s wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j27sg6g wrote
[deleted]
PunkandCannonballer t1_j27vfro wrote
The film wasn't leading to a reveal. The "reveal" happened halfway through when we learn that Andi is actually her twin sister. Throughout the film Miles makes it abundantly clear he's the murderer. He hands Duke the poisoned glass. He's seen with the gun before "Andi" gets shot. It isn't rocket science. Even the conclusion of the film is telegraphed heavily with the often repeated line about him being remembered in the same breath as the Mona Lisa, him having the Mona Lisa, and him having a very dangerous hydrogen-based fuel in his entire house.
jerrygreen818 t1_j283vpu wrote
I started to think maybe it wasn't so complicated when all the names were in alphabetical order. Andi. Birdie. Claire. Duke. All the names aren't like that but for a sec I thought I was doing an LSAT logic puzzle.
Guilty-Presence-1048 t1_j28gqsv wrote
One of the fun twists of the movie is that there were multiple Chekhov's guns. The Mona Lisa override switch and Bron's little saying made it abundantly clear his arrogance would result in the destruction of the priceless artwork.
ifisch t1_j28120a wrote
Yea that was also really dumb.
"Yea I was gonna power my entire country with this super energy efficient fuel, but since it got some bad publicity, so I'm not anymore" What?!
We literally tolerate insane human rights abuses from Saudi Arabia for access to their oil.
And the whole bit about the fuel being super combustible... how is that a downside exactly?
I get it's probably not a good idea to fill a blimp with it, but combustibility is a pretty good aspect for a fuel source to have lol.
Zanydrop t1_j282zay wrote
If an inventor blew up his own mansion and the most famous piece of art in history would you want to be first in line to try the new invention?
BeanieMcChimp t1_j285orc wrote
The problem they mentioned wasn’t that it’s combustible— it was that the molecules are smaller than methane so pipes built for methane would leak the stuff all over.
PunkandCannonballer t1_j28fao7 wrote
Not to insult you or anything, but Norton's character literally says this after the explosion. Andi's sister then says very simply that no one is going to buy the "miracle fuel" from a billionaire that blew up his own house and the most famous painting in the world with said fuel and calls him a dumbass for not seeing that very obvious conclusion.
ifisch t1_j2a97wh wrote
Yea ok and she's obviously wrong.
Like "oh I was gonna use this fuel that would cut my electricity bill by 90%, but I heard it caused a fire that burned something important so I'm not anymore...." what? Never in a million years.
PunkandCannonballer t1_j2aaaw7 wrote
"Let's release, to the public, a fuel source that could explode an entire home, and literally the only instance we have of it running a home resulted in that home not only blowing up, but the destruction of the most famous painting in the world. Oh, and add to that the billionaire who is backed the idea is an idiot that stole the idea that got him his fortune and murdered the woman who initially had the idea."
She's OBVIOUSLY correct. You'd have to be a fucking basket case to not only use that fuel, but to also okay it for widespread use. Imagine if every house on a block uses it and one blows up? Then they all would. It's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea.
ifisch t1_j2abqzq wrote
Millions of homes are powered by nuclear power. Do you think that means they have Uranium fuel rods in their walls?
PunkandCannonballer t1_j2aiyys wrote
You're seriously ignoring everything the film is telling you. The person who invented it is described as "sketchy." Lionel said he needed at least two years to see if it was safe for use, and didn't want to use it in a manned mission. Andi said it had the potential to "literally blow up the world." It literally blew up a billionaire's home and the fucking Mona Lisa.
The film isn't presenting the fuel source as a viable alternative to fossil fuels, it's giving a BUNCH of reasons to conclude that the fuel source is questionable at best, insanely dangerous at worst, and backed by an murderous idiot.
Also, you're comparing nuclear power which has been around for decades to a new power source that literally has only one single live test and that test resulted in an explosion that burned the Mona Lisa. These aren't even remotely the same. The aftermath of the hindenberg or the chernobyl meltdown should be enough to tell you that people don't just throw away caution after a spectacular disaster simply because something has potential to be beneficial.
ifisch t1_j2aytoy wrote
I am saying that Rian Johnson doesn't seem to know much about how power generation works.
He either didn't do the research or if he did do the research, and didn't care.
A fuel source that "results in an explosion" isn't a bad thing. Ever heard of an internal combustion engine?
