I’m sorry, did he legitimately ask “why didn’t the villain of the film just kill a character in front of everyone and reveal himself for no reason” like it was a legitimate criticism?
Critical Drinker understands that ideally in today's social media environment you have to have 30%-40% of your audience to be in the opposition. People hate-watching your video are more likely to comment, which drives the algorithm; more likely to share, because "Can you believe how DUMB this is?" Critical Drinker is playing you. He is far too smart to be this stupid. Think about it. And Pillar of Garbage is serving Critical Drinker. CritDrink is SOOOO pleased that this video exists, it will drive more traffic his way. It is so discouraging to exist in this social media environment in which content creators are making "mistakes" on purpose, or providing weapons-grade bad-takes just so people with share and comment, and NO ONE CAN SEE IT. Please open your eyes. Like... Ben Shapiro doesn't really like Episode IX. I could go on and on I will spare you.
it was only while watching this that I realized that Miles literally only came up with the idea of destroying the envelope when Lionel said "you didnt burn it?" you can see it in Miles' eyes that he realizes thats what he should have done, and then he does it later, like with the idea to put the gun on the table and turn out the lights
And it tracks with a key characteristic of Miles Bron: nothing he does or says in the film is an original thought of his. Even the name of his compound, the Glass Onion, was named after a bar they all used to frequent; which itself is named after a Beatles song (a fact I didn't know until the film's end).
No one: Critical drinker: “mighty convenient that gravity exists, if it didn’t I don’t really see how any of these characters could stay attached to the ground.”
19:01 there's a better explanation for this. The specific explosive that klear leaks is hydrogen gas (like hindenburg), the lightest gas that exists, so it floats to the top of the building and collects in the giant dome, therefore the biggest explosion happens there
I worked in a lab that used hydrogen-helium plasma torches. The lab was located on the top floor of the building, so if the hydrogen leaked, it could be most easily vented. We also had a number of other safeguards, like the tank was in a cabinet that vented to the roof at all times.
@playgroundchooser Would have been really cool, though it may have taken people out of the scene. Even if a blue explosion is more correct, the general viewing public doesn't know that. So it may have taken people out of the movie thinking about how the explosion was blue, and that isn't a good thing in the climax of the movie. Though it would have been a really cool shot.
Proof that CD is wrong: I watched this with my mom and when Miles handed Duke the drink, she called it out. Then when he lied and said the glasses were switched, she immediately realized that he was lying and that he was the killer. We didn't know why, and we didn't pick up on all of the bread crumbs, but the information was absolutely there for the viewer to notice. I though Daniel Craig was overacting and being weird for the first half of the movie and dismissed it as the sequel not grabbing the essence of the character, only to learn that Craig wasn't overacting but rather BLANC was acting weird to info gather. The bread crumbs were there, but were either overlooked or dismissed as part of the movie making process. It feels like CD just didn't pick up on these and instead of going "whoa, Rian really got me" went "I think I'm smart, so if I didn't notice these things then the movie must be the dumb one!"
I didn’t notice the drink on the first watch and I was looking out for it on the second. Also, you can see Duke’s phone in Miles’s back pocket and you can see him hiding the gun in the ice bucket and putting pineapple juice into Duke’s drink. All the breadcrumbs were there. Even the structure of the film was foreshadowed by Yo Yo Ma.
Had a similar problem with someone I watched the movie with, who complained the solution was too easy, while also admitting they hadn't figured it out until the end.
the footage isnt played out like that, they literally shows Miles doing what he says. Your mother was just assuming that's what happened. then later its shown as a diffferent scene, if your mom called it its only becuase of the pineapple mention Duke gives and that's the reason he died. Just like the scene with Duke being spied on while spying on Miles is bullshit because it doesn't even show Andi's sister being there. The movie lies to it's viewer in the worst definition.
He says its an insult to the genre (Agatha Christie/Sherlock Holmes style ultra perceptive, intelligent, well revered detectives) but earlier questions why Blanc is well known and famous as if it’s a never seen contrivance in this genre….. I don’t think he knows what genre this is.
@@roosajarvinen5698 i mean, when I watch these kinds of stories, I want those tropes. When I watch a Columbo episode or a Miss Marple or Holmes, I want those tropes because thats whats fun about those types of stories. A trope isn’t a bad thing. Like, there’s tropes in all the media he holds up as exquisite examples and he actively complains when tropes aren’t present that he likes (guy gets the girl, buff masculine quippy action hero, etc).
@@roosajarvinen5698 To be fair, that is not a trope of the genre - that's a cliche. Something which, though maybe an inventive twist back in Agatha Christie and Conan Doyle days, comes off unrealistic, silly and even comical today. IT HAS BEEN OVER A 100 YEARS, you know? Many of those old stories have to be altered in adaptation today simply to maintain plausibility as modern audiences are often far more savvy and the "contrivances of the genre" are often based on stereotypes that range from ridiculous (think Holmes's disguises and use of a magnifying glass- and the same done by Inspector Clouseau) to downright unpalatable (think inherent racist, sexist and other stereotypes from 100+ years ago). Justifying jamming such cliches into a modern story by the fact that they've been used before, 100+ years ago - that's a literal fallacy. Appeal to authority. Also, appeal to tradition.
I start to wonder if he watched the movie totally drunk and only remembers fragments of it. And if when he edited it, he was also drunk, to fail so much in a review.
@@PillarofGarbage While I personally prefer the first Knives Out more, I did enjoy this one as well. Watching the Drinker's review on this, I immediately could tell he didn't pay attention to the movie based on his complaint about the hot sauce, which was clearly explained. Who knows maybe he watches these movies drunk lol🤣
@@mcameron6031 Have you ever watched this film? It's hard not to notice Duke hearing the twig and turning around, my point is you can't criticise someone for not being perceptive if you yourself are not perceptive.
A very talented writer friend of mine has said "Coincidences to get your characters *into* trouble are fine. Coincidences to get them *out of* trouble are bad storytelling."
Ex Machina/McGuffins....the sign of writing your ass into a corner and needing something to happen for...reasons. TBH as much as I enjoyed the MCU up to Endgame as soon as the said time travel I rolled my eyes, other than 'It was all a dream" its the laziest thing you can do.
@@theblackflame4002 I could tolerate that, I couldn't tolerate Captain Marvel. I suppose despite the conveniences that surround the time travel plot, it still had some sets of conflicts going for it. Captain Marvel reduced them.
@@peterfrank3365 I'll admit that it CAN work, in the hands of a talented writer and in the right setting. But that's the rare exception that proves the rule.
Regarding Blanc being recognizably famous: this is a common feature of many whodunit movies and TV shows. People were always recognizing Poirot like he was a celebrity (and Rian Johnson said he specifically models his movies after Agatha Christie books). Sherlock Holmes is often shown to be recognized as the most famous detective in the world, the name precedes the man. Even the Murder, She Wrote lady was constantly being recognized by people, and she was a writer from a tiny town.
JB Fletcher was so famous, as soon as she strolled into town the local sheriff would follow her around like a puppy because they knew she'd solve the crime first lol
even miss marple that is suppose to be seen just as old countryside lady that likes to gossip is known by several investigators and police kkkkk and friend call her to help in murder cases too
@@user-vc4bh2sw7h more than that, the fact that someone claims not to know who he is is what tips him off in one story that they are the guilty party. He is so famous that he considers people not knowing who he is suspicious!
My favorite trope of his is trying to come up with any reason why a woman wouldn't be able to beat a man in physical contest. Like how it is somehow unbelievable that Black Widow - a trained-from-youth super assassin who has a body count in the triple (or even quadruple) digits - would be able to defeat some unnamed corporate security mook in a hand-to-hand fight.
@@Doctor_Grubious its says something about the state of the internet - combined with my sleep deprivation - that for a second I couldn't tell that you were joking.
@@1monki yea exactly. Drinker is just trying to score points nowadays. All his questions about motivation could also easily be aimed at one of my most favourite films. For instance in LOTR Gandalf only discovers the existence of the Ring and that it passed to Isildur after Frodo got it, really?! And before he goes into the archive the 9 already leave Minas Morgul. How long was he reading for, and how did he make it back to Frodo before the Nazgul got there? Why didnt they use the army of the dead to first finish the rest of Sauron's force? Why didn't Sauron put a few guards around Mount Doom? How is it possible the entire garrison of Cirith Ungol almost to a man slaughters itself? The thing is I don't care, I love the story!
I saw the Critical Drinkers’ video and was bemused when he complained about Benoit Blanc being a world famous detective, not long after referring approvingly to Agatha Christie, who’s detective Hercule Poirot was also world famous.
@@toshiyaar7885By that logic, Christie was riding the coattails of Conan Doyle. A work being in a genre does not mean it is “riding the coattails” of previous works in the genre.
"What if X didn't happen?!" This can LITERALLY be said of every single story ever made. "What if Doc Brown didn't steal plutonium from the Libians?!" "What if Andy Dufresne was found innocent?!" "What if Thor had gone for the head?!" It is the most nothing piece of "criticism" you could every say about a story.
@@noahbritt8321 My favourite one with Star Wars is what if that one Imperial Officer hadn't forgotten droids existed and had just shot down Threepio and R2's escape pod.
I don’t think that’s the worst way of criticizing a story, because there are plenty of times a story relies on random coincidence in order to advance the plot, and this is objectively a worse way to tell a story than creating a reason for it to happen, because it requires the audience to suspend disbelief further than they already have in order for the story to make sense. If it’s done once or twice relative to a much larger story, it’s very easy to forgive it as the story builder writing themselves into a corner. My understanding as to Critical Drinker’s reaction was that he was overblown by how often Glass Onion required - great deal of coincidences in order for the plot to advance as it did, and that that doesn’t excuse the story’s cheap tricks used to create a sense of mystery or suspense for the audience. At that point, I think it boils down to personal preference. I do think what the movie pulled was a bit of a one-trick pony, and so I enjoyed it as a one off idea of what a plot can be, but I wouldn’t want to see it repeated, and many would call what it pulled a “stunt”, and not an accomplishment.
That criticism alone relies on every single character being a complete mastermind at planning and orchestrating so that their plans are never left up to chance or circumstance. Definitely one of the most braindead critiques. If X didn't happen, then clearly they would've went and done something else, not worth pondering it
@@cklempay17 "this is objectively a worse way to tell a story" No, it isn't. Who is the arbiter of what constitutes objectively good or objectively bad ways of storytelling? You aren't, The Critical Dumbass isn't and I'm not it either. Nobody is because there is no such thing as an objective standard for art. Also, do point out the coincidences you're talking about here, because it seems you and TCD are just throwing that term around without thought.
@@narchistmaybe try writing smart characters then? Having the reason for a character failing be because they’re stupid doesn’t sound like a very compelling protagonist or antagonist
Shit, i have absolutely seen older STRAIGHT men dress absolutely FAR MORE flamboyantly than three Benoit Blancs put together. Like, JFC, how long must "the drinker" have been without feeling the touch of grass to think Benoit Blanc dresses "flamboyantly gay"? Has he taken a gander at any masculine fashion magazine? Or anything that isn't a woodworking catalogue?
...Also, as for the point of "What if someone asked a question Helen didn't know the answer to but Andi should?" There was already a scene in which the characters have a conversation where Helen makes a noticeable mistake. The whole scene where she goes "You didn't even email me back!" and governor lady answers, "Yeah, I never say that kind of stuff in writing; that's why I called you." There's your example of Helen making a mistake Andi wouldn't make, but it didn't matter because she is walking around with Andi's face and knows better than to flounder around and make her deception obvious. Why would any of them guess that wasn't Andi when she looked like Andi and said that she was? Even if they knew she had an identical twin, the immediate conclusion will usually be "Andi is acting a weird, probably because she's still mad about what happened," not "That isn't Andi."
Also, Blanc knew that it would be difficult for Helen to pretend to be Andi. That’s why he explicitly covered up that Andi was dead and told Helen to act cold and brusque towards them. The Disruptors probably wouldn’t be wanting to make light conversation with the person they all betrayed anyway. Why would they “test” Andi to be sure that she’s the real one when they don’t know that she’s dead? And why would they expect Andi to be amicable towards them at all, especially to the point of making light conversation? It makes zero sense.
Exactly. The whole point is, people can go to great lengths to convince themselves of something they want to believe, even disregarding information to the contrary, or their brain making up excuses. It happens all the time. Psychologists have written about confirmation bias, and how eyewitness accounts are often trash because human brains are not an objective video recording but we're constantly constructing a narrative of the world around us coloured by our biases, misremembering things, subconsciously rewriting our own memories by thinking back to them etc. In real life (or in a fictional story trying to depict real life) normally people do not walk around thinking like people playing a roleplaying game (like D&D) who are questioning everything the gamemaster tells them to look for "clues", or a schizophreniac who thinks everyone around them is secretly a shapeshifting alien.
Also, I have a coworker that I've worked with for almost a decade and I constantly forget he has an identical twin because I have never met him and it doesn't come up that often. I've made jokes about them switching places and nobody noticing, but I think there's a legitimate chance I wouldn't notice if we just didn't interact much that day.
@@gregjayonnaise8314 It's also shown that the one Disrupter who *did* apparently know that she had a twin, was the one who wasn't the crunchiest chip in the bag. If Lionel or Helen knew about her having a twin, it might've clicked sooner. Or at least when they noticed she was acting different, but even then, that would be a stretch because they have no reason to suspect otherwise
Realy ? not that some asshole destroys the mona lise to spite and ruin someone ? That level of narcisistic doesnt bother you, you still cheer for that asshole ?
8:05 even the first set up that Blanc was at least well known to some people as both Joni and Linda had already heard of him, not to mention how Lt. Elliott described him as ‘the great Benoit Blanc’.
Exactly, they even went out of their way to say that the New Yorker had done a whole COVER PROFILE on him recently, meaning that he's just become even MORE well-known to the general public in this world.
@@dlweiss not to mention he’s likely to be more well known as the death of Harlan Thrombey was probably a high profile case, after all, a celebrity Crime Novelist being murdered in a Whodunnit plot is bound to get an article or two.
Not to mention they learned about him from a profile in the New Yorker, in which he is described as "the last of the gentlemen sleuths". Even if you cannot accept the premise of detectives being a group who can obtain celebrity, it's established that he is a part of a dying breed. He's the exception, not the rule.
It's also completely in-line with the established tropes of the genre that TCD claims to hold so near and dear--Hercule Poirot is world-renowned, as are many if not all interpretations of Sherlock Holmes!
No, they're not. I mean most of his criticisms are not that. I know because I actually watched some of his vids unlike most other people here who watch vids about his vids.
I have also watched this videos and the top comment sums it up dude is a hack with zero ability to actually critic and that's saying something when this platform also has cinema sins @@Shorty_Lickens
@@Shorty_Lickensyou’re right. His other criticisms are “why woman strong? Man strong. Woman not man. Woman not strong. Something something the message, left bad.” I watched his crap for years. It rotted my mind. Eventually though I grew up and realized the version of reality he is pitching as part of his grift only exists in the minds of 14 year old boys who haven’t had much life experience with real people in the real world.
@@AnimatedTerror Umm, no he never said anything like that. And I dont believe you when you claim you watched his "crap" for years. I do believe you saw him misquoted elsewhere in hate videos and thats your impression of him. Get off the propaganda. Its not good. In fact in America we have about 70 million people eating the propaganda from Fox News and they voted for a fascist because it. Better to think clearly and make your own decisions.
@@Shorty_Lickens I use to watch his videos too. And then realised that he was talking about movies designed to get as many bums on seats and saying that's all of Hollywood. The guy is not that bright, or pretends to be so his fans pile in the money.
Critical Drinker is one of those reviewers who think having a political or social commentary message and good writing are mutually exclusive In his view, if a movie is bad, (or he doesn't like it) it's 1000% because of diversity hiring, social commentary, ect.
No. Im sorry i definitely agree with this video and the Critical Drinker did mess up. But there are countless instances of the Critical Drinker pointing out good things about stuff one might think is bad because of diversity hiring and social commentary and what not. Critical Drinker for the most part chooses the projects that mess up because of these things and yes that does happen a lot. And uses them a lot in his videos, which gives the illusion that hes just completely racist and sexist and etc. and that he just doesnt want any kind of diversity in movies ever.
About the wardrobe choices: it seemed like a clear homage to the Hercule Poirot movies to me, especially Evil Under The Sun. Also, just the Alot reference alone was worth a like
I think what bothers me most is that so many media critics on YT just aren't intellectualy or aesthetically curious people. They think the sum total of criticism is watching something, and then explaining what happened, what they did and didn't like with some effort afforded as to why. And if you're lucky, a thinly veiled jab at some topical issue. But thats not what critique is nor is it what critics actually do. Critics read history, poetry, literature, art history, politics, philosophy and science to have as many threads upon which to pull and as many references or themes they might draw upon. Criticism is about discussion not judgement, analysis with discovery, withholding judgement is also very important and one must always be open to correction. A critic is not just an opinion-haver, but a fuller person. But alas, I feel like the core of whats wrong is that these YT reviewers have internalised the aesthetics of passing judgement without any of the 'wisdom' garnered through actual artisitc study and cultivation required to to make said judgement be any more than a brainfart.
I think ‘reviewing’ has a place in media discourse, even in criticism - but I do think it’s a shame how that sort of ‘reviewing’ seems to have subsumed this type of criticism in the popular consciousness, especially on RUclips. That being said, I think RUclips’s seen some really gifted creators turn out real, layered, beautiful criticism in a way that wouldn’t have been popular for most people even 15 years ago.
@@PillarofGarbage Yeh, I'm just really bummed-out knowing that all these trashy, reactionary half-baked review-bro anti-SJW types get way more views than anything else made in good faith and hard work.
@@PillarofGarbage I think Folding Ideas' work on Fifty Shades of Grey is a perfect example of this kind of actually INTERESTING media analysis that wouldn't've been possible on youtube(or anywhere, for that matter)a decade ago.
It's been going on for years since media criticism on YT became all about "recap movie, make a few jokes, scream very loudly". At some point these "critics" were just looking for holes to pick apart which in many cases weren't actually holes but just rules of the medium. Or the very surface CinemaSins way of "make my script while watching a movie and anything that isn't immediately explained is a plot hole, but when it does get explained it's thinking your audience is dumb." In short, pushing content instead of engaging with the product.
That's what happens when you put your ideals above objective facts. Yeah, Rian Johnson might have different views than yours but atleast you don't discredit him when he made something good. I'm a conservative too and I also dislike modern politics... but even then I treat everyone's arts fairly and respectfully. When my "enemy" created a good art I won't lie about it, because as an amateur writer I am also an artist in my own ways, I appreciate artistic efforts through an artistic lens, not a political one disguised with artistic criticism.
@@Cipher_556 oh you sweet, beautiful man, never change. This comment gives me hope for the future of our species. Good luck with your writing and never sell out to the ideologues
@@6187490 Well technically 24 years ago with The Phantom Menace was released and they decided to harras a literal child. Interestingly enough schizophrenia can be triggered by early trauma and Jake Lloyd does not have a a family history of schizophrenia. Instead of blaming the script writer and director they decided to blame a literal child and I don't even think that Meryl Streep could sell some of those lines that child Anakin Skywalker had to say. Is Jake Lloyd a bad actor? Well we will never know because of the Star Wars fan base.
I don't get how people forget that Miles didn't even send the invites. He hired a company to send the boxes. While it doesn't tell us, it can be implied he already planned for this getaway and those were already to be sent out anyways.
Yes. The murder happened only like a day or two prior to the events at the island, hence why Blanc had been able to keep the media from learning of Andi's death and reporting on it... even Blanc said he wouldn't be able to keep it hush-hush for long. The murder was unplanned, improvised, a rash decision. But the fancy weekend must obviously have been planned for a longer time; the puzzle boxes with the invitations must've been commissioned months prior, as they took time to design and build and then they were sent out and couldnt be stopped.
Oh shit, I totally forgot about that. I kind of didn't like the "well, he did it to avoid suspicion" point, just because... he did have a recent falling out with Andi, is it that suspicious to not invite her after that? But I like this explanation quite a lot. At that point too, even if he thought to cancel it, it would definitely be suspicious to just stop Andi's, when her death hasn't been announced yet, because clearly it *wasn't* due to their falling out if he'd had it made after that.
@@TF2CrunchyFrog The murder happened on May 11, and the events at the island happen on May 22, but yes, the point is totally correct, the boxes were delivered on May 13 and they were in the making for god knows how long before that.
Miles refers to having a "puzzle guy" who apprenticed under Ricky Jay, which I thought was a nice touch. I missed the part the first time around where he mentions that his murder mystery was also written by someone else for him. That's one of the great things about it - when he needs to do something smart, he just orders in =)
He questioned their stylish clothing? 😂 For one, they were going to their billionaire friend’s exclusive party. Secondly, it was like a mini vacation… on a private island, no less. Finally, the movie was set in 2020, with the pandemic as the backdrop. I think many people would get all dolled up after being cooped-up at home in PJs; quarantined or cut-off from other people for a while.
CD is so whingy that a little scarf and a few stripes are enough for him to lose his shit. Really? I'd understand if it was a dress made out of, I dunno, bacon, but this?
his form of criticism seems to be the most basic level of "how dare every character not act perfectly rationally at all times with perfect recall and also all of the information that the audience knows even though they don't know that!" Like if this guy was playing D&D he'd complain about not being able to kill the rogue who out of character stated he's an assassin because he doesn't understand the difference between what the audience knows and what the characters know. Characters are in fact allowed to act irrationally and with flaws. It's not a plothole if Miles doesn't immediately sus out exactly what's going on and have an answer to every problem that comes his way. It's doubly not a plot hole when the entire film is literally about him being a moron!
and he doesn't seem to understand that. His level of criticism is like complaining that Drax doesn't understand metaphors and idioms in Guardians of the Galaxy and calling that a plothole because why would anyone not understand that.
Thing is, sometimes this sort of criticism it is founded. I remember some of the recent Star Wars themed series that had blatantly silly parts , such a base that had no security because "nobody would dare to attack it", or Boba Fett wanting to rule a city using like half a dozen men and refusing to fight from their fortress to go for a much more dangerous fight in the city to protect the people from killers that...were after them. Legitimate plot contrivances where I think there's a case for not being able to buy into the premise of the work of fiction and call the writing 'lazy' and all that jazz. And I am not above the MST3K approach of just taking the piss out of something, as long as you know that it's only for fun. To me it is pretty obvious that when this devolves into questioning with moral indignation the wardrobe choices and plot points in a super-tropey meta-wuddunit , something is wrong.
I enjoy his content but literally every video he does now is "SJW bad" guy doesn't seem to enjoy anything except the sound of his own boozed up voice these days
Agreed. The thing is, we as the audiences are accustomed that the eye of the camera shows us the truth, unless it's a Found Footage genre or the movie clearly features an Unreliable Narrator by either literally having the story told by a (biased) 1st person narrator character or (like in the first couple Harry Potter movies) only ever showing events from the narrow point of view of a single character who isn't always present at events and lacks certain informations. Here, we were at first led to believe the camera shows us the audience true & unfiltered events, because the movie starts out by showing us multiple characters during the teaser and only later switches to following Benoir Blanc around for a while, until it switches to Helen and Blanc. But the first _Knives Out_ movie had also misdirected the audience by initially not giving the audience the complete picture, instead showing events from the point of view of certain characters and presenting their (false) conclusions! So why was anyone surprised when _Glass Onion_ did the same thing? Other "murder mysteries" tales have misdirected the viewers or readers before, it's not a new thing. The only detective show that is famous for showing the audience right at the start who the killer is, during the teaser, is _Detective Columbo._ The Columbo series is not about the audience figuring out who the murderer is, but the thrill of watching Columbo figure it out and leading the murderer into a psychological trap to give themselves away.
Ive seen a few people say "If he killed her, why doesnt he respond stronger"... but like... he doesnt REALLY know that she is dead. He drugged her with sleeping pills and left her in her running car. Its reasonable that he thinks she may have survived it. and is now trying to figure out why shes here. if shes trying to get revenge. etc.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Not everything has be explicitly said. You're given a set of scenes and context and a logical person could've concluded that Miles thought his murder attempt failed.
You think it is head canon that of all the possible methods of the murder, they picked one where he would not actually see her die? And it is explicitly mentioned that he did not.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway the film explicitly states that the killer chose that method so they wouldn't have to watch her die when blanc and helen are discussing means and motive
@@WhatsTheTakeaway have you never heard of the saying "if you don't see a character die on screen they're not really dead"? i think that might help you contextualise the scene better instead of writing it off as a head canon :)
8:15 The idea that Miles invited Andi to purposely throw the authorities off his scent makes some sense, but I believe it's even simpler than that. He invited her for the same reason he invited all the Disruptors. He wanted to show them that Klear "worked" and particularly wanted to rub it in Andi's face since she'd opposed it the most. After killing her, he didn't expect her to show up, but also didn't cancel the delivery of her puzzle box because that would've looked suspicious.
I'm pretty sure the box being sent to Andi was explained by Miles when he said he commissioned the boxes months in advance. The box was well on its way to Andi way before the murder took place
@@kredonystus7768 He clearly made 5 boxes that took months to complete. He had always planned to invite Andi. My point is that he didn't deliver the box as some plan to cover his tracks but he always intended to invite Andi. Even the other characters aren't surprised that Miles would invite her, they're surprised she showed up.
@@aboi5 No, it was established as a last minute thing. When asked if he had any prototypes or duplicates that could have been sent to Blanc, “My puzzle guy was barely able get the 5 ready in time.” As in the barely 2 weeks between the time he killed Andy and when the Murder mystery getaway would take place. Sending a box to Andy’s home was just a smokescreen to make it look like he thought she was still alive and look like the bigger person (make it all the more easy to make a public statement being dismayed by her supposed suicide “I’m devastated! I didn’t know she was hurting that much, why I had just invited to a private getaway with old friends and hopefully mend fences, but I guess it was just too little too late” *crocodile tear* ). He didn’t even have enough time to have it properly be a getaway of just them, considering he had a friend outside of their disrupter gang just crashing in a spare room (something you’d think even he would have prepped for if he had planned it out) Because at the end of the day, he is not someone who is able to plan ahead. He only got as far as he did because he acted first and fast.
@@Thommy2n I could have sworn there was a scene where he mentioned the boxes took months to make but I recently skimmed over the movie and could not find it for the life of me. I guess I made it up or something.
18:40 Pretty sure that when Claire and Lionel are at the pool discussing Klear they mention how Klear produces a lot of hydrogen ala the Hindenburg disaster. Because of the bouyancy of diatomic hydrogen, heat of combustion is released upwards rather than filling a space. That's why the glass onion explodes but not the people inside. I guess you could argue that falling glass would have severely wounded some of the guests but if we're going in that direction might as well criticize every action movie to be released in the last forty odd years.
Also, the fire extractor on thr chimney is what explotes. The extractor went up, right to the Onion. Why? IDK, but you can justify everything with the "Miles Bron is an idiot" and it works
Status Quo Warriors like screeching Scrooge McDuck are where context and media criticism goes to die. These people have made online reviewers a laughing stock more unintentionally funny than informative, and I hate that.
I used to like Critical Drinker - back when I thought he was doing a satirical parody, and the whole "ignorant drunk" bit was part of the act. I can't even describe what it felt like, the moment it dawned on me, that he was being serious.
*Helen shows up on the island* *Miles immediately stabs her then explains he already murdered Andi so he knows it isn't actually her* Yeah he has a point that would've been a much better and more realistic direction for the movie to go
Yeah, the murderer going "Hey, didn't I drug you and leave you to die just recently to make it look like a suicide?" in front of witnesses including a world famous detective would have been much smarter of Miles! /sarcasm
Critical Drinker always reminded me of my 11 year old step brother that, in the middle of the movie, will ask questions about what is going on *while the movie is currently answering that exact question.* He can’t get out of his own head enough to actually focus on and analyze what’s happening onscreen. Then, he bitches as if it’s somehow the movie’s fault that he has the patience and media literacy of an actual child.
This is sort of a random note, but it reminds me of showing a good friend of mine the 1999 film Ravenous - and he's a big fan of Westerns, horror, and the idea of cannibalism in the Wild West - but he hated Ravenous because he kept complaining how "it doesn't make any fucking sense that Wendigos would exist in the Old West, wouldn't somebody else have figured it out by now and documented it?" It blew my mind how he couldn't get out of his own head and enjoy a film with all the right elements that's so creative, well made, and funny, just because he couldn't suspend his disbelif about the historical setting. As if the historical setting somehow invalidates the mythic aspect of the film, or vise versa. To his credit he ended up rewatching it and liking it more and admitting his initial take was wrong, but I was beyond shocked when he complained watching it the first time.
@@arloc357 Oh you’re completely right lmao, don’t get me wrong I have nothing against an 11 year old for acting like an 11 year old. My stepbrother has media literacy proportionate to his age. CD does not.
With the gun and the notepad stopping it, the whole thing makes a lot more sense when you realise he's shooting through a window. That'll slow the bullet and change it's course, leading to less penetrative power. Add into that the fact he's firing one handed, probably because he thought that's how you do it, and at a target that's nearly side-on when he actually fires, it's more amazing that he even hit her at all.
Even with all that said...it's a pretty dang popular trope in movies...and it was somehow used effectively enough to avoid feeling like a cliche. You're watching a movie where you're allowed to suspend disbelief.
It is, in fact, stormglass - hardened glass that isn't considered bullet resistant, but is made to withstand heavy weather. That's why the camera zooms in on the characteristic spider-web pattern formed by the bullet-hole. And yeah, stormglass might not be "bullet-resistant", but it will absolutely weaken a 9mm bullet.
I don't know anithing about guns, but a waterproof gun has to have less penetration power than a good one. For me it felt like Duke's gun was more of an accessory rather than a weapon.
I did a presentation on this guy in a communications class in college for my topic on plausible deniability. When I was finished, my teacher wanted me to clarify if this was indeed a real person. Also, as someone who watched some of his reviews, yes. He deliberately leaves stuff out. Why? Your guess is a good a mine.
The moment Duke started choking, all I was thinking was "Did someone put pineapple in his drink?" And it was proven right when Blanc didn't find anything obstructing his airway. But when Miles saw that it was his glass on the floor and suspected that it was poison, I thought "Oh it must've been poison I guess I was wrong". I gave Miles too much credit because that's what everyone else around him did all the time. I didn't notice the handoff myself, which is what led to my assumptions. Now does this mean I missed some details and therefore didn't see the full picture, or that the movie is bad?
Miles managed to full on gaslight me and I loved it. I'd noticed the glass hand over, didn't think much beyond "weird way to take a drink". After the talk of glass switches I remembered the scene, but then Miles swiftly explained Duke must've picked up the wrong glass, and the scene that played during his explanation backed up what he was saying. It made me doubt my memory and despite being sure I'd not quite remembered it like that, I still went along with what he said. Literally played into the point of the movie, I loved it. TCD can complain the scenes are 'lying' all he wants, but unreliable narrators are a really fun way to play with your audience imo, and this movie didn't only show the 'wrong' scene, it showed the audience both and relied on them seeing it and remembering the true one. If a movie like this only ever showed 'wrong' scenes without giving the audience any chance to see the truth, I'd agree it'd be a piss poor way to make a film, but both Knives Out and Glass Onion give everything you need to see, nestled between unreliable narrators. And imo it's always oibvious which scenes are from unreliable narrators due to always having them voice over it.
@@Spamhard The propose of an unreliable narrator is defeated if there is only one scene in the whole movie that lies. I do not think you can say voiceover is an indication of unreliability, then that means the whole recap of Andi was unreliable too.
It means the movie intentionally and successfully deviate your attention from what Miles was doing. Miles himself points out to Birdie’s dress as a way to make Duke and everyone else look away as he hands his victim the glass.
So many of his points were LITERALLY ADDRESSED BY THE MOVIE, its like cinema sins, actively complaining *instead of listening to whats going on onscreen*
With one critical difference: Cinema Sins never claims to be movie critics, only assholes. It was in their welcome to the channel video and everything.
@@danicakelly2242 Most of the takes on Cinema Sins coincide with the creators' actual opinions about the movies they're sinning. The satire defense is just them giving plausible deniability whenever they get facts wrong or willfully misinterpret events to manufacture sins.
@danicakelly2242 They can make that claim but there's enough actual criticism in their videos and their body of sork for me to not really believe then when they say that.
FYI - Klear is made of hydrogen, which is lighter than air. That is why the flame is immediately sucked up. As such, any explosion of hydrogen would start at the top of the structure and then go UP and OUT, leaving those standing below it relatively unscathed.
Critical Drinker sometimes has some very legitimate criticisms of the movie and tv industries but he leans so insufferably hard into his "anti-woke", culture war BS that he twists himself in knots and completely misses the point of some media in order to keep on pandering to the audience he has cultivated
It’s so painful to see he does have legitimately good takes (loves his Ragnarok vs Love and Thunder scene video) but it’s so drowned out with garbage like this
Methinks CD always lets his political biases get in the way of doing a proper review. I prefer apolitical reviews because clowns like him tend to overcriticize as he needs to spin "woke Hollywood" to be utterly incompetent. He's just slightly above his ilk who barely even watch the things they bash because he seems to actually try to watch the whole thing, but he wants so bad to hate it because, you know, Rian Johnson is an anti-woke punching bag.
Really? This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. By your logic during the hydrogen bomb test the fake cities around the explosion shouldn’t have been destroyed
@@gajacome1 I don't think you know what a hydrogen bomb is. They do not work by igniting hydrogen gas, causing an implosion & would not be very effective if they did.