PunkandCannonballer t1_j2ce2ql wrote
Are you trying to say that an internal combustion engine has blown up priceless works of art and the first time it was used it blew up a home? Because don't think you're making the important distinction between something that creates combustion on purpose in a controlled way and something that accidentally blows up.
This is his entirely fictional fuel source and in his narrative we learn from trusted characters to question the veracity of the fuel source and believe it to be too dangerous to use. We learn from the questionable characters that it's a fuel source to be used immediately. Who do you think is in the wrong in this situation? The murderous idiotic billionaire who blew up his house and the Mona Lisa because he wouldn't take the necessary cautionary steps or everyone who tried to stop him and his fuel source? You'd have to be an idiot to think that something that is literally shown blowing up a home and isn't tested beyond one single instance is something that could be considered a viable energy source.
TeqTx t1_j28cmx5 wrote
There's no point arguing with people about how awful this movie was on all levels
volantredx t1_j27w739 wrote
The point is that everyone fails to realize he is a moron. The whole reason he isn't a suspect at first is that he seemed too smart to do something so obvious, but the reveal is that he isn't and the obvious solution is true.
Logrologist t1_j286b3r wrote
Just watched this myself, and the more stand-out obvious thing that didn’t make sense from a writing standpoint (at all), is >!why didn’t he also shoot Blanc? In fact, once he saw him on the island, why wasn’t he the only one he killed? Benoit was the only one that posed an actual threat, he had no way to defend himself (or to flee), and since Miles clearly knew he killed the sister (especially after seeing the death announcement), why wouldn’t he just shoot Benoit?!<
obyteo t1_j27pq4f wrote
Similar opinion here, I liked the setting and the development but once we got to the big 3rd act reveals things got really dumb real fast and not just from the bad guy but from the good person, it seemed nonsensical how they arrived to the destruction instead of something like recording the bad person confessing or something like that...
pijinglish t1_j27um2f wrote
His comeuppance isn't arrived at via the napkin, or the loss of his company, it's in the unavoidable fact that he'll be forever known as the idiot who destroyed the Mona Lisa.
TheLisan-al-Gaib t1_j2822b3 wrote
I imagine the French government would lock his ass up, wouldn't they?
obyteo t1_j289ks8 wrote
Yeah but that wasn't the original plan, Helen found the key evidence and for some reason took the original in front of the killer who, by this point, still should have a gun... And when he burns it she and Blanc figure the destruction plan out, which depended on her being able to reach that button before the guy with a pistol on hand. Pretty dumb ending.
Guilty-Presence-1048 t1_j28hkq9 wrote
It's twofold. The first is the Mona Lisa. The second is the legal consequences coming from the disruptors turning on him. He'll be destroyed, not just his reputation but financially too.
sjfiuauqadfj t1_j27tm7o wrote
recording a confession is pretty cliche, but thats where miles played it smart because he doesnt actually confess so theres nothing to record
Guilty-Presence-1048 t1_j28hg3h wrote
Exactly. He feigns incredulity when she says he burned the napkin. The whole thing was the other "disruptors" protecting him with lies and then turning on him as the final beat to the plot.
obyteo t1_j289sif wrote
I expected something clever like that being a dummy napkin for him to burn and be confident he's clear or some other clever method, not here Helen remember you can make the house explode and survive unscathed to then press a button that makes the Mona Lisa burn before the killer with a gun stops you...
[deleted] t1_j27tiiz wrote
[deleted]
hisokafan88 t1_j27wq81 wrote
Miles is revealed as an idiot from the second he admits to not being the one who created the boxes, his weird way with words, and the reveal he did not put the murder mystery together. Everything about him is pugnacious and despicable and it's only rhe absolute spectacle of the island (and the sycophantic behaviour of the guests) that brightens his dimwits for barely an hour of the screen time. That is not a twist. It's a sad revelation to a foregone conclusion. Like Brendan finding Emily dead in a sewer.
akisamekoetsuji t1_j27vb7n wrote
I digress, but I feel like the inherit trait of mysteries and big-reveal stories is that after the build up, if done correctly, we always expect something we couldn't possible imagine but that is never a case or ,I doubt, even a possibility.
I love mysteries but endings almost never live up to the expectations. iono..
speak-eze t1_j27yzcl wrote
I think it's the opposite - that any of them were a viable possibility. I feel like for whodunnit movies, most viewers don't want some big "out of left field" twist to be the answer. They are given multiple possibilities that all makes sense along the way, and you just don't know which one it is.