No it doesn't. The concussive-force of the explosion alone would be enough to kill everyone in the building. Most gas (especially Hydrogen) when ignited rapidly expand which it is why it is so dangerous. Trying too hard to disprove his take here.
@@D2Kprime revisit the Hindenburg explosion (literally mentioned in the film) - the gas explosion is not what killed people; while they were flung up to 15 feet, the deaths were all either due to jumping out and dying in the fall or being burned up. Since the Glass Onion house is much less flammable than the Hindenburg, it's not unbelievable that the shitheads, Helen, and Bronn would have had time to escape before the fire grew hot enough or large enough to kill them on the ground floor.
I’m absolutely dumbfounded that The Critical Drinker cited Andi having a twin sister as an example of the movie’s supposed conveniences and contrivances. That’s the equivalent of saying “Boy, isn’t it convenient that Luke’s father happened to be a Jedi Master?” Seriously, what is even the complaint? Does he think twins don’t exist?
"I know what the answer to all these questions is gonna be, because the film straight up spells it out to us. ('It's just dumb!') Everything in this script that doesn't make sense is because the people involved were just really stupid." Congratulations, Critical Drinker, you *almost* understood the point of the movie! The murder plot, like the fancy energy infrastructure, like the house, like a glass onion, is needlessly complicated but also completely transparent, because it was designed by an idiot who thinks he's clever! The premise is literally spelled out in the title, and then explained in the movie in case anyone didn't understandthe deliberately ham-fisted metaphor!
18 of the top 25 imdb user reviews are a 6/10 or lower...face it, the movie sucked. I suppose this PoG guy is going to make a video detailing how those 18 individuals got it all wrong and used bots to upvote their user reviews? LoL
the best thing about this is how normies are forced to care about all the things they never cared about before like integrity, truth, facts, etc. if only they weren't massive hypocrites, then maybe i could take them seriously. but since they're just as bad as they accuse everyone else, i'll keep laughing at all the heads exploding from that review
I think that a lot of Drinker's problems with this movie can stem from one understanding of his perspective: Even when EXPLICITLY TOLD BY EVERY CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE that he's an idiot, Drinker still believes that Miles is supposed to be smart, and that Blanc/Helen/everyone else is just wrong about him. We could probably dig into why, but it's kind of irrelevant. All these criticisms are just him clinging to the idea that Miles should be smart enough to figure all these things out, but the *entire point of the movie* is that he isn't.
That seems to be the problem with a lot of right-wing weirdos and this film. In their worldview, people like Miles (and Elon) are super geniuses worthy of praise, because they're rich and they also agree with at least some of the right's ideas. They can't fathom the idea of a rich person not being worthy of their riches. The entire point of their worldview is hierarchy - the "natural order" of capitalism basically. I often think of it as a kind of theology of prosperity, or maybe just a cargo cult thing. They see "success"; defined as having lots of money, and they think some action or innate ability of the successful prson led to that success. They want to believe success is something you get if you deserve it. That the world is just, and controllable. hat it's all not just an unfair shit show. So this move really spits in their eye and it will probably be a long time until they're able to let it go.
"What if one of the group had asked Helen a personal question that she should've known the answer to but didn't" This also quite literally happens and the characters say to each other that something's off about Andi and that she's changed. It's kind of an important scene too, the one that reveals that all 4 of the disrupters were at her house the day of her murder. Not to mention she only keeps the act up for a single day, and most of it is spent purposefully not talking to the group so she doesn't blow her cover. I've never heard of this Critical Drinker guy before but it's kind of embarrassing how much he flat out did not pay attention to this movie he's criticizing.
Yup! She specifically made herself hard to approach so no one would approach her n start up a sweet trip down memory lane. It’s like this guy needs movie story-tellin to b spoon-fed to him or something. “Mommy~ y do these ppl all dress so flashy n not like me & my friends? 🥺” “Cuz we’re middle class and they’re not, baby~”
Cinema Sins is literally satire of people like critical, too many people think they’re serious. They often say they’re a parody of the overly nitpicky nerd from the Simpsons. Listen to their podcast where they talk normally about movies and have a genuine passion for film.
Also, on the "fake scenes to mislead the audience" (the main problem I had with the movie at first), it is reasonable within this universe, considering the flashback scenes from Knives Out, where each time someone talks about their relation to Harlan, it's them that are next to him when the cake is brought to the party, as in everytime there's a flashback, we'll see it according to the story the person is telling, whether it's true or not (also, even if you consider that this movie should stand alone on it's own, in the pineapple glass scene, we see how it really happened the first time right away, so it was up to you paying attention)
also only the flashbacks are different, if you rewatch the movie looking out for specific details, you'll see that Miles hands Duke the glass, and after Duke dies Miles has Duke's phone in his pocket
The reason half the clips are washed out is almost certainly because he accidentally pirated an HDR version of the movie for the clips, realized halfway through making the video that displaying HDR content in an SDR medium makes it washed out as hell because the variable brightness and wider color gamut correct for that, and was too lazy to fix the parts he had already edited
@@friendlyneighborhoodvampir9081 but that cohesion is formed by the result of coincidences. Coincidences happen that push the plot into a direction that then continues due to cause and effect.
@@alexgeerts6404 Why did Loki take the tesseract? Why did the DEA guy show up the exact moment Mathilda decided to go buy milk for Leon? Why were tickets to the titanic in the pot of the poker game that Jack won? Every fucking movie in existence starts on some form of coincidence because that is how life works. All nature is is a set of coincidences that result in the current state of reality.
Actually, this doesn't just happen in movies, but in real life as well. I just went to the kitchen to see if there still was a toffee penny left in my box of quality street. There was! If there wasn't one, I wouldn't be enjoying a toffee penny right now. What an incredible coincidence!
The Drinker is an interesting character to me. He’s someone who genuinely knows how to parse out why he likes the films he does. When he exults a film, he does so eloquently and thoughtfully and I even discovered some of my favorite films as a result of him. On the other hand, he is so thoroughly closed minded that he can’t differentiate a movie that he doesn’t like for some personal hang up versus a genuinely bad movie, and in his brain they are the exact same things. It’s almost like the Nostalgia Critic where the man can make excellent video essays but truly falls apart when it comes time to critique a film or (god forbid) make one
@@ak96ful1 oh see in my mind, the Nostalgia Critic sublimated into a ball of plasma and dissociated after his review of The Wall. I’m actually afraid if the Logan review is worse than that monstrosity
I watched several analysis/review videos about this movie, so the almighty algorithm suggested his right after I'd watched yours. I literally turned it off 45 seconds in, because he so clearly had no idea WTF he was talking about. So so happy that you actually made it through the whole thing and tore it apart so succinctly and intelligently.
One of the funniest things for me is that even if the Critical Drinker was right about the big lie, Rian Johnson has been tinkering with how scenes are remembered in both The Last Jedi and Knives Out 1. This isn’t new, and at the end of the day, it’s just another nitpick of saying a writer can’t do X thing effectively when 1) you can and 2) it can be done effectively.
I do think that when they show the scene where Duke picks up the glass, it feels like dishonest film making. I have rarely seen a flashback completely lie like that. It almost ruined the film for me, because it was the most important detail in the film. At the end, Blanc says we fell for Miles lie, but that’s not true. I fell for the *filmmakers* lie. I don’t think that’s a good idea for a murder mystery film.
Brick, Looper, The Last Jedi, Knives Out, and now Glass Onion have ALL played with character perspective. Rian Johnson is fascinated by the camera versus characater perspectives in the same way Nolan is fascinated by the concept of time.
@@calvinjohnson6242 In the original scene, Miles hands Duke the glass. I remember because I thought it was strange that Miles made a drink then gave it to Duke The film didn't lie. MILES lied, saying Duke must have picked up his glass by mistake. Miles, in that scene, is trying to deflect from his own guilt. The fake flashback where Duke picks up Miles' glass from the table is what Miles WANTS everyone to think. That the glass was poisoned, and the poison was meant for him. But what ACTUALLY happened is that Miles poisoned Duke. The film shows us the objective truth first, then it shows us a lie made up by the murderer, then Benoit Blanc literally says "what did we actually see?" and it shows us what the film originally showed us.
@@calvinjohnson6242 the original scene shows miles giving duke the glass. then the alternate scene of duke grabbing miles glass plays when blanc points out miles lied. it seems to me you misremembers the original scene since miles lied, just like the characters.
That clip legitimately pissed me off with Jennifer.... I remember seeing him play it and immediately thinking "wow he's just lying at this point" there is nothing worse than someone who takes people out of context just to support a narrative.
@caitlyncarvalho7637 entirely possible, but I don't think so, especially considering he doesn't actually watch movies he likes nor does he discuss them, but rather tries to find films he dislikes and tries to say there crap either, because of sexism (he's the sexist) or because he's biased and dislikes the writer and or director.
@@jonathandantonio649 oh you mean when he talks about films like Terminator or Alien.... Films that everyone loves, and almost worship, and all he does is mention all the things everyone else has mentioned.... When does she talk about new films that have come out or films not to many people know or foreign films?
@@bruce3242 Recently: The Super Mario Bros. Movie - A Game Changer Dungeons & Dragons Subverted My Expectations John Wick Chapter 4 - A (Mostly) Excellent Finale The Drinker Recommends... The Whale Puss In Boots: The Last Wish Destroys Modern Hollywood Before your post: Andor - The Best Show At The Worst Time The Drinker Recommends... All Quiet On The Western Front House Of The Dragon - It's Excellent Black Adam - It's An OK Movie A selection of reviews of recent films the he likes. Did you even look at his videos before posting? (that's rhetorical, I know the answer)
@@realentrepreneurshipwithdylan You mean the ones where the white male leads are invincible and are never challenged properly by women and there's no chance of them failing? Wow, wonder why he liked that.
@jackpackage4278 there's a difference between letting a black guy play a black guy and call out actual politics. Drinker doesn't do that. He pushes HIS OWN POLITICS onto non political movies too
oh yes, movies, a form of art, should not be political whatsoever, how could there possibly be any politic in art unless it’s forced in there? preposterous
"I watched this movie with my brain off, exclusively looking for things to hate," is an odd perspective for a movie reviewer to take. This person's life must be pretty grim, if this is what he chooses to do with his time.
Or possibly "I watched this movie while listening to a podcast and playing WoW in another window because I already wrote most of the script after watching a few other 'reviews' and reading the wiki page".
I mean, he does obviously make a good living from it and the writing career and he built a fairly successful recognizable gimmick. Which means that he needs to 'sell' a certain product, unfortunately.
In all honesty I think the drinker, especially as of recent has become so cynical that he’s just given up, and lumped all modern Hollywood movies into the same bin because he expects the same mindless trash as the norm so he doesn’t bother to think much of it anymore. (Hollywood always had a lot of trash and always will)
Critical reminds me of a guy that would say "Your feelings are irrelevant" while critiquing things with biases because he hates "wokeness" Dude must be a blast at the parties he's not invited to
100% I saw his video and thought it was one of the worst reviews I’ve ever seen on RUclips and was waiting for someone to talk about how wrong he is on so many things
Right wing commentators: "Movies today always explain everything, they don't leave anything to the viewer because they assume the audience is stupid!" Also right wing commentators: "Glass Onion is badly written because it didn't explain things well enough!"
@@ethanstyant9704yeah I was never once confused at any moment. I was intrugued, (I had 2 different culprits in mind that changed during the movie) which is absolutely not the same thing.
He didn’t miss the point, he chose to misrepresent it. This wasn’t some good-faith misunderstanding, he’s a troll who specifically aims for controversy and divisiveness.
@@elvingearmasterirma7241 Eh, Cinemasins at least does not pretend that the points are based on fact and logic and whatnot or gets on a soapbox about the state of the industry and society and whatnot. it's fine to take the piss out of things that happen on screen, but to do that and think you actually made a relevant statement is rather silly.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but the reason that Drinker's footage looks weird is because when he and RUclipsrs like him are talking about a movie that they don't like, they will INTENTIONALLY lower the saturation and screw with it's visual appearance to make it look fundamentally bad to back up their narrative that "X movie is bad"
That he sent her a box made it obvious Miles did it. He was trying to create an alibi with an event where he was making sure everyone who could have been a loose end was onboard. Mikes had no reason to send a box except to say Oh no, I was trying to make amends, I even invited her to my island which I definitely had no opportunity to engage with her otherwise. Phone, I don't even use a phone or email.
People can argue about the logic of the movie, but in my opinion it's just poorly paced. The flashback midway through Glass Onion halts all of the story's momentum and then recontextualizes everything in the most convoluted way possible before revealing that Andi's sister is still somehow alive. It's not just Miles that is dumb, it's the whole damn plot, but people will still say "ThAtS tHe WhOLe pOiNt".
@@jeremyterkelsen2518how is it dumb? Nothing was poorly written and nothing was hidden from the audience on a malicious way. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s dumb, name calling is a great way of making sure your criticism isn’t taken seriously at all
The reason why I used that word is because that's how Daniel Craig's character described the main antagonist halfway through the movie. The film's justification for its dumb plot is that the antagonist is dumb, what's lazier than that?
@@jeremyterkelsen2518 once again not giving any arguments and just calling it dumb, do you care to enlighten me and finally tell me what’s so dumb about it? Or are you just gonna keep winning about a movie u don’t like
The "I guess detectives are celebrities" point is so stupid. Anyone who ends up being a prominent figure in a high profile media even is going to get recognized. That's like saying "I guess mateur lawyers are celebrities now" about Robert Kardashian a few years after the OJ trial
Remember everyone, realism is a writing style. It’s not a point against a story if it makes the choice to implement a different style throughout its run time. 👍
It's refreshing to see someone call Critical drinker [a channel I despise] out for his nonsense. I can't stand moaning about 'woke' anyway [given that term has lost any meaning it might have had at this stage] but like cinemasins it's especially bad when they are outright lying about what's going on. 25:12 onwards is spot on.
I had a problem with the gun. Once Helen was shot, nobody seemed concerned that a) there was still a loaded gun somewhere in the island, and once the group was starting to realize it was Miles, nobody seemed as frightened as you would be that a double-almost-triple murderer was in their midst…who might be armed!
That's a good point. It could be though, that the gun was actually out of ammo after Miles shot Helen. If I recall, I believe that the gun was shot 6 times throughout the movie's runtime. I'm not an expert on handguns at all, and the magazine in that handgun could probably hold more than 6 bullets, but that was my thought when I questioned why no one panicked about the gun being missing towards the end.
Because Miles had no motive to kill them, he had them all under his Golden Tit. And when the money ran out, what's he gonna do? Commit a murder spree against everyone? He either had to kill all of them or keep them quiet or lose. And he lost
I had the same concern too, that Miles would pull the gone out again until I realized this dude would have never thought of it because he's just that dumb and nobody mentioned using it again until after he left it behind
Not catching Miles handing Duke the glass is one thing because it's played incredibly smoothly and a distraction is immediately presented with Birdie spinning in her dress... But attention was specifically given to Blanc pocketing the hot sauce after eating some and Miles saying he could have the bottle. CD's complaints read like he didn't even watch the movie...
Something happened with TCD when he shifted from someone who just talked about bad scene construction and writing to complete grifter. It must have been something to do with who he realized was watching his videos and how much hyperbolic anger seems to pay off. His videos are essentially a template at this point and have been for years and that's all they need to be. He's just another person conflating film analysis with films he just didn't like. And that's whatever. But when he actively lied about scenes by omitting pieces of the film like, what does he hope to achieve? At that point it's clear he's not watching the film and the fans of him aren't watching the film, they're just angry people who don't like things and don't know what media analysis is. It's so clearly a grift it's almost like a satire of a grift
Reminds me off Cinema sins. I guess if your idea of critiquing an movie is finding things to nitpick that can be a fun gimmick and some movies deserve to be nitpicked. But ultimately you will most likely turn bitter like that and start pumping out bad content like TCD or CS
@@geeman.8081 Its also ironic that some one so savage in critiquing the writing of others is so poor at writing himself...although tbh Lindsay Ellis who i love is also a bad writer
I remember watching some of his older stuff and thinking he made some good points about scene construction and narrative structure. but the disdain for performative diversity (a legitimate criticism of "oh look at how diverse our cast is, if you don't like it you're racist/sexist/etc/" ), became a brand of anti-woke garbage. but in this specific case, i think he just can't forgive Ryan Johnson for TLJ, and he's just being petty.
For that out of context interview, you can even tell from her tone its a sort of "this isn't what I think this is what I was told/how society unfortunately is kind of thing."
"It is a dangerous thing to mistake speaking without thought for speaking the truth" - Benny Blanc Edit: I am talking about drinker's video, not this one. This one's brilliant!
I gotta be honest, I thought the Duke snooping scene happened as Drinker thought it did. But it's not a huge issue if that's the case. Scenes like that happen in other movies. It even happened in Knives Out (setting down the birthday cake scene). But it's not a "flaw" because at this point, we know what Helen is doing. If she was there before the reveal, it would've been more confusing
MAD props to you for this. He isn’t worth the effort 9 times out of 10, but every now and then…you gotta call out the bs and set the record straight, especially with such an obnoxious hit piece like the one he published. Give him a taste of his own medicine. Keep crushing it dude 🤙🏻
I swear so much modern “critique” is just “Well if the story didn’t happen the story couldn’t have happened so it’s bad writing” or “If all the characters were omniscient geniuses they would have done X so it’s bad writing that they didn’t.” Like the sheer fact that it’s *fictional* is bad writing to them. It’s baffling
I think what probably pisses CD off the most is that he and the Fandom Menace crowd HAVEN’T “defeated” Rian Johnson. Like this is his fourth project with a big A-list cast, people seem to like working with him, and critically his work has done well. And all their post-TLJ insults have done, in the long term, jack shit. Also, wait until CD learns Dave Filoni owes Johnson for teaching him about live-action filmmaking. That will really cause him to blow a fuse.
They’ve been angry at Rian for years and it continues to bother them that he’s successful. It’s honestly quite fun to watch them huff and puff angrily all the time. So much paper tiger behavior.
Agreed. That he created a brand new franchise and has been very successful means that he won't give a crap at these hater comments. The fact there still milking Last Jedi outrage when that film is nearly 7 years old now is quite pathetic-move on!
@@jamesatkinsonja A bit of internet hate is basically getting away scot-free with what this Rian did with star wars. Not saying I want the guy to fail or anything but I don't think anyone involved with those star wars movies should be allows to forget.
The Critical Drinker is using a fallacy that we call "millefeuille argumentatif" in french. It's just a pile of fallacious arguments individually weak but going through all the bullsh*t is an exhausting process. Plus it, suffice than one argument carries more pertinance than others for the millefeuille to be annoying to dismantle. Good job on your part, it takes some determination to do so
@@MachineMan-mj4gj Trump was an idiot, but the criticism doesn't apply to him so much. It does however fit Bench Appearo exactly, a favourite of illogical people who think they're smart.
WHY do people who cant suspend their disbelief watch films that require it, so many of these bad reviews start with essentially 'I didnt understand the concept of the film', its a murder mystery but modern, its inspired by sherlock holmes and agatha christie, just enjoy yourself in that space and stop questioning why everything is happening in a way it wouldnt in a realistic world setting.
It’s always refreshing to find channels that actually call out reactionary garbage, I feel like a lot of channels tiptoe around it and while I understand it from a business perspective, I think it’s just great to see honest content and informative videos
I watched his “Questions about Black Panther 2” video and he literally asked about how the fish people went to the bathroom and passed it off as actual criticism.
Does he think whales and fishes leave the water to use a toilet? Heck, the underwater city probably has rooms where the excrements are snapped up and eaten by actual fishes. Or they poo into a tube and flush it to the fishies kept in another enclosure, just as we build sewage pipes and sewage treastment purification plants. Nature is full of examples of biological "recycling".
His awful Glass Onion take is making me wonder how many of his older videos (e.g. the Ghostbusters 2016 scene comparison) were simply analyses he'd read off the Internet and wrote into an incisive video essay. His Glass Onion video is embarrassing and seems to show that he's not actually as media literate as he presents himself to be.
Someone should make a movie starring exclusively cis-het white men who, painstakingly, explain every detail of the plot since that's what the drinker clearly wants.
I’m an aspiring author, wannabe writer, prospective poet (ignore that last one) and after one (1) poor experience, for a long time, I absolutely balked at the idea of asking *anyone* to critique my writing. It was only upon going to university (to do a literal course on creative writing and publishing) that I realised that my “poor experience” hadn’t been a critique this whole time! They’d misunderstood the plot, characters, intentions-arguably, everything about my work; then they told me it was bad. Since the world doesn’t particularly incentivise jobs in the creative industry, I’m more likely to go into the publishing industry, ideally as a copyeditor. In other words, I’d be the guy who helps an author take their manuscript and turn it into a publishable work. Which will involve critique and honest discussion and a lot of red pen marks. But the *key* to any critique isn’t just to criticise! Being critical just means looking at something objectively, or analysing every positive or negative until you’ve collected all the evidence of either side to decide net good and net bad. A lot of people come to me for help, and they’re always more receptive to improving if you acknowledge and emphasise their successes interchangeably with the weaknesses. Hell, you can even focus on the critical aspects and still do a good job. But to pretend that there is no good in any single piece of creativity is simply denying nuance for the sake of… ego? Making a distinctive point? Riling up the masses? I despise The Last Airbender movie. I find it boring, poorly written, poorly cast. It so blatantly missed some of the most important points of the animated series. There are still technical parts that are objectively good. There are visuals that are enjoyable to look at. Aang’s tattoos were a brilliant adaptation of what they could have realistically looked like. Am I scraping the bottom of the barrel? Maybe. But at least I have the presence of mind to not go on the internet and make up lies about M. Night Shyamalan’s intentions just so people will agree with my point. Mr C. Drinker described a made-up film that was similar enough to Glass Onion to seem as such to a passing viewer, dunked on the Plastic Turnip he created, and claimed that this was irrevocable truth about Glass Onion. He made a vegetable out of straw, set fire to it, and hoped people wouldn’t realise the real one was one field over.
@@susanrobertson984 I’m still in uni, so I’ve got a little time to find my footing. I don’t plan on giving up writing anytime soon. My passion for it hasn’t gone away despite mental health issues, the Education System’s crushing bullfuckery, familial pressure, a pretty crappy first year (thanks to The Virus)-I don’t think writing can be rid of me at this point. I’m lucky enough to *also* have a borderline-abrasive passion for editing, from almost the same age I started writing. I just hope one day people won’t be told they should focus on “careers” instead of “the arts” like it’s some kind of dirty word.
I remember watching his video and thinking. "Did this guy actually watch the movie" And even if it was bad, I'm sick of people saying "movie bad, there for u shouldn't enjoy watching it" as long as it doesn't harm people let people enjoy what they enjoy
If I didn’t have the context from your videos I would’ve assume the drinkers channel was a parody account where the whole bit is that he’s too inebriated to pay attention to the movie he’s reviewing.
He thought that Midsommer was an anti male movie, completely missing the point of the movie, that it was about how a vulnerable lady torn apart by grief was manipulated by a harmful cult.
Lmao. It IS anti-male. Most stuff today is. Anyway, there is a reason girls text "🔥🐻" if they don't like a guy. Go ahead. Ask one you know. She will confirm what I'm saying.
The movie was dogshit nonetheless anyway. Midsommar sucked as a movie and honestly I would rather watch stranger things it has far more competent story telling in mind.
thank you for watching that video. I saw he made a review, listened for 10 seconds and had to stop. I can't stand that guy. Even if he wasn't a shitty guy his media criticism is just so so so bad.
I got a bit further in, but after all the anti-woke whinging befitting an utter snowflake, it only took a couple of comments before it was obvious he'd never actually WATCHED the movie, even if it did play on his tv.
@@hoyofan533 The problem with him is he does have a good theory on why modern movies suck, and I agree with some parts of his theory, but he puts the blame at "woke" people and not acknowledging that movie companies use social movements to score "points" with certain demographics without actually caring about said social movement. It's like when all the rainbow flags appear on companies logos during gay pride month in western countries, but in Egypt for instance, the logo doesn't change. Or how Coca cola was pushing rainbow flags but during the Qatar World Cup there were no rainbows. They give the presentation they care without actually doing the work because all they care about is money. Another example: disney shoehorns a gay kiss into star wars so they can say "we have a same sex kiss, look at us we're so progressive" but then edit the scene to remove the kiss in Middle Eastern countries or in China. It's just shit representation and progressives are just as mad as conservatives with their inclusion albeit for different reasons. Sorry for the essay.
@@AndaraBledin yeah this is what shocks me about him. For someone whose career it is to watch films, he doesn't actually seem to watch them. Like actively watch them. I sometimes feel he just enters into a film thinking he knows what it's about and then hating it based on the movie he made up in his head. Then in the "review" carefully crafts his complaints so as to make the viewer believe that they saw his version of the movie and not the real movie. He basically gaslights his audience. It's wild.
@@MistaZULE Hah! It's like he's Miles, telling everybody he put the glass on the table, while everybody who was paying attention know he clearly handed it to Duke all along.
actually yeah...me and my friends saw the glass pass and eventually figured it out and it was the same as benoit "he cant be that stupid right? it was an accident right?"
And the thing is, Duke's pineapple allergy is very loudly pointed out in the probably first 15 minutes of the movie so it's perfectly rational to think that a fully stocked bar could have pineapples or pineapple juice etc etc
No offense to the fans, but I think that drinker guy is just mean. I've seen his LOTR RING POWER and WILLOW videos, and the meanness and rudeness is rampant. I personally don't watch videos to hear belittling and berating. Also, go strong female protags!
Actually he has made a positive review of a game with a strong female character recently called horizon forbidden west I haven’t played it yet as I’m still on Elden ring rn but from what I saw seems Like a game sequel (I also played the original)
They are bad, but his jokes and his obsessing with anti-woke is too distasteful for me. With slight film knowledge there are plenty things to talk about cinematography, editing, and symbolism but its clear that he’s aiming for a certain group of young crowd.
The man gives off vibes of a bitter ex who gets invited to the wedding out of obligation, gets full-on drunk, and gives a public meltdown of a speech where they think if they force enough bursts of passive aggressive laughter, they'll convince everyone (and themselves) that they're not still mad. The "Dede Pritchett" effect, if you will
I didn't think that line was all that clever. People have been spouting nonsense since language was invented. It's acting without thought that is dangerous.
14:33. The movie also literally addresses this. When Helen is confronted about how they all went to Andi's house and Helen doesn't know that they went there
What? How does that address the claim that Helens cover could've been blown so easily at so many times... or is the answer again that the characters are just dumb
@@BWGmedia No. They confront her with knowledge only Andi would have if she were alive. They went to Andi's house looking for her after she threatened them with the letter and Helen didn't know because she's not Andi. This also deepens the mystery because, with retrospect, we know the shitheads didn't know Andi was dead. But it in the moment it makes things even more complicated. Maybe they're all in cahoots, maybe one of them killed her then came back, maybe it was just two or three. Plus, they're all actively avoiding her because it's so awkward for them. They're clearly mostly ashamed, aside from maybe Duke.
I genuinely love that one of the criticisms is "What if they ask her questions she doesn't know the answer to," as if refusing to make small talk with a bunch of people who just stuck a knife very publicly in her back is not only an option, but the likely default state of someone who is, on the face of it, only there to make everyone feel ashamed and uncomfortable. The fact that the other guests are understandably going out of their way to avoid her aside, if I wanted to make a group who betrayed me feel awkward, I wouldn't do it by engaging in idle chit chat with them.
@@BWGmedia How could the cover have blown? They literally stabbed Andi in the back, do you think they will then ask questions and be friendly with her? I am sorry but it looks like you are the dumb one here my dude
Every time a clip of the Drinker complaining makes me go 'have you never seen a murder mystery movie before?' Everything he complains about are long-standing parts of murder mystery stories.
Bro what? Knives Out and Glass Onion clearly presented the antagonist immediately. There's no "mystery" . . . everyone with functional brain cells knows the bad guy because it's so overtly implied, if not shown. You didn't know who the murderer was on the Orient Express until halfway through the third act. KO and GO are completely the opposite. They are campy, over the top, ripoffs. Lazily written copies. The cinematography is incredible though. Rian Johnson should just stick to that particular job.
@@ANTIStraussian I can make a very "detailed" art piece . . . of paint drying. It's still boring and devoid of any creativity or entertainment value. The cinematography is great. That's the only talent Rian Johnson actually has. But a movie, especially a mystery detective whodunnit movie, requires amazing writing and believable dialogue. Glass Onion fails completely in those areas.
@@jodo2785 it is ok if you don't like it but I think it did it very gracefully if a little slow at the beginning, is fun and easy to understand, it doesn't have to be a masterpiece to be good, it is competent and clear in it's intentions
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
What a coincidence there was a camera crew pointing a camera at the events happening, right as they were happening. How convenient.
How convenient that we are all here right now
Mate I read that in the drinkers voice 😂😂
I’m sorry, did he legitimately ask “why didn’t the villain of the film just kill a character in front of everyone and reveal himself for no reason” like it was a legitimate criticism?
Really speaks to his level of critical analysis doesn’t it?
Critical Drinker understands that ideally in today's social media environment you have to have 30%-40% of your audience to be in the opposition. People hate-watching your video are more likely to comment, which drives the algorithm; more likely to share, because "Can you believe how DUMB this is?"
Critical Drinker is playing you. He is far too smart to be this stupid. Think about it.
And Pillar of Garbage is serving Critical Drinker. CritDrink is SOOOO pleased that this video exists, it will drive more traffic his way.
It is so discouraging to exist in this social media environment in which content creators are making "mistakes" on purpose, or providing weapons-grade bad-takes just so people with share and comment, and NO ONE CAN SEE IT. Please open your eyes.
Like... Ben Shapiro doesn't really like Episode IX. I could go on and on I will spare you.
So u don't understand jokes.. okay 😮
@@ranzizam lol ok cinemasins...
Hey, my reply is gone.
it was only while watching this that I realized that Miles literally only came up with the idea of destroying the envelope when Lionel said "you didnt burn it?" you can see it in Miles' eyes that he realizes thats what he should have done, and then he does it later, like with the idea to put the gun on the table and turn out the lights
he also points to Lionel afterward all happy about it
And it tracks with a key characteristic of Miles Bron: nothing he does or says in the film is an original thought of his. Even the name of his compound, the Glass Onion, was named after a bar they all used to frequent; which itself is named after a Beatles song (a fact I didn't know until the film's end).
@@breadmeister even his insults are copied.
No one:
Critical drinker: “mighty convenient that gravity exists, if it didn’t I don’t really see how any of these characters could stay attached to the ground.”
"Mighty convenient that Strawmaning exists, or else i wouldnt have an argument against CD"
@@Ixiah27 If only there was an entire video going over the review and what was wrong with it.
@@gilamasan
Your comment isnt an entire video :)
@@Ixiah27 No shit Sherlock. Maybe you missed that this comment section is for a youtube video.
@@gilamasan
Again for the slow, your comment isnt a video.
19:01 there's a better explanation for this.
The specific explosive that klear leaks is hydrogen gas (like hindenburg), the lightest gas that exists, so it floats to the top of the building and collects in the giant dome, therefore the biggest explosion happens there
I'm only upset that it wasn't a blue explosion. Hydrogen burns clear or kinda a blue color. :)
The politician character even made the association to hindenburg a couple of times.
I worked in a lab that used hydrogen-helium plasma torches. The lab was located on the top floor of the building, so if the hydrogen leaked, it could be most easily vented. We also had a number of other safeguards, like the tank was in a cabinet that vented to the roof at all times.
That's a good point 😲
@playgroundchooser Would have been really cool, though it may have taken people out of the scene. Even if a blue explosion is more correct, the general viewing public doesn't know that. So it may have taken people out of the movie thinking about how the explosion was blue, and that isn't a good thing in the climax of the movie. Though it would have been a really cool shot.
So Shapiro didn’t like it because it’s too formulaic and drinker didn’t like it because it went too far off the standard formula?
A lot of Ben Shapiro's movie criticisms make more sense when you take into account he failed as a screenwriter.
@@smilingearth5181Like a staggering amount of right wing "hollywood bad" personalities.
Right wingers don't understand art, nuance, or reality, for that matter.
It's almost like they are grifters who don't believe most things they say 🤔🤣
@@smilingearth5181 If you haven't listened to Behind the Bastards tearing his 'novel', "True Allegiance," to pieces, you've missed a treat.
Proof that CD is wrong: I watched this with my mom and when Miles handed Duke the drink, she called it out. Then when he lied and said the glasses were switched, she immediately realized that he was lying and that he was the killer. We didn't know why, and we didn't pick up on all of the bread crumbs, but the information was absolutely there for the viewer to notice. I though Daniel Craig was overacting and being weird for the first half of the movie and dismissed it as the sequel not grabbing the essence of the character, only to learn that Craig wasn't overacting but rather BLANC was acting weird to info gather. The bread crumbs were there, but were either overlooked or dismissed as part of the movie making process. It feels like CD just didn't pick up on these and instead of going "whoa, Rian really got me" went "I think I'm smart, so if I didn't notice these things then the movie must be the dumb one!"
Smart mommy!
I was watching and I noticed the drink too, and I instantly thought that was gonna be important forward on the movie... And it was in deed...
I didn’t notice the drink on the first watch and I was looking out for it on the second. Also, you can see Duke’s phone in Miles’s back pocket and you can see him hiding the gun in the ice bucket and putting pineapple juice into Duke’s drink.