If you are given all those options throughout the movie, and then none of them are the answer and its something else entirely, that would make the rest of the movie seem completely pointless imo.
mavyapsy t1_j28cj9k wrote
I quite liked it because it subverts the expectations of a traditional whodunnit. When you watch one you always expect an elaborate murder scheme with a crazy motivation that no one ever expects. I like watching whodunnits, and my mind immediately starts trying to piece of what crazy elaborate scheme and motivation led to the murder based on the tiniest clues in the background.
Like the murder mystery game miles tried to stage which was solved within seconds of it starting.
When it was revealed that the whole thing was done by an incompetent moron who basically had no idea wtf he was doing the whole time, to me it was a hilarious twist on the genre as a whole
ifisch t1_j2acufs wrote
I think we're saying the same thing. He subverted your expectations because you expected something elaborate and clever, but instead he gave you....nothing.
Cool. Thanks Rian lol
ebietoo t1_j28ypyk wrote
. It is untrue, what you say about Rian Johnson and endings. Think about Brick, think about Looper. Those are not “nothing” endings. Hell, think about Knives Out— actually, I guess you are; and are expecting twists right up until the end in this movie too. But he made it explicit from the title on down through the course of the movie, that the apparently complicated puzzle was in fact obvious and in plain sight the whole time.
NCBaddict t1_j27rhr1 wrote
Are we allowed to say this on the internet? As someone who liked Knives Out, this was hella disappointing. It’s not clever to lampshade the use of the obvious suspect twice in a row.
sjfiuauqadfj t1_j27tps3 wrote
its extremely clever if you engage the movie for what it is, which isnt a real whodunit
NCBaddict t1_j27zypd wrote
“yOu juST woULdn’T gEt iT” - Joaquin Phoenix, after I wasted 2 hours of my life
Rian Johnson, Todd Phillips, and Adam McKay oughta get an island together where they circle jerk each other for being much smarter than their dummy audiences
Forsaken_Virus_2784 t1_j27q81s wrote
If you watch it again you’ll notice it goes up and down every time Dukes phone dings a Google alert
subdermal_hemiola t1_j27s2cd wrote
There was a point where the phone was dinging and the shield kept slamming shut and all I could think of was the Sister Christian scene in Boogie Nights.
timesuck897 t1_j2864v9 wrote
I thought the same thing.
filmbuffy42 t1_j28desq wrote
OMG yes!
kooshipuff t1_j27rpvt wrote
It eventually got old, but I was giggling along with those for a while. I'm not usually one for repetition gags like that, but something about noticing all the weird things that set it off tickled me for a good third of the movie.
SanSeritsa t1_j28ct1v wrote
This is the correct answer OP. There is even a line explaining that it's such a sensitive system that a mobile phone can set it off. Everything else here is self indulgent nonsense.
Fewtas t1_j27vl4o wrote
Also, aside from the actual logistics of keeping the painting, the slamming of the glass shut works as a really great thematic element. Tying so many of the scenes together as a great illustration of the rising tensions.
astrocanyounaut t1_j27o357 wrote
In regards to shoes, we don’t know that one one was affected. They’re all running on adrenaline at that point, if they had been hurt they w probably wouldn’t react. And after the explosion, I’m sure it was just secondary anyway.
hronikbrent t1_j27v7vh wrote
One thing that didn’t sit quite right with me is that they never mentioned why Miles sent Andi an invitation in the first place
Tempest_True t1_j27wdv9 wrote
I assumed the logic was "I invited her to my get-together, so clearly I didn't know she was dead and had no lingering bad feelings toward her."
LovitzInTheYear2000 t1_j2851rk wrote
It’s simpler than that, the boxes were already made before the email and murder. It would have been harder and more suspicious to try to stop her delivery.
Tempest_True t1_j28iblz wrote
Was it ever stated that the boxes were already being delivered at the time of her murder? That doesn't seem likely.
LovitzInTheYear2000 t1_j28jjej wrote
Helen said she was at the house cleaning up just 1-2 days after Andi’s death when the box was delivered. Miles said that his “puzzle guy” was barely able to make the five boxes in time for delivery, implying a tight turnaround, and it’s obvious from seeing the boxes that they couldn’t have been made and delivered in just a few days. I don’t think it needs to be stated that the delivery was already in motion when Andi sent the email.
hronikbrent t1_j293oi1 wrote
Yup, that part I get. But it seemed like the reason for inviting everyone else was to keep pressing the leverage he had on them, but he no longer had that with Andi, so I don’t quite get it. Was it just to rub it in her face?