All the breadcrumbs were there. Even the structure of the film was foreshadowed by Yo Yo Ma.
Had a similar problem with someone I watched the movie with, who complained the solution was too easy, while also admitting they hadn't figured it out until the end.
the footage isnt played out like that, they literally shows Miles doing what he says. Your mother was just assuming that's what happened. then later its shown as a diffferent scene, if your mom called it its only becuase of the pineapple mention Duke gives and that's the reason he died. Just like the scene with Duke being spied on while spying on Miles is bullshit because it doesn't even show Andi's sister being there. The movie lies to it's viewer in the worst definition.
He says its an insult to the genre (Agatha Christie/Sherlock Holmes style ultra perceptive, intelligent, well revered detectives) but earlier questions why Blanc is well known and famous as if it’s a never seen contrivance in this genre….. I don’t think he knows what genre this is.
He also "critiques" the secret twin trope which is used in 4 different Agatha Christie books.
@@roosajarvinen5698 i mean, when I watch these kinds of stories, I want those tropes. When I watch a Columbo episode or a Miss Marple or Holmes, I want those tropes because thats whats fun about those types of stories. A trope isn’t a bad thing. Like, there’s tropes in all the media he holds up as exquisite examples and he actively complains when tropes aren’t present that he likes (guy gets the girl, buff masculine quippy action hero, etc).
@@danimalthebruce2569 oh I agree. There's a reason they are tropes in the first place
@@roosajarvinen5698 To be fair, that is not a trope of the genre - that's a cliche.
Something which, though maybe an inventive twist back in Agatha Christie and Conan Doyle days, comes off unrealistic, silly and even comical today.
IT HAS BEEN OVER A 100 YEARS, you know? Many of those old stories have to be altered in adaptation today simply to maintain plausibility as modern audiences are often far more savvy and the "contrivances of the genre" are often based on stereotypes that range from ridiculous (think Holmes's disguises and use of a magnifying glass- and the same done by Inspector Clouseau) to downright unpalatable (think inherent racist, sexist and other stereotypes from 100+ years ago).
Justifying jamming such cliches into a modern story by the fact that they've been used before, 100+ years ago - that's a literal fallacy. Appeal to authority. Also, appeal to tradition.
I have a feeling his knowledge of the mystery genre is about as deep as any other subject...
He seriously tried to say that Duke should have noticed the pickpocketing but didn't notice the twig breaking
*irony note plays*
I start to wonder if he watched the movie totally drunk and only remembers fragments of it. And if when he edited it, he was also drunk, to fail so much in a review.
@@PillarofGarbage While I personally prefer the first Knives Out more, I did enjoy this one as well. Watching the Drinker's review on this, I immediately could tell he didn't pay attention to the movie based on his complaint about the hot sauce, which was clearly explained. Who knows maybe he watches these movies drunk lol🤣
Have you ever carried a gun?......you totally notice when it suddenly comes off you.
@@mcameron6031 Have you ever watched this film? It's hard not to notice Duke hearing the twig and turning around, my point is you can't criticise someone for not being perceptive if you yourself are not perceptive.
A very talented writer friend of mine has said "Coincidences to get your characters *into* trouble are fine. Coincidences to get them *out of* trouble are bad storytelling."
I think it's alright to get them out of trouble, so as long the story's aware how absurd that could be.
Ex Machina/McGuffins....the sign of writing your ass into a corner and needing something to happen for...reasons.
TBH as much as I enjoyed the MCU up to Endgame as soon as the said time travel I rolled my eyes, other than 'It was all a dream" its the laziest thing you can do.
@@theblackflame4002 I could tolerate that, I couldn't tolerate Captain Marvel. I suppose despite the conveniences that surround the time travel plot, it still had some sets of conflicts going for it. Captain Marvel reduced them.
Hard disagree
@@peterfrank3365 I'll admit that it CAN work, in the hands of a talented writer and in the right setting. But that's the rare exception that proves the rule.
Regarding Blanc being recognizably famous: this is a common feature of many whodunit movies and TV shows. People were always recognizing Poirot like he was a celebrity (and Rian Johnson said he specifically models his movies after Agatha Christie books).
Sherlock Holmes is often shown to be recognized as the most famous detective in the world, the name precedes the man. Even the Murder, She Wrote lady was constantly being recognized by people, and she was a writer from a tiny town.
JB Fletcher was so famous, as soon as she strolled into town the local sheriff would follow her around like a puppy because they knew she'd solve the crime first lol
Poirot was even invited to places specifically because a murder was about to happen.
even miss marple that is suppose to be seen just as old countryside lady that likes to gossip is known by several investigators and police kkkkk and friend call her to help in murder cases too
@@user-vc4bh2sw7h more than that, the fact that someone claims not to know who he is is what tips him off in one story that they are the guilty party. He is so famous that he considers people not knowing who he is suspicious!
Jessica gets famous enough to be well known to the FBI
My favorite trope of his is trying to come up with any reason why a woman wouldn't be able to beat a man in physical contest. Like how it is somehow unbelievable that Black Widow - a trained-from-youth super assassin who has a body count in the triple (or even quadruple) digits - would be able to defeat some unnamed corporate security mook in a hand-to-hand fight.
Worst part? In his books, a woman beats men twice bigger than her.
She’s a rapist???????
@@roachybill it’s cause men are stronger you dope
@@Doctor_Grubious its says something about the state of the internet - combined with my sleep deprivation - that for a second I couldn't tell that you were joking.
@@MaddestRaven perhaps I am
In fact, the detective being a celebrity is a convention of the genre. Sherlock Holmes and Hercules Poirot are famous in their universes
When I watched the movie, I thought Blanc's swimsuit was another thing inspired by Hercule as well.
I find it disturbing that a movie critic thinks that a detective being popular is betraying the genre somehow. Like bro, this is the genre
Drinker was an honest critic that now has found an "audience" that makes him rich. So he creates what his audience wishes to hear and see.
Yeah, I didn't even notice it for that reason. I kind of expect that people will know or have heard of the detective in these stories
@@1monki yea exactly. Drinker is just trying to score points nowadays. All his questions about motivation could also easily be aimed at one of my most favourite films. For instance in LOTR Gandalf only discovers the existence of the Ring and that it passed to Isildur after Frodo got it, really?! And before he goes into the archive the 9 already leave Minas Morgul. How long was he reading for, and how did he make it back to Frodo before the Nazgul got there? Why didnt they use the army of the dead to first finish the rest of Sauron's force? Why didn't Sauron put a few guards around Mount Doom? How is it possible the entire garrison of Cirith Ungol almost to a man slaughters itself?
The thing is I don't care, I love the story!
I saw the Critical Drinkers’ video and was bemused when he complained about Benoit Blanc being a world famous detective, not long after referring approvingly to Agatha Christie, who’s detective Hercule Poirot was also world famous.
OMG like a "fictional world" could not exist in a movie.
That would be because the current one is nothing new and rides the coat tails of Agatha Christie etc. I still enjoyed it
@@toshiyaar7885By that logic, Christie was riding the coattails of Conan Doyle. A work being in a genre does not mean it is “riding the coattails” of previous works in the genre.
"What if X didn't happen?!"
This can LITERALLY be said of every single story ever made.
"What if Doc Brown didn't steal plutonium from the Libians?!"
"What if Andy Dufresne was found innocent?!"
"What if Thor had gone for the head?!"
It is the most nothing piece of "criticism" you could every say about a story.
@@noahbritt8321 My favourite one with Star Wars is what if that one Imperial Officer hadn't forgotten droids existed and had just shot down Threepio and R2's escape pod.
I don’t think that’s the worst way of criticizing a story, because there are plenty of times a story relies on random coincidence in order to advance the plot, and this is objectively a worse way to tell a story than creating a reason for it to happen, because it requires the audience to suspend disbelief further than they already have in order for the story to make sense. If it’s done once or twice relative to a much larger story, it’s very easy to forgive it as the story builder writing themselves into a corner.
My understanding as to Critical Drinker’s reaction was that he was overblown by how often Glass Onion required - great deal of coincidences in order for the plot to advance as it did, and that that doesn’t excuse the story’s cheap tricks used to create a sense of mystery or suspense for the audience.
At that point, I think it boils down to personal preference. I do think what the movie pulled was a bit of a one-trick pony, and so I enjoyed it as a one off idea of what a plot can be, but I wouldn’t want to see it repeated, and many would call what it pulled a “stunt”, and not an accomplishment.
That criticism alone relies on every single character being a complete mastermind at planning and orchestrating so that their plans are never left up to chance or circumstance. Definitely one of the most braindead critiques. If X didn't happen, then clearly they would've went and done something else, not worth pondering it
@@cklempay17 "this is objectively a worse way to tell a story"
No, it isn't. Who is the arbiter of what constitutes objectively good or objectively bad ways of storytelling? You aren't, The Critical Dumbass isn't and I'm not it either.
Nobody is because there is no such thing as an objective standard for art.
Also, do point out the coincidences you're talking about here, because it seems you and TCD are just throwing that term around without thought.
@@narchistmaybe try writing smart characters then? Having the reason for a character failing be because they’re stupid doesn’t sound like a very compelling protagonist or antagonist
Something I want to note is that I have ABSOLUTELY seen older, flamboyant gay men dress WAY more flamboyantly than Benoit Blanc.
He isn't even one third of a Charles Nelson Reilly!
Shit, i have absolutely seen older STRAIGHT men dress absolutely FAR MORE flamboyantly than three Benoit Blancs put together.
Like, JFC, how long must "the drinker" have been without feeling the touch of grass to think Benoit Blanc dresses "flamboyantly gay"? Has he taken a gander at any masculine fashion magazine? Or anything that isn't a woodworking catalogue?
@@KasaresStern Did the right forget that their favorite psychologist exists?
the queen of scotty road comes to mind
Is Dave Cullen still around that fucking right wing geek from Irelanx
...Also, as for the point of "What if someone asked a question Helen didn't know the answer to but Andi should?" There was already a scene in which the characters have a conversation where Helen makes a noticeable mistake. The whole scene where she goes "You didn't even email me back!" and governor lady answers, "Yeah, I never say that kind of stuff in writing; that's why I called you." There's your example of Helen making a mistake Andi wouldn't make, but it didn't matter because she is walking around with Andi's face and knows better than to flounder around and make her deception obvious. Why would any of them guess that wasn't Andi when she looked like Andi and said that she was? Even if they knew she had an identical twin, the immediate conclusion will usually be "Andi is acting a weird, probably because she's still mad about what happened," not "That isn't Andi."
Also, Blanc knew that it would be difficult for Helen to pretend to be Andi. That’s why he explicitly covered up that Andi was dead and told Helen to act cold and brusque towards them.
The Disruptors probably wouldn’t be wanting to make light conversation with the person they all betrayed anyway. Why would they “test” Andi to be sure that she’s the real one when they don’t know that she’s dead? And why would they expect Andi to be amicable towards them at all, especially to the point of making light conversation? It makes zero sense.
Exactly. The whole point is, people can go to great lengths to convince themselves of something they want to believe, even disregarding information to the contrary, or their brain making up excuses. It happens all the time. Psychologists have written about confirmation bias, and how eyewitness accounts are often trash because human brains are not an objective video recording but we're constantly constructing a narrative of the world around us coloured by our biases, misremembering things, subconsciously rewriting our own memories by thinking back to them etc.
In real life (or in a fictional story trying to depict real life) normally people do not walk around thinking like people playing a roleplaying game (like D&D) who are questioning everything the gamemaster tells them to look for "clues", or a schizophreniac who thinks everyone around them is secretly a shapeshifting alien.
Also, I have a coworker that I've worked with for almost a decade and I constantly forget he has an identical twin because I have never met him and it doesn't come up that often. I've made jokes about them switching places and nobody noticing, but I think there's a legitimate chance I wouldn't notice if we just didn't interact much that day.
exactly. when you hear hoof beats, look for horses, not zebras.
@@gregjayonnaise8314 It's also shown that the one Disrupter who *did* apparently know that she had a twin, was the one who wasn't the crunchiest chip in the bag. If Lionel or Helen knew about her having a twin, it might've clicked sooner. Or at least when they noticed she was acting different, but even then, that would be a stretch because they have no reason to suspect otherwise
My one and only problem with glas onion is Helen walking around on all that glass.. IN SANDALS 🙊
YEAH LIKE WTF! TAKE THOSE DAMN SANDALS OFF AND GO RAW DOG!
Alcohol is a hell of a drug
Realy ? not that some asshole destroys the mona lise to spite and ruin someone ?
That level of narcisistic doesnt bother you,
you still cheer for that asshole ?
8:05 even the first set up that Blanc was at least well known to some people as both Joni and Linda had already heard of him, not to mention how Lt. Elliott described him as ‘the great Benoit Blanc’.
Exactly, they even went out of their way to say that the New Yorker had done a whole COVER PROFILE on him recently, meaning that he's just become even MORE well-known to the general public in this world.
@@dlweiss not to mention he’s likely to be more well known as the death of Harlan Thrombey was probably a high profile case, after all, a celebrity Crime Novelist being murdered in a Whodunnit plot is bound to get an article or two.
Not to mention they learned about him from a profile in the New Yorker, in which he is described as "the last of the gentlemen sleuths". Even if you cannot accept the premise of detectives being a group who can obtain celebrity, it's established that he is a part of a dying breed. He's the exception, not the rule.
It's also completely in-line with the established tropes of the genre that TCD claims to hold so near and dear--Hercule Poirot is world-renowned, as are many if not all interpretations of Sherlock Holmes!
Just look at the people he was playing Among Us with. Yeah he's well known.
Most of his criticisms boil down to
“Why don’t they know when are in a movie”
No, they're not.
I mean most of his criticisms are not that. I know because I actually watched some of his vids unlike most other people here who watch vids about his vids.
I have also watched this videos and the top comment sums it up dude is a hack with zero ability to actually critic and that's saying something when this platform also has cinema sins @@Shorty_Lickens
@@Shorty_Lickensyou’re right. His other criticisms are “why woman strong? Man strong. Woman not man. Woman not strong. Something something the message, left bad.”
I watched his crap for years. It rotted my mind. Eventually though I grew up and realized the version of reality he is pitching as part of his grift only exists in the minds of 14 year old boys who haven’t had much life experience with real people in the real world.
@@AnimatedTerror Umm, no he never said anything like that. And I dont believe you when you claim you watched his "crap" for years. I do believe you saw him misquoted elsewhere in hate videos and thats your impression of him.
Get off the propaganda. Its not good.
In fact in America we have about 70 million people eating the propaganda from Fox News and they voted for a fascist because it. Better to think clearly and make your own decisions.
@@Shorty_Lickens I use to watch his videos too. And then realised that he was talking about movies designed to get as many bums on seats and saying that's all of Hollywood. The guy is not that bright, or pretends to be so his fans pile in the money.
I just watched a review of a review. What a time to be alive.
ruclips.net/video/APsMPijjz-k/видео.html
A review of a review of a review.
For a moment, kind of made me feel like I didn't want to be alive anymore...
Watch Mauler's review (EFAP) of Pillar of Garbage's review of Critical Drinker's review of 'Glass Onion'. What a world we live in today.
Just means there is nothing good to watch right now.
@@didinx8417 No, I don't think I will.
Critical Drinker is one of those reviewers who think having a political or social commentary message and good writing are mutually exclusive
In his view, if a movie is bad, (or he doesn't like it) it's 1000% because of diversity hiring, social commentary, ect.
In reality he love politics in film, just not politics he disagrees with. And as we all know, disagreeing with something means it is objectively false
I just blocked the guy......he is not worth the bandwidth
No. Im sorry i definitely agree with this video and the Critical Drinker did mess up. But there are countless instances of the Critical Drinker pointing out good things about stuff one might think is bad because of diversity hiring and social commentary and what not. Critical Drinker for the most part chooses the projects that mess up because of these things and yes that does happen a lot. And uses them a lot in his videos, which gives the illusion that hes just completely racist and sexist and etc. and that he just doesnt want any kind of diversity in movies ever.
@@Cinephilemo because he is and he doesn’t. :)
@@Cinephilemo a broken clock is still right twice a day. doesn't make it useful.
It’s almost as if drinking impairs one’s cognitive function
Hot damn!
Ohh you thought you did something, huh?
Well yes. Yes you did!😂
Critical Dumb*** didn't think his username through. I could not have said what you said better.
He's a very accomplished author and has 1.5 million subscriptions. He knows exactly what he is saying.
@@TonyMontanaDS The amount of subscribers does not mean you're smart.
About the wardrobe choices: it seemed like a clear homage to the Hercule Poirot movies to me, especially Evil Under The Sun.
Also, just the Alot reference alone was worth a like
Evil Under The Sun is amazing.
i thought the romper kerchief look was a reference to fred from scooby doo tbh
also, daniel craig wears way weirder shit in real life
I think what bothers me most is that so many media critics on YT just aren't intellectualy or aesthetically curious people. They think the sum total of criticism is watching something, and then explaining what happened, what they did and didn't like with some effort afforded as to why. And if you're lucky, a thinly veiled jab at some topical issue.