LovitzInTheYear2000 t1_j29i3il wrote
I think he thought eventually she’d come back to the group? He never wanted her to leave the company, and he’s self centered enough to believe that he hadn’t burned all bridges the legal stuff. He’s very good at controlling and manipulating the others, so it’s easy to see why he might think he could do the same to Andi again eventually. The email showing she had leverage changed the situation.
bajajon t1_j27y7i3 wrote
I think it was said that he invited her to all his parties, and that she didn’t go to the last one? It’s possible/probable given the time it took to construct the invitation boxes that her invitation was already in the process of being shipped when she made her threats.
SpaghetiJesus t1_j27vep9 wrote
To answer your first question, it’s not a noise that triggers it. Miles says very clearly that it’s buggy with the signal to the secret override and goes off any even the smallest of alerts on a phone. He doesn’t have a phone so it’s never a problem for him. That’s why it’s linked with the Google alerts going off on Duke’a phone.
bilbofraginz t1_j2885rm wrote
He also says that he wanted to look her in the eyes. So that’s the reason for the override. He thinks he can have the best of both worlds. Have him be able to look at it and also have it protected. It was just another one of his dumb ideas.
He also said he wanted his name said in the same breath as the Mona Lisa. Witch at the end it will because he got it destroyed.
joshuajjb2 t1_j27zr4p wrote
It almost feels like the painting is compared to the billboard in the great Gatsby, as if it watches and knows all
lingley t1_j27xbgo wrote
Why wouldn’t Miles freak the minute he saw Andi if he thought she was dead?
Sventhetidar t1_j27yewc wrote
Benoit had managed to delay the news of Andi's death from the press for a bit, so it would have been suspicious if Miles knew she was dead.
jon_goff t1_j27zcoa wrote
Question stands. He still knocked her out and left her in a running car. Seems odd that he isn’t more concerned by her arrival as well as the fact she’s playing coy about what he did to her.
I could’ve missed details that tackle this point, but feels like a huge plot hole.
Regardless, fun movie, but I didn’t enjoy it nearly as much as Knives Out and prefer Brothers Bloom. That stated, I likely be excited for the next one and any after. Even flawed, still an enjoyable watch.
davidw_- t1_j2869zc wrote
It gets worse when they read the news that indeed she is dead. They really are not surprised about the other one
LikeCalvinForHobbes t1_j27z58d wrote
But why did he try to kill Andi's sister if he knew by that point —Duke told him— that the real Andi was dead.
lppv_ t1_j27z8ja wrote
He kinda did
He said something along the lines of “your not supposed to be here”
vadergeek t1_j28vqki wrote
He did? That's why he shoots her the moment he gets the chance.
[deleted] t1_j27zk8z wrote
[deleted]
Paddy2015 t1_j27zdl1 wrote
The Mona Lisa/Klear stuff was a bit too convoluted for me, same with the sweatshop punchline.
Outlog t1_j2856r0 wrote
Agree on the Klear stuff. The sweatshop punchline was around Birdy's sweatpants brand and her assuming a sweatshop is just a shop that specializes in sweatpants.
Price-x-Field t1_j281sjx wrote
The entire point is to make it painfully obvious that the painting will be involved later in the movie. I found it really annoying. My only complaint with the movie
davidw_- t1_j2863e1 wrote
It was super annoying yeah. But also, it didn’t have that big of a role in the movie.
The thing that really tripped me was how they were not shocked with the girl being alive hanging out with them when they read the news that she was dead.
ProDier01 t1_j28a4sb wrote
But they didn't know whe was dead until the end, except for the billionaire.
Price-x-Field t1_j2867h0 wrote
Hmm yeah. That does seem like a plot hole.
JimmyLaessig t1_j27zf5a wrote
I thought that the Miles handing Andi a scotch with soda as her favourite drink was a trap to see If she's the real Andi, as he knew that Andi actually favored something else... Then again, Rian Johnson likes to place missdirects in his movies, Miles even says so.
Nakorite t1_j28a4bt wrote
The stupidest bit was his new energy source. Which would be worth literally trillions of dollars. Even if there were venting issues they would be quickly resolved. He had basically found a way to power cities with minimal effort.
The court case made zero sense. The significance of the napkin would have meant nothing. Who built the company. Who made it a reality. Why would Andy be 100% cut out even if Miles did come up with the original idea. Andy was the one who made it a reality. Complete nonsense. Why wouldn’t she then expose the energy source as dangerous. Totally illogical.
Titaniumhold t1_j28fymg wrote
What bothered me was the lack of scientific possibility surrounding the new energy source. They mentioned that it was hydrogen based. Hydrogen has a melting point of −259.14 °C/ −434.45 °F so the solid crystal piece they held several times throughout the movie was not possible. At room temperature and pressure it would have quickly vaporized.
Further, hydrogen has been used as a fuel source for automobiles and has many disadvantages including the need to be pressurized and very cold for packaging. Explained well here: (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AouW9_jyZck). Storage size might not be as critical for a house but without cooling and pressurization the storage tanks would be huge. Showing a giant storage silo or underground tank in the movie would have made it more convincing.
Nakorite t1_j28ghhi wrote
The amount of energy that was shown just by throwing a small amount of the crystals was insane too. Like hydrogen isn’t an explosive. It’s flammable.
jonadragonslay t1_j2837s1 wrote
And why did he send Andi a box?
LovitzInTheYear2000 t1_j284h79 wrote
He never wanted the estrangement between them, she was the one who left the company because he was crossing a line with the fuel. He’s delusional about a lot of things, including thinking he could bring her back into the fold somehow even after screwing her over legally. I imagine he had also invited her the previous year to the “cruise thing” Whiskey mentioned.
This time around, there was a lead time of several weeks or months for the construction of the invitation boxes, so the order was already placed long before the murder. After the murder there would be no reason to cancel Andi’s box delivery, perhaps he wouldn’t have even thought to try.
jonadragonslay t1_j28zx4a wrote
Didn't whiskkey say he hadn't invited her for years?
kpidhayny t1_j29cmcp wrote
I think she said “the interesting thing isn’t that he invited her, it’s that she accepted his invitation”. I think Miles was inviting her all along.
[deleted] t1_j28ec7l wrote
[deleted]
MisterEinc t1_j28f78t wrote
The glass was all added via CGI. That's why they can safely run towards the override button without slipping.
BeraterDebater t1_j27z9ke wrote
Yes he says it's motion and sound reactive. He spends a good deal of time explaining it. Idk how you didn't notice unless you went piss or were using your phone
Outlog t1_j283smu wrote
OP is talking about the glass going back down. Norton"s character explained the override button, but not how the security system itself decides the "threat" is gone and can lower the glass. It is not obvious what makes the glass lower on its own.
BeraterDebater t1_j28crgw wrote
Ohhhhh I get it now. That makes sense.
BillAdministrative61 t1_j28d54p wrote
That Kanye Mural behind Norton at that particular time was hilarious
Sojourner_Truth t1_j28ftp0 wrote
I cannot understand for the life of me all of these people in the comments who are commenting on why the glass COVERS the Mona Lisa, and not why it automatically UNCOVERS.
Logrologist t1_j2874bb wrote
Okay, so, I get that it’s a whodunnit and without him, the story just stops dead, but… well, here goes:
>!Why wouldn’t Miles just also kill Benoit?? He had the perfect opportunity to fix the whole situation and only shoots one of the two people standing in front of him, defenseless. The woman he thought he already killed (for the same reasons) and the one person on the island that was a definite threat to him, a clever detective that could only end up exposing him, why wouldn’t he also be a target?!< Or, is that just too obvious and we’re supposed to not even consider that obvious question amidst all the “layers” of misdirection?
Overall, the writing and dialogue are fun. Clever and unexpected twists made for an interesting story, but that question’s been eating at me. I’m beginning to think Rian doesn’t ever take a step back and look at what he’s making from a holistic standpoint. Sure, each twist is clever, every character well-considered, but the outer plot falls apart for me once I ask myself that question.
depressedpalp t1_j289hv2 wrote
just a simple explanation for that would be suffice, that being Miles is one of the dumbest in the knives out universe.
[deleted] t1_j27nj19 wrote
[deleted]
UnderwoodsNipple t1_j27phbg wrote
The insurance insisted on the glass mechanism, that has nothing to do with him. He just added the override mechanism because of his ego.