But thats not what critique is nor is it what critics actually do. Critics read history, poetry, literature, art history, politics, philosophy and science to have as many threads upon which to pull and as many references or themes they might draw upon. Criticism is about discussion not judgement, analysis with discovery, withholding judgement is also very important and one must always be open to correction. A critic is not just an opinion-haver, but a fuller person.
But alas, I feel like the core of whats wrong is that these YT reviewers have internalised the aesthetics of passing judgement without any of the 'wisdom' garnered through actual artisitc study and cultivation required to to make said judgement be any more than a brainfart.
I think ‘reviewing’ has a place in media discourse, even in criticism - but I do think it’s a shame how that sort of ‘reviewing’ seems to have subsumed this type of criticism in the popular consciousness, especially on RUclips.
That being said, I think RUclips’s seen some really gifted creators turn out real, layered, beautiful criticism in a way that wouldn’t have been popular for most people even 15 years ago.
@@PillarofGarbage Yeh, I'm just really bummed-out knowing that all these trashy, reactionary half-baked review-bro anti-SJW types get way more views than anything else made in good faith and hard work.
@@PillarofGarbage I think Folding Ideas' work on Fifty Shades of Grey is a perfect example of this kind of actually INTERESTING media analysis that wouldn't've been possible on youtube(or anywhere, for that matter)a decade ago.
It's been going on for years since media criticism on YT became all about "recap movie, make a few jokes, scream very loudly". At some point these "critics" were just looking for holes to pick apart which in many cases weren't actually holes but just rules of the medium. Or the very surface CinemaSins way of "make my script while watching a movie and anything that isn't immediately explained is a plot hole, but when it does get explained it's thinking your audience is dumb."
In short, pushing content instead of engaging with the product.
what’re ur thoughts on RLM as media critic?
This is what happens when you let your hatred for one movie dominate your entire personality for 6 years
jesus has it been that long since Star Wars broke their media-illiterate minds?
That's what happens when you put your ideals above objective facts.
Yeah, Rian Johnson might have different views than yours but atleast you don't discredit him when he made something good.
I'm a conservative too and I also dislike modern politics... but even then I treat everyone's arts fairly and respectfully. When my "enemy" created a good art I won't lie about it, because as an amateur writer I am also an artist in my own ways, I appreciate artistic efforts through an artistic lens, not a political one disguised with artistic criticism.
@@Cipher_556 oh you sweet, beautiful man, never change. This comment gives me hope for the future of our species. Good luck with your writing and never sell out to the ideologues
@@MJGianesello
Thanks for the support too brother, it sparks of comfort.
@@6187490 Well technically 24 years ago with The Phantom Menace was released and they decided to harras a literal child. Interestingly enough schizophrenia can be triggered by early trauma and Jake Lloyd does not have a a family history of schizophrenia. Instead of blaming the script writer and director they decided to blame a literal child and I don't even think that Meryl Streep could sell some of those lines that child Anakin Skywalker had to say. Is Jake Lloyd a bad actor? Well we will never know because of the Star Wars fan base.
I don't get how people forget that Miles didn't even send the invites. He hired a company to send the boxes. While it doesn't tell us, it can be implied he already planned for this getaway and those were already to be sent out anyways.
Yes. The murder happened only like a day or two prior to the events at the island, hence why Blanc had been able to keep the media from learning of Andi's death and reporting on it... even Blanc said he wouldn't be able to keep it hush-hush for long. The murder was unplanned, improvised, a rash decision. But the fancy weekend must obviously have been planned for a longer time; the puzzle boxes with the invitations must've been commissioned months prior, as they took time to design and build and then they were sent out and couldnt be stopped.
Oh shit, I totally forgot about that. I kind of didn't like the "well, he did it to avoid suspicion" point, just because... he did have a recent falling out with Andi, is it that suspicious to not invite her after that? But I like this explanation quite a lot. At that point too, even if he thought to cancel it, it would definitely be suspicious to just stop Andi's, when her death hasn't been announced yet, because clearly it *wasn't* due to their falling out if he'd had it made after that.
The drinker is an open Elon fan, no wonder that he hates a movie critisizing his favorite billionaire
@@TF2CrunchyFrog The murder happened on May 11, and the events at the island happen on May 22, but yes, the point is totally correct, the boxes were delivered on May 13 and they were in the making for god knows how long before that.
Miles refers to having a "puzzle guy" who apprenticed under Ricky Jay, which I thought was a nice touch.
I missed the part the first time around where he mentions that his murder mystery was also written by someone else for him.
That's one of the great things about it - when he needs to do something smart, he just orders in =)
"Honest it's really convenient that oxygen exists, very convenient"
He questioned their stylish clothing? 😂 For one, they were going to their billionaire friend’s exclusive party. Secondly, it was like a mini vacation… on a private island, no less. Finally, the movie was set in 2020, with the pandemic as the backdrop. I think many people would get all dolled up after being cooped-up at home in PJs; quarantined or cut-off from other people for a while.
Also like ive seen normal people wear what he critiques. Which was his main point that no one would actively wear what they wear.
CD is so whingy that a little scarf and a few stripes are enough for him to lose his shit. Really? I'd understand if it was a dress made out of, I dunno, bacon, but this?
@@hamchurger4566 true!
@@Mish844 right?! 😂
🥓👗
Not to mention Benoit Blanc is as queer as a two dollar bill and seems interested in fashion , due to his knowledge of Birdies career
his form of criticism seems to be the most basic level of "how dare every character not act perfectly rationally at all times with perfect recall and also all of the information that the audience knows even though they don't know that!" Like if this guy was playing D&D he'd complain about not being able to kill the rogue who out of character stated he's an assassin because he doesn't understand the difference between what the audience knows and what the characters know. Characters are in fact allowed to act irrationally and with flaws. It's not a plothole if Miles doesn't immediately sus out exactly what's going on and have an answer to every problem that comes his way. It's doubly not a plot hole when the entire film is literally about him being a moron!
The thing is, there's a difference between a character being intentionally stupid and unintentionally stupid.
and he doesn't seem to understand that. His level of criticism is like complaining that Drax doesn't understand metaphors and idioms in Guardians of the Galaxy and calling that a plothole because why would anyone not understand that.
Thing is, sometimes this sort of criticism it is founded. I remember some of the recent Star Wars themed series that had blatantly silly parts , such a base that had no security because "nobody would dare to attack it", or Boba Fett wanting to rule a city using like half a dozen men and refusing to fight from their fortress to go for a much more dangerous fight in the city to protect the people from killers that...were after them. Legitimate plot contrivances where I think there's a case for not being able to buy into the premise of the work of fiction and call the writing 'lazy' and all that jazz. And I am not above the MST3K approach of just taking the piss out of something, as long as you know that it's only for fun. To me it is pretty obvious that when this devolves into questioning with moral indignation the wardrobe choices and plot points in a super-tropey meta-wuddunit , something is wrong.
I enjoy his content but literally every video he does now is "SJW bad" guy doesn't seem to enjoy anything except the sound of his own boozed up voice these days
Agreed. The thing is, we as the audiences are accustomed that the eye of the camera shows us the truth, unless it's a Found Footage genre or the movie clearly features an Unreliable Narrator by either literally having the story told by a (biased) 1st person narrator character or (like in the first couple Harry Potter movies) only ever showing events from the narrow point of view of a single character who isn't always present at events and lacks certain informations. Here, we were at first led to believe the camera shows us the audience true & unfiltered events, because the movie starts out by showing us multiple characters during the teaser and only later switches to following Benoir Blanc around for a while, until it switches to Helen and Blanc.
But the first _Knives Out_ movie had also misdirected the audience by initially not giving the audience the complete picture, instead showing events from the point of view of certain characters and presenting their (false) conclusions! So why was anyone surprised when _Glass Onion_ did the same thing?
Other "murder mysteries" tales have misdirected the viewers or readers before, it's not a new thing. The only detective show that is famous for showing the audience right at the start who the killer is, during the teaser, is _Detective Columbo._ The Columbo series is not about the audience figuring out who the murderer is, but the thrill of watching Columbo figure it out and leading the murderer into a psychological trap to give themselves away.
Ive seen a few people say "If he killed her, why doesnt he respond stronger"... but like... he doesnt REALLY know that she is dead. He drugged her with sleeping pills and left her in her running car. Its reasonable that he thinks she may have survived it. and is now trying to figure out why shes here. if shes trying to get revenge. etc.
That's head cannon, and a big problem with this movie. A lot of audiences filling in the blanks.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Not everything has be explicitly said. You're given a set of scenes and context and a logical person could've concluded that Miles thought his murder attempt failed.
You think it is head canon that of all the possible methods of the murder, they picked one where he would not actually see her die? And it is explicitly mentioned that he did not.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway the film explicitly states that the killer chose that method so they wouldn't have to watch her die when blanc and helen are discussing means and motive
@@WhatsTheTakeaway have you never heard of the saying "if you don't see a character die on screen they're not really dead"? i think that might help you contextualise the scene better instead of writing it off as a head canon :)
8:15 The idea that Miles invited Andi to purposely throw the authorities off his scent makes some sense, but I believe it's even simpler than that. He invited her for the same reason he invited all the Disruptors. He wanted to show them that Klear "worked" and particularly wanted to rub it in Andi's face since she'd opposed it the most. After killing her, he didn't expect her to show up, but also didn't cancel the delivery of her puzzle box because that would've looked suspicious.
I'm pretty sure the box being sent to Andi was explained by Miles when he said he commissioned the boxes months in advance. The box was well on its way to Andi way before the murder took place
He's a millionaire and they're all hand delivered. He's not using Australia post.
@@kredonystus7768 He clearly made 5 boxes that took months to complete. He had always planned to invite Andi. My point is that he didn't deliver the box as some plan to cover his tracks but he always intended to invite Andi. Even the other characters aren't surprised that Miles would invite her, they're surprised she showed up.
@@aboi5 No, it was established as a last minute thing.
When asked if he had any prototypes or duplicates that could have been sent to Blanc,
“My puzzle guy was barely able get the 5 ready in time.”
As in the barely 2 weeks between the time he killed Andy and when the Murder mystery getaway would take place.
Sending a box to Andy’s home was just a smokescreen to make it look like he thought she was still alive and look like the bigger person (make it all the more easy to make a public statement being dismayed by her supposed suicide “I’m devastated! I didn’t know she was hurting that much, why I had just invited to a private getaway with old friends and hopefully mend fences, but I guess it was just too little too late” *crocodile tear* ).
He didn’t even have enough time to have it properly be a getaway of just them, considering he had a friend outside of their disrupter gang just crashing in a spare room (something you’d think even he would have prepped for if he had planned it out)
Because at the end of the day, he is not someone who is able to plan ahead. He only got as far as he did because he acted first and fast.
@@Thommy2n I could have sworn there was a scene where he mentioned the boxes took months to make but I recently skimmed over the movie and could not find it for the life of me. I guess I made it up or something.
I just finished watching the film and no miles literally says 'my guys barely got 5 boxes in time' lol it's a garbage film
18:40 Pretty sure that when Claire and Lionel are at the pool discussing Klear they mention how Klear produces a lot of hydrogen ala the Hindenburg disaster. Because of the bouyancy of diatomic hydrogen, heat of combustion is released upwards rather than filling a space. That's why the glass onion explodes but not the people inside. I guess you could argue that falling glass would have severely wounded some of the guests but if we're going in that direction might as well criticize every action movie to be released in the last forty odd years.
We love-hate the movie trope of ✨plot armour✨
Also, the fire extractor on thr chimney is what explotes. The extractor went up, right to the Onion. Why? IDK, but you can justify everything with the "Miles Bron is an idiot" and it works
Status Quo Warriors like screeching Scrooge McDuck are where context and media criticism goes to die. These people have made online reviewers a laughing stock more unintentionally funny than informative, and I hate that.
Hey! ...Scrooge McDuck actually has a brain. Even though he's a horrible capitalist. 😉
"Status Quo Warriors" is a good phrase need to steal that one
@@snorpenbass4196 Just the absolute worst, capitalist. Watch Duck Tales or read some older Uncle Scrooge comics, he's awful
@@skodware Go ahead
Who takes Star Wars fans seriously with guys like this?
I used to like Critical Drinker - back when I thought he was doing a satirical parody, and the whole "ignorant drunk" bit was part of the act.
I can't even describe what it felt like, the moment it dawned on me, that he was being serious.
It was somewhere around the woman Hulk for me 😅
poor you
Yeah exactly
She Hulk, with each episode costing $25M? She hulk was utter trash. @@pysq8
So pretty much a discount CinemaSins?
*Helen shows up on the island*
*Miles immediately stabs her then explains he already murdered Andi so he knows it isn't actually her*
Yeah he has a point that would've been a much better and more realistic direction for the movie to go
Nah just let the person you murdered wonder around your house for hours and hours on their own....
@@mcbean1 This is a critical drinker alt account huh?
@@itcouldbelupus2842 nope, nice try though
@@mcbean1 Ah, so just a fan who is stealing his personality.
Almost sadder.
Yeah, the murderer going "Hey, didn't I drug you and leave you to die just recently to make it look like a suicide?" in front of witnesses including a world famous detective would have been much smarter of Miles! /sarcasm
Critical Drinker always reminded me of my 11 year old step brother that, in the middle of the movie, will ask questions about what is going on *while the movie is currently answering that exact question.* He can’t get out of his own head enough to actually focus on and analyze what’s happening onscreen. Then, he bitches as if it’s somehow the movie’s fault that he has the patience and media literacy of an actual child.
Tbf he’s 11 and 11 year olds tend to be stupid a lot. CD is a grown man acting like he just came out of kindergarten
This is sort of a random note, but it reminds me of showing a good friend of mine the 1999 film Ravenous - and he's a big fan of Westerns, horror, and the idea of cannibalism in the Wild West - but he hated Ravenous because he kept complaining how "it doesn't make any fucking sense that Wendigos would exist in the Old West, wouldn't somebody else have figured it out by now and documented it?"
It blew my mind how he couldn't get out of his own head and enjoy a film with all the right elements that's so creative, well made, and funny, just because he couldn't suspend his disbelif about the historical setting. As if the historical setting somehow invalidates the mythic aspect of the film, or vise versa. To his credit he ended up rewatching it and liking it more and admitting his initial take was wrong, but I was beyond shocked when he complained watching it the first time.
@@arloc357 Oh you’re completely right lmao, don’t get me wrong I have nothing against an 11 year old for acting like an 11 year old. My stepbrother has media literacy proportionate to his age. CD does not.
Is your 11 year old brother my 69 year old mom ? Lol
@@arloc357 Man I wish I thought of that trash talk for Critical drinker 🤣
With the gun and the notepad stopping it, the whole thing makes a lot more sense when you realise he's shooting through a window. That'll slow the bullet and change it's course, leading to less penetrative power. Add into that the fact he's firing one handed, probably because he thought that's how you do it, and at a target that's nearly side-on when he actually fires, it's more amazing that he even hit her at all.
A great point!
Even with all that said...it's a pretty dang popular trope in movies...and it was somehow used effectively enough to avoid feeling like a cliche. You're watching a movie where you're allowed to suspend disbelief.
It is, in fact, stormglass - hardened glass that isn't considered bullet resistant, but is made to withstand heavy weather. That's why the camera zooms in on the characteristic spider-web pattern formed by the bullet-hole. And yeah, stormglass might not be "bullet-resistant", but it will absolutely weaken a 9mm bullet.
I don't know anithing about guns, but a waterproof gun has to have less penetration power than a good one. For me it felt like Duke's gun was more of an accessory rather than a weapon.
@@mike_ere Which is very in-line with his character, a guy who acts tough but really isn't.
I did a presentation on this guy in a communications class in college for my topic on plausible deniability. When I was finished, my teacher wanted me to clarify if this was indeed a real person. Also, as someone who watched some of his reviews, yes. He deliberately leaves stuff out. Why? Your guess is a good a mine.
Exactly, u said it well !
He seriusly leaves out stuff, for him everything is woke and hence that is all wrong !
@@arun_gaming1426 Funny that you say he thinks everything is woke considering 2 days ago, he made a video disproving that accusation.
Because he panders to a certain crowd that's why
@@megaham1552 what group? You should weed them out if you don't mind doing so
@VideoAmigos Children and the brain dead.
The moment Duke started choking, all I was thinking was "Did someone put pineapple in his drink?" And it was proven right when Blanc didn't find anything obstructing his airway. But when Miles saw that it was his glass on the floor and suspected that it was poison, I thought "Oh it must've been poison I guess I was wrong". I gave Miles too much credit because that's what everyone else around him did all the time. I didn't notice the handoff myself, which is what led to my assumptions.