_mari_yo t1_j27sugy wrote
Great movie and very intriguing
DrFordAtYourService t1_j282ite wrote
Horrible movie. Way OTT in the end. Such a disappointment after Knives Out.
Last-Caterpillar-112 t1_j282xbe wrote
My main gripe was the dubious selfish motivation behind her desperate pumping of that override button. Helen is willing to destroy a 500-year old priceless world treasure to fulfill her personal revenge on Miles. She could have done this in a much smarter way than waving that flimsy napkin at Miles, insulting him, giving him every chance to destroy the only evidence against him, and then go on a reckless vandalism spree. Helen actually was also duuuumb.
Outlog t1_j285dbu wrote
True. Full hillbilly came out.
MetamorphicHard t1_j2869rx wrote
Honestly it wasn’t a well thought out movie imo. It doesn’t make sense for the Mona Lisa to react to sound or to open back up since a thief can still just grab it as long as they are quiet. And if they make a noise, they can just wait for it to reopen. There were also other parts like how they had a extra bracelets for the detective AND Andi when Miles didn’t expect either of them to come and how Duke never realized the gun pressed against his cock was stolen (which, side note, isn’t a great place to keep a gun in case it misfires). Also parts like how the book stopped a bullet at not too far range and why Blanc was given Klear at the beginning and kept the volatile explosive in his pocket the whole movie. Last ones just a personal thing but it made no sense how Miles helped everyone in the beginning. This idiot with no money somehow got them all jobs/startups? Seems like the director of the movie was as smart as miles and just didn’t think things through a whole lot
filmbuffy42 t1_j28d06d wrote
As a Script Supervisor in TV & Film - I promise you things like this get asked to a Dir / Writer all the time and quickly we get told “it doesn’t matter” or “nobody will notice”. So it’s very possible many questions were asked but esp when the Writer IS the Director there is no checks and balances.
MetamorphicHard t1_j29807f wrote
Thank you for this insight. I honestly kind of hate it because I know someone on their team had to notice this stuff and the director/writer is given a shit ton of money to make the movie and will still ignore these issues.
You’re a filmbuffy I suppose so maybe youll know of what I’m referring to, but I remember watching Gattaca and thinking how the hell does this man who’s been in a wheelchair for years and never leaves his house have a healthier heart than some of the other characters who train daily. It’s the small details that can turn a good movie into a great one
Quantum__Tarantino t1_j27svk4 wrote
I disliked it alot. It was incredibly dumb. The plan of hers was to blow up the building? How did she know that wouldn't kill all of them? She didn't. That explosion definitely should have killed them. Then miraculous everyone is alive with superficial injuries and now they see the Mona Lisa unprotected (signifying this whole time that was her plan with the fuel rock). An extremely convoluted way to destroy one of the most beloved pieces of art to get back at one guy.
bettinafairchild t1_j27yj2s wrote
She was trying to save millions of people who would otherwise be killed when the unstable Klear started being used publicly.
KnitDontQuit t1_j27v2h8 wrote
Reality must be suspended for this movie to be any fun I guess. Finding plot holes or applying real world ethics doesn’t work here.
ejb350 t1_j2824f2 wrote
When it’s something as stupid as “blow the fucking building that we are all in” I’d argue it’s really hard to suspend reality
KnitDontQuit t1_j286hr0 wrote
I agree with you. The plot holes go on for miles and the explosion is particularly obnoxious. Which is why I made my above statement in trying to understand the intentions of the filmmakers…..which I believe was solely to give the audience a good time and have fun doing it.
ejb350 t1_j28bxgn wrote
Nah I loved the rest of the movie, the explosion was just really stupid and took me out of the movie completely
EmoSchnauzer t1_j27pisn wrote
The Mona Lisa glass thing was so annoying. It was so obviously going to come up later too. What a bad movie.
PercySledge t1_j27pt8d wrote
Loved it tbh, it was meant to be a bit silly
EmoSchnauzer t1_j27vv7c wrote
I’m glad people are liking it!
Waste-Replacement232 t1_j28b6eb wrote
It’s a Chekov’s Gun
Realistic-Two8091 t1_j27pxk5 wrote
The film was shitty and lazy, that's your answer
FatherofthePens t1_j27ncp8 wrote
Once the threat to the painting is gone, it opens back up.