Now does this mean I missed some details and therefore didn't see the full picture, or that the movie is bad?
if you were a little more, I dunno, arrogant or narcisistic, like the folks in critic-wannabe-circlejerk then it would be the latter
Miles managed to full on gaslight me and I loved it. I'd noticed the glass hand over, didn't think much beyond "weird way to take a drink". After the talk of glass switches I remembered the scene, but then Miles swiftly explained Duke must've picked up the wrong glass, and the scene that played during his explanation backed up what he was saying. It made me doubt my memory and despite being sure I'd not quite remembered it like that, I still went along with what he said. Literally played into the point of the movie, I loved it.
TCD can complain the scenes are 'lying' all he wants, but unreliable narrators are a really fun way to play with your audience imo, and this movie didn't only show the 'wrong' scene, it showed the audience both and relied on them seeing it and remembering the true one.
If a movie like this only ever showed 'wrong' scenes without giving the audience any chance to see the truth, I'd agree it'd be a piss poor way to make a film, but both Knives Out and Glass Onion give everything you need to see, nestled between unreliable narrators. And imo it's always oibvious which scenes are from unreliable narrators due to always having them voice over it.
@@Spamhard The propose of an unreliable narrator is defeated if there is only one scene in the whole movie that lies. I do not think you can say voiceover is an indication of unreliability, then that means the whole recap of Andi was unreliable too.
Worlds greatest detective does not analyse the glass? That does not line up
It means the movie intentionally and successfully deviate your attention from what Miles was doing.
Miles himself points out to Birdie’s dress as a way to make Duke and everyone else look away as he hands his victim the glass.
So many of his points were LITERALLY ADDRESSED BY THE MOVIE, its like cinema sins, actively complaining *instead of listening to whats going on onscreen*
Ding!
With one critical difference: Cinema Sins never claims to be movie critics, only assholes. It was in their welcome to the channel video and everything.
i freaking hate cinema sins.
@@danicakelly2242 Most of the takes on Cinema Sins coincide with the creators' actual opinions about the movies they're sinning. The satire defense is just them giving plausible deniability whenever they get facts wrong or willfully misinterpret events to manufacture sins.
@danicakelly2242 They can make that claim but there's enough actual criticism in their videos and their body of sork for me to not really believe then when they say that.
FYI - Klear is made of hydrogen, which is lighter than air. That is why the flame is immediately sucked up. As such, any explosion of hydrogen would start at the top of the structure and then go UP and OUT, leaving those standing below it relatively unscathed.
Gonna admit, I didn't realize this, so I was also confused how they survived. But I just sorta shrugged, because it was fun.
Critical Drinker is a hack who embodies the Dunning-Kruger effect. Glad to see some content putting him on blast.
Critical Drinker sometimes has some very legitimate criticisms of the movie and tv industries but he leans so insufferably hard into his "anti-woke", culture war BS that he twists himself in knots and completely misses the point of some media in order to keep on pandering to the audience he has cultivated
Yes, he is basic Trump fan. But sometimes his reviews are good.
He had, a long time ago, and had some really fun videos at that time.
Now is just shiting on everthing "woke" and geting stupid people views...
It’s so painful to see he does have legitimately good takes (loves his Ragnarok vs Love and Thunder scene video) but it’s so drowned out with garbage like this
Methinks CD always lets his political biases get in the way of doing a proper review. I prefer apolitical reviews because clowns like him tend to overcriticize as he needs to spin "woke Hollywood" to be utterly incompetent.
He's just slightly above his ilk who barely even watch the things they bash because he seems to actually try to watch the whole thing, but he wants so bad to hate it because, you know, Rian Johnson is an anti-woke punching bag.
Over the last couple of years that audience has become the mouth breathers and incels of the web
The explosion was caused by hydrogen gas, which is lighter than air, so the idea it mostly goes the top of the house makes sense.
Really? This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. By your logic during the hydrogen bomb test the fake cities around the explosion shouldn’t have been destroyed
@@gajacome1 I don't think you know what a hydrogen bomb is. They do not work by igniting hydrogen gas, causing an implosion & would not be very effective if they did.
No it doesn't. The concussive-force of the explosion alone would be enough to kill everyone in the building. Most gas (especially Hydrogen) when ignited rapidly expand which it is why it is so dangerous. Trying too hard to disprove his take here.
@@D2Kprime revisit the Hindenburg explosion (literally mentioned in the film) - the gas explosion is not what killed people; while they were flung up to 15 feet, the deaths were all either due to jumping out and dying in the fall or being burned up. Since the Glass Onion house is much less flammable than the Hindenburg, it's not unbelievable that the shitheads, Helen, and Bronn would have had time to escape before the fire grew hot enough or large enough to kill them on the ground floor.
@@D2Kprime Also, hydrogen flames are clear. Visible flames occur when other stuff is burning alongside of it, like in the Hindenburg.
I’m absolutely dumbfounded that The Critical Drinker cited Andi having a twin sister as an example of the movie’s supposed conveniences and contrivances. That’s the equivalent of saying “Boy, isn’t it convenient that Luke’s father happened to be a Jedi Master?” Seriously, what is even the complaint? Does he think twins don’t exist?
Exactly haha, it's not even much of a coincidence rather what actually makes the story able to happen to begin with lol
Isnt it funny how he is mad about Rian ruining Luke… Who it Also turned out had a twin?
yeah, twins are SJW propaganda or something, probably :D
He criticizes that plot point because NOBODY knew she had a twin sister. That's a little convenient
@@rosswatson3993 Birdie knew, she even said so, but apparently forgot because she's dumb or didn't care
"I know what the answer to all these questions is gonna be, because the film straight up spells it out to us. ('It's just dumb!') Everything in this script that doesn't make sense is because the people involved were just really stupid."
Congratulations, Critical Drinker, you *almost* understood the point of the movie! The murder plot, like the fancy energy infrastructure, like the house, like a glass onion, is needlessly complicated but also completely transparent, because it was designed by an idiot who thinks he's clever! The premise is literally spelled out in the title, and then explained in the movie in case anyone didn't understandthe deliberately ham-fisted metaphor!
18 of the top 25 imdb user reviews are a 6/10 or lower...face it, the movie sucked. I suppose this PoG guy is going to make a video detailing how those 18 individuals got it all wrong and used bots to upvote their user reviews? LoL
@@1979cavsfan No one is telling you to like the movie. You are welcome to your opinion.
@@1979cavsfanApparently people arent allowed to have different opinions about the same piece of media anymore, when did I miss that memo?
@@zannax351
It was never sent. The obsessive ones just like to mess with us. Best to just ignore them.
@@zannax351 Omg ! This ! So much this !!! Glad people like you are still out there. Thought we were extinct.
Stuff like this is even funnier when you remember Duke was a “Mens rights RUclipsr”. It’s like Poetry, really, it writes itself
It uh. It rhymes
@@saintsea-hat7891we’re only two or three degrees of separation away, you basically had to say it
the best thing about this is how normies are forced to care about all the things they never cared about before like integrity, truth, facts, etc. if only they weren't massive hypocrites, then maybe i could take them seriously. but since they're just as bad as they accuse everyone else, i'll keep laughing at all the heads exploding from that review
@@cagneybillingsley2165 cope
@@cagneybillingsley2165 ok cagney billingsley
I think that a lot of Drinker's problems with this movie can stem from one understanding of his perspective:
Even when EXPLICITLY TOLD BY EVERY CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE that he's an idiot, Drinker still believes that Miles is supposed to be smart, and that Blanc/Helen/everyone else is just wrong about him.
We could probably dig into why, but it's kind of irrelevant. All these criticisms are just him clinging to the idea that Miles should be smart enough to figure all these things out, but the *entire point of the movie* is that he isn't.
He's probably an Elon fanboy
That seems to be the problem with a lot of right-wing weirdos and this film. In their worldview, people like Miles (and Elon) are super geniuses worthy of praise, because they're rich and they also agree with at least some of the right's ideas. They can't fathom the idea of a rich person not being worthy of their riches. The entire point of their worldview is hierarchy - the "natural order" of capitalism basically.
I often think of it as a kind of theology of prosperity, or maybe just a cargo cult thing. They see "success"; defined as having lots of money, and they think some action or innate ability of the successful prson led to that success. They want to believe success is something you get if you deserve it. That the world is just, and controllable. hat it's all not just an unfair shit show.
So this move really spits in their eye and it will probably be a long time until they're able to let it go.
@@falconeshield like I said, we could speculate on why, this is incredibly likely, but its ultimately besides the point
white man NOT genius??? too woke
No, its that the “Miles is stupid” argument doesn’t work for everyone else in the film being belligerently stupid.
"What if one of the group had asked Helen a personal question that she should've known the answer to but didn't" This also quite literally happens and the characters say to each other that something's off about Andi and that she's changed. It's kind of an important scene too, the one that reveals that all 4 of the disrupters were at her house the day of her murder. Not to mention she only keeps the act up for a single day, and most of it is spent purposefully not talking to the group so she doesn't blow her cover. I've never heard of this Critical Drinker guy before but it's kind of embarrassing how much he flat out did not pay attention to this movie he's criticizing.
Yup! She specifically made herself hard to approach so no one would approach her n start up a sweet trip down memory lane.
It’s like this guy needs movie story-tellin to b spoon-fed to him or something.
“Mommy~ y do these ppl all dress so flashy n not like me & my friends? 🥺”
“Cuz we’re middle class and they’re not, baby~”
Also….they’re college friends, what super personal question would they ask that they would know and HER SISTER wouldn’t know?
I normally like his content but think he fucked up here
She also read through Andis diaries
Critical is the new Cinema Sins when it comes to film criticism
It’s insane how much of a following he has
Funny enough, CinemaSins also complained about some of the same things in their video, like Miles not burning the napkin.
YES! CinemaSins ruined a generation of moviegoers…if they even saw the movie first. 😡🤦♀️
Cinema Sins is literally satire of people like critical, too many people think they’re serious. They often say they’re a parody of the overly nitpicky nerd from the Simpsons.
Listen to their podcast where they talk normally about movies and have a genuine passion for film.
At the very least, CinemaSins literally said they're not critics, but "assholes".
Critical Drinker thinks he is his namesake.
Also, on the "fake scenes to mislead the audience" (the main problem I had with the movie at first), it is reasonable within this universe, considering the flashback scenes from Knives Out, where each time someone talks about their relation to Harlan, it's them that are next to him when the cake is brought to the party, as in everytime there's a flashback, we'll see it according to the story the person is telling, whether it's true or not (also, even if you consider that this movie should stand alone on it's own, in the pineapple glass scene, we see how it really happened the first time right away, so it was up to you paying attention)
also only the flashbacks are different, if you rewatch the movie looking out for specific details, you'll see that Miles hands Duke the glass, and after Duke dies Miles has Duke's phone in his pocket
Bingo!
The reason half the clips are washed out is almost certainly because he accidentally pirated an HDR version of the movie for the clips, realized halfway through making the video that displaying HDR content in an SDR medium makes it washed out as hell because the variable brightness and wider color gamut correct for that, and was too lazy to fix the parts he had already edited
What he’s calling “coincidences” actually have a special term in the movie making business. It’s called the “plot”
A plot can be logical and not rely on coincidences so heavily. It's called "cohesion".
@@friendlyneighborhoodvampir9081 but that cohesion is formed by the result of coincidences. Coincidences happen that push the plot into a direction that then continues due to cause and effect.
My god. What a novel idea.
@@alexgeerts6404 Why did Loki take the tesseract? Why did the DEA guy show up the exact moment Mathilda decided to go buy milk for Leon? Why were tickets to the titanic in the pot of the poker game that Jack won?
Every fucking movie in existence starts on some form of coincidence because that is how life works. All nature is is a set of coincidences that result in the current state of reality.
Actually, this doesn't just happen in movies, but in real life as well.
I just went to the kitchen to see if there still was a toffee penny left in my box of quality street. There was! If there wasn't one, I wouldn't be enjoying a toffee penny right now. What an incredible coincidence!
The Drinker is an interesting character to me. He’s someone who genuinely knows how to parse out why he likes the films he does. When he exults a film, he does so eloquently and thoughtfully and I even discovered some of my favorite films as a result of him. On the other hand, he is so thoroughly closed minded that he can’t differentiate a movie that he doesn’t like for some personal hang up versus a genuinely bad movie, and in his brain they are the exact same things. It’s almost like the Nostalgia Critic where the man can make excellent video essays but truly falls apart when it comes time to critique a film or (god forbid) make one
The Nostalgia Critic's Logan review is the worst I have ever seen
@@ak96ful1 oh see in my mind, the Nostalgia Critic sublimated into a ball of plasma and dissociated after his review of The Wall. I’m actually afraid if the Logan review is worse than that monstrosity
Tell me of one youtuber that does movies reviews that actually knows about what its talking about. Logan is meh btw overrated for sure..
Critical drinker is delusional
Anyone who finds joy in this era of modern cinema is part of the problem.
I watched several analysis/review videos about this movie, so the almighty algorithm suggested his right after I'd watched yours. I literally turned it off 45 seconds in, because he so clearly had no idea WTF he was talking about. So so happy that you actually made it through the whole thing and tore it apart so succinctly and intelligently.
The same thing happened to me, never had heard of the guy before. Left the video 30 seconds in.
One of the funniest things for me is that even if the Critical Drinker was right about the big lie, Rian Johnson has been tinkering with how scenes are remembered in both The Last Jedi and Knives Out 1. This isn’t new, and at the end of the day, it’s just another nitpick of saying a writer can’t do X thing effectively when 1) you can and 2) it can be done effectively.
I do think that when they show the scene where Duke picks up the glass, it feels like dishonest film making.
I have rarely seen a flashback completely lie like that. It almost ruined the film for me, because it was the most important detail in the film.
At the end, Blanc says we fell for Miles lie, but that’s not true. I fell for the *filmmakers* lie. I don’t think that’s a good idea for a murder mystery film.
Brick, Looper, The Last Jedi, Knives Out, and now Glass Onion have ALL played with character perspective. Rian Johnson is fascinated by the camera versus characater perspectives in the same way Nolan is fascinated by the concept of time.
@@calvinjohnson6242 In the original scene, Miles hands Duke the glass. I remember because I thought it was strange that Miles made a drink then gave it to Duke
The film didn't lie. MILES lied, saying Duke must have picked up his glass by mistake. Miles, in that scene, is trying to deflect from his own guilt. The fake flashback where Duke picks up Miles' glass from the table is what Miles WANTS everyone to think. That the glass was poisoned, and the poison was meant for him. But what ACTUALLY happened is that Miles poisoned Duke.
The film shows us the objective truth first, then it shows us a lie made up by the murderer, then Benoit Blanc literally says "what did we actually see?" and it shows us what the film originally showed us.
@@calvinjohnson6242 Originally, they show Miles giving the class. Miles then gives a misdirect that Duke picked up his glass
@@calvinjohnson6242 the original scene shows miles giving duke the glass. then the alternate scene of duke grabbing miles glass plays when blanc points out miles lied. it seems to me you misremembers the original scene since miles lied, just like the characters.
That clip legitimately pissed me off with Jennifer.... I remember seeing him play it and immediately thinking "wow he's just lying at this point" there is nothing worse than someone who takes people out of context just to support a narrative.
@caitlyncarvalho7637 entirely possible, but I don't think so, especially considering he doesn't actually watch movies he likes nor does he discuss them, but rather tries to find films he dislikes and tries to say there crap either, because of sexism (he's the sexist) or because he's biased and dislikes the writer and or director.
@Bruce
That's an outright lie. Drinker both discusses and reviews movies and shows he likes. You all are full of ****
@@jonathandantonio649 oh you mean when he talks about films like Terminator or Alien.... Films that everyone loves, and almost worship, and all he does is mention all the things everyone else has mentioned.... When does she talk about new films that have come out or films not to many people know or foreign films?
@@bruce3242
Recently:
The Super Mario Bros. Movie - A Game Changer
Dungeons & Dragons Subverted My Expectations
John Wick Chapter 4 - A (Mostly) Excellent Finale
The Drinker Recommends... The Whale
Puss In Boots: The Last Wish Destroys Modern Hollywood
Before your post:
Andor - The Best Show At The Worst Time
The Drinker Recommends... All Quiet On The Western Front
House Of The Dragon - It's Excellent
Black Adam - It's An OK Movie
A selection of reviews of recent films the he likes. Did you even look at his videos before posting? (that's rhetorical, I know the answer)
@@realentrepreneurshipwithdylan You mean the ones where the white male leads are invincible and are never challenged properly by women and there's no chance of them failing?
Wow, wonder why he liked that.
Critical drinker sure loves talking about politics for someone who complains about politics in movies
It's the most ironic thing about him. He rails against 'hyper-politicised bullshit' by spouting even more exteme hyper-politicised bullshit 😂
Maybe movies shouldn’t have so many politics in them then 😂
@jackpackage4278 there's a difference between letting a black guy play a black guy and call out actual politics. Drinker doesn't do that. He pushes HIS OWN POLITICS onto non political movies too
oh yes, movies, a form of art, should not be political whatsoever, how could there possibly be any politic in art unless it’s forced in there? preposterous
@@resevoirdog give one example. Because nobody cares about diversity in movies. But diversity and race swapping aren’t the same thing at all.
"I watched this movie with my brain off, exclusively looking for things to hate," is an odd perspective for a movie reviewer to take. This person's life must be pretty grim, if this is what he chooses to do with his time.
Or possibly "I watched this movie while listening to a podcast and playing WoW in another window because I already wrote most of the script after watching a few other 'reviews' and reading the wiki page".
I mean, he does obviously make a good living from it and the writing career and he built a fairly successful recognizable gimmick. Which means that he needs to 'sell' a certain product, unfortunately.
He watched Benny boy’s video and made it slightly different so the teacher wouldn’t catch him copying homework
if i had that guy's laugh, sense of humor and just overall personality i'd be feeling pretty damn grim myself
In all honesty I think the drinker, especially as of recent has become so cynical that he’s just given up, and lumped all modern Hollywood movies into the same bin because he expects the same mindless trash as the norm so he doesn’t bother to think much of it anymore. (Hollywood always had a lot of trash and always will)
Critical reminds me of a guy that would say "Your feelings are irrelevant" while critiquing things with biases because he hates "wokeness"
Dude must be a blast at the parties he's not invited to
“Facts don’t care about your feelings (only mine)”
Your feelings don't exist.
100% I saw his video and thought it was one of the worst reviews I’ve ever seen on RUclips and was waiting for someone to talk about how wrong he is on so many things
Right wing commentators: "Movies today always explain everything, they don't leave anything to the viewer because they assume the audience is stupid!"
Also right wing commentators: "Glass Onion is badly written because it didn't explain things well enough!"
"Right wing commentators"
Holy fuck, you dont even realize how indoctrinated you are, dont you ?
Even though in many instances it outright states things
@@ethanstyant9704yeah I was never once confused at any moment. I was intrugued, (I had 2 different culprits in mind that changed during the movie) which is absolutely not the same thing.
Also right wing movies are the worst offenders of spelling out the plot and moral of the story.
@@martianproductions997 probably because most of the movies and series makes fun of them, so they simply don't pick it up on that
7:14 Hercules Poirot? Sherlock Holmes? Two of the most famous fictional detectives and they’re both famous in their respective universes
I was just thinking this! famous detectives is a fucking genre trope my guy lolol
I have a famous detective in my novel. People know who he is by his rep alone.
But Critical Drinker can't be wrong! He wears sunglasses and drinks whiskey! That makes him cool and badass!
Very true actually
Sadly, I think that's actually part of the reason why so many people take this clown seriously.
So glad someone talked about this review!! I could tell from his tweets he completely missed the point of the film
He didn’t miss the point, he chose to misrepresent it. This wasn’t some good-faith misunderstanding, he’s a troll who specifically aims for controversy and divisiveness.
@@alexanderwinn9407 I blame CinemaSins for this
@@alexanderwinn9407 well, he is Trump fan so what can you except lmfao.
@@elvingearmasterirma7241 Eh, Cinemasins at least does not pretend that the points are based on fact and logic and whatnot or gets on a soapbox about the state of the industry and society and whatnot. it's fine to take the piss out of things that happen on screen, but to do that and think you actually made a relevant statement is rather silly.
Lol, I love the criticism to CD.....it's not addressing his points its all " well he a trump supporter so he's wrong about movies"
Get a life
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but the reason that Drinker's footage looks weird is because when he and RUclipsrs like him are talking about a movie that they don't like, they will INTENTIONALLY lower the saturation and screw with it's visual appearance to make it look fundamentally bad to back up their narrative that "X movie is bad"
That he sent her a box made it obvious Miles did it. He was trying to create an alibi with an event where he was making sure everyone who could have been a loose end was onboard. Mikes had no reason to send a box except to say Oh no, I was trying to make amends, I even invited her to my island which I definitely had no opportunity to engage with her otherwise. Phone, I don't even use a phone or email.
People can argue about the logic of the movie, but in my opinion it's just poorly paced. The flashback midway through Glass Onion halts all of the story's momentum and then recontextualizes everything in the most convoluted way possible before revealing that Andi's sister is still somehow alive. It's not just Miles that is dumb, it's the whole damn plot, but people will still say "ThAtS tHe WhOLe pOiNt".
@@jeremyterkelsen2518 I agree. I don't think the film was paced nearly as well as the first film, and the flashback feels a little lazy
@@jeremyterkelsen2518how is it dumb? Nothing was poorly written and nothing was hidden from the audience on a malicious way. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s dumb, name calling is a great way of making sure your criticism isn’t taken seriously at all
The reason why I used that word is because that's how Daniel Craig's character described the main antagonist halfway through the movie. The film's justification for its dumb plot is that the antagonist is dumb, what's lazier than that?
@@jeremyterkelsen2518 once again not giving any arguments and just calling it dumb, do you care to enlighten me and finally tell me what’s so dumb about it? Or are you just gonna keep winning about a movie u don’t like
The "I guess detectives are celebrities" point is so stupid. Anyone who ends up being a prominent figure in a high profile media even is going to get recognized. That's like saying "I guess mateur lawyers are celebrities now" about Robert Kardashian a few years after the OJ trial
my only reaction to that bit was "'world-famous detective' is literally a trope, this guy's a clown lol"
@@youradhere3476 exactly, that's Sherlock Holmes' whole deal for crying out loud yet I don't see him calling that out
Name one high profile real-world detective.
@@CharlieBrownZero it's a *fiction* trope, they don't exist in the real world but they don't have to
@@CharlieBrownZero name one real high profile jedi.
Remember everyone, realism is a writing style. It’s not a point against a story if it makes the choice to implement a different style throughout its run time. 👍
Imagine if every story ever written was only based in our own reality/world...how boring.
@@rosecity_chris yeah xD
@@rosecity_chris reality does get extremely crazy when it does go crazy.
A very good point. Something that is easy to overlook too. We often project an idea from our current outlook
It is a mystery film, not a fantasy one, so it needed to ground in reality
It's refreshing to see someone call Critical drinker [a channel I despise] out for his nonsense. I can't stand moaning about 'woke' anyway [given that term has lost any meaning it might have had at this stage] but like cinemasins it's especially bad when they are outright lying about what's going on. 25:12 onwards is spot on.
I had a problem with the gun. Once Helen was shot, nobody seemed concerned that a) there was still a loaded gun somewhere in the island, and once the group was starting to realize it was Miles, nobody seemed as frightened as you would be that a double-almost-triple murderer was in their midst…who might be armed!
I can get behind that critique. I liked glass onion, and I find it to be a good movie. I also know it has flaws. No movie is perfect after all
That's a good point. It could be though, that the gun was actually out of ammo after Miles shot Helen. If I recall, I believe that the gun was shot 6 times throughout the movie's runtime. I'm not an expert on handguns at all, and the magazine in that handgun could probably hold more than 6 bullets, but that was my thought when I questioned why no one panicked about the gun being missing towards the end.
Because Miles had no motive to kill them, he had them all under his Golden Tit. And when the money ran out, what's he gonna do? Commit a murder spree against everyone? He either had to kill all of them or keep them quiet or lose. And he lost
I had the same concern too, that Miles would pull the gone out again until I realized this dude would have never thought of it because he's just that dumb and nobody mentioned using it again until after he left it behind
instead of being concerned with HELEN SURVIVING BEING SHOT BY THE BULLET HITTING A THIN BOOK AND NOT PIERCING THROUGH IT. lmao
Not catching Miles handing Duke the glass is one thing because it's played incredibly smoothly and a distraction is immediately presented with Birdie spinning in her dress...
But attention was specifically given to Blanc pocketing the hot sauce after eating some and Miles saying he could have the bottle.
CD's complaints read like he didn't even watch the movie...
...ever in his life
Something happened with TCD when he shifted from someone who just talked about bad scene construction and writing to complete grifter. It must have been something to do with who he realized was watching his videos and how much hyperbolic anger seems to pay off. His videos are essentially a template at this point and have been for years and that's all they need to be. He's just another person conflating film analysis with films he just didn't like. And that's whatever. But when he actively lied about scenes by omitting pieces of the film like, what does he hope to achieve? At that point it's clear he's not watching the film and the fans of him aren't watching the film, they're just angry people who don't like things and don't know what media analysis is. It's so clearly a grift it's almost like a satire of a grift
I didn't realise he was also a writer who if he reviewed his own books would refer to them as boring and woke.
Reminds me off Cinema sins. I guess if your idea of critiquing an movie is finding things to nitpick that can be a fun gimmick and some movies deserve to be nitpicked. But ultimately you will most likely turn bitter like that and start pumping out bad content like TCD or CS
@@geeman.8081 Its also ironic that some one so savage in critiquing the writing of others is so poor at writing himself...although tbh Lindsay Ellis who i love is also a bad writer
@@McDonaldsCaliforniaexactly this, he’s become a liquored up version of “Everything Wrong With…//Cinema Sins” and it’s so lazy and frustrating.
I remember watching some of his older stuff and thinking he made some good points about scene construction and narrative structure. but the disdain for performative diversity (a legitimate criticism of "oh look at how diverse our cast is, if you don't like it you're racist/sexist/etc/" ), became a brand of anti-woke garbage.
but in this specific case, i think he just can't forgive Ryan Johnson for TLJ, and he's just being petty.
For that out of context interview, you can even tell from her tone its a sort of "this isn't what I think this is what I was told/how society unfortunately is kind of thing."
"It is a dangerous thing to mistake speaking without thought for speaking the truth" - Benny Blanc
Edit: I am talking about drinker's video, not this one. This one's brilliant!
"Are you calling me dangerous?" 😏
it's an old theme in these wanna-be-critics circlejerks
I gotta be honest, I thought the Duke snooping scene happened as Drinker thought it did. But it's not a huge issue if that's the case.
Scenes like that happen in other movies. It even happened in Knives Out (setting down the birthday cake scene). But it's not a "flaw" because at this point, we know what Helen is doing. If she was there before the reveal, it would've been more confusing
MAD props to you for this. He isn’t worth the effort 9 times out of 10, but every now and then…you gotta call out the bs and set the record straight, especially with such an obnoxious hit piece like the one he published. Give him a taste of his own medicine.
Keep crushing it dude 🤙🏻
Thank you :D
I find him hit and miss
I swear so much modern “critique” is just “Well if the story didn’t happen the story couldn’t have happened so it’s bad writing” or “If all the characters were omniscient geniuses they would have done X so it’s bad writing that they didn’t.”
Like the sheer fact that it’s *fictional* is bad writing to them. It’s baffling
I hate so many people don't get that in most movies the characters don't know they are in a movie, let alone a genre movie like a slasher horror movie
I think what probably pisses CD off the most is that he and the Fandom Menace crowd HAVEN’T “defeated” Rian Johnson. Like this is his fourth project with a big A-list cast, people seem to like working with him, and critically his work has done well. And all their post-TLJ insults have done, in the long term, jack shit.
Also, wait until CD learns Dave Filoni owes Johnson for teaching him about live-action filmmaking. That will really cause him to blow a fuse.
They’ve been angry at Rian for years and it continues to bother them that he’s successful. It’s honestly quite fun to watch them huff and puff angrily all the time. So much paper tiger behavior.
Agreed. That he created a brand new franchise and has been very successful means that he won't give a crap at these hater comments. The fact there still milking Last Jedi outrage when that film is nearly 7 years old now is quite pathetic-move on!
@@jamesatkinsonja A bit of internet hate is basically getting away scot-free with what this Rian did with star wars. Not saying I want the guy to fail or anything but I don't think anyone involved with those star wars movies should be allows to forget.
The Critical Drinker is using a fallacy that we call "millefeuille argumentatif" in french. It's just a pile of fallacious arguments individually weak but going through all the bullsh*t is an exhausting process. Plus it, suffice than one argument carries more pertinance than others for the millefeuille to be annoying to dismantle. Good job on your part, it takes some determination to do so
so, it's french for gish gallop?
Very Trumpian. Just keep throwing shit at the wall and let people try to wade through it all.
@@susanrobertson984 muh trump!
@@MachineMan-mj4gj Trump was an idiot, but the criticism doesn't apply to him so much. It does however fit Bench Appearo exactly, a favourite of illogical people who think they're smart.
@@YEs69th420 muh Shapiro.
Deliberately mispelling their name is infantile.
WHY do people who cant suspend their disbelief watch films that require it, so many of these bad reviews start with essentially 'I didnt understand the concept of the film', its a murder mystery but modern, its inspired by sherlock holmes and agatha christie, just enjoy yourself in that space and stop questioning why everything is happening in a way it wouldnt in a realistic world setting.
It’s always refreshing to find channels that actually call out reactionary garbage, I feel like a lot of channels tiptoe around it and while I understand it from a business perspective, I think it’s just great to see honest content and informative videos
Honest opinions*
I don’t like using the word content I think it cheapens what people make
''It’s always refreshing to find channels that actually call out reactionary garbage''
So like this channel which is reactionary garbage
I watched his “Questions about Black Panther 2” video and he literally asked about how the fish people went to the bathroom and passed it off as actual criticism.
Does he think whales and fishes leave the water to use a toilet?
Heck, the underwater city probably has rooms where the excrements are snapped up and eaten by actual fishes. Or they poo into a tube and flush it to the fishies kept in another enclosure, just as we build sewage pipes and sewage treastment purification plants. Nature is full of examples of biological "recycling".
Clearly they just shit in the water like regular fish lol
Yes, because when I'm watching a science fantasy movie, one of the first questions I ask myself is "How do the characters use the bathroom?" 😂
Yknow, I'm glad that Drinker did this. I needed a reminder that I'm smarter than a pile of bricks
very nice comment
His awful Glass Onion take is making me wonder how many of his older videos (e.g. the Ghostbusters 2016 scene comparison) were simply analyses he'd read off the Internet and wrote into an incisive video essay. His Glass Onion video is embarrassing and seems to show that he's not actually as media literate as he presents himself to be.
@@jamesmaxwell1940 his midsommar video is among them.
@@lead6186 Somehow his Annihilation review was worse.
@@lead6186gosh, his Midsommar video is abysmal. He completely missed the point of that film.
Someone should make a movie starring exclusively cis-het white men who, painstakingly, explain every detail of the plot since that's what the drinker clearly wants.
Yes, I wanted you to react to the Drinker's critique, this should be fun!
I’m an aspiring author, wannabe writer, prospective poet (ignore that last one) and after one (1) poor experience, for a long time, I absolutely balked at the idea of asking *anyone* to critique my writing.
It was only upon going to university (to do a literal course on creative writing and publishing) that I realised that my “poor experience” hadn’t been a critique this whole time! They’d misunderstood the plot, characters, intentions-arguably, everything about my work; then they told me it was bad.
Since the world doesn’t particularly incentivise jobs in the creative industry, I’m more likely to go into the publishing industry, ideally as a copyeditor. In other words, I’d be the guy who helps an author take their manuscript and turn it into a publishable work. Which will involve critique and honest discussion and a lot of red pen marks.
But the *key* to any critique isn’t just to criticise! Being critical just means looking at something objectively, or analysing every positive or negative until you’ve collected all the evidence of either side to decide net good and net bad. A lot of people come to me for help, and they’re always more receptive to improving if you acknowledge and emphasise their successes interchangeably with the weaknesses.
Hell, you can even focus on the critical aspects and still do a good job. But to pretend that there is no good in any single piece of creativity is simply denying nuance for the sake of… ego? Making a distinctive point? Riling up the masses?
I despise The Last Airbender movie. I find it boring, poorly written, poorly cast. It so blatantly missed some of the most important points of the animated series. There are still technical parts that are objectively good. There are visuals that are enjoyable to look at. Aang’s tattoos were a brilliant adaptation of what they could have realistically looked like. Am I scraping the bottom of the barrel? Maybe. But at least I have the presence of mind to not go on the internet and make up lies about M. Night Shyamalan’s intentions just so people will agree with my point.
Mr C. Drinker described a made-up film that was similar enough to Glass Onion to seem as such to a passing viewer, dunked on the Plastic Turnip he created, and claimed that this was irrevocable truth about Glass Onion.
He made a vegetable out of straw, set fire to it, and hoped people wouldn’t realise the real one was one field over.
You should totally get back to writing your own stuff instead of editing. Pay is crap either way but you can write.
@@susanrobertson984 I’m still in uni, so I’ve got a little time to find my footing. I don’t plan on giving up writing anytime soon. My passion for it hasn’t gone away despite mental health issues, the Education System’s crushing bullfuckery, familial pressure, a pretty crappy first year (thanks to The Virus)-I don’t think writing can be rid of me at this point.
I’m lucky enough to *also* have a borderline-abrasive passion for editing, from almost the same age I started writing. I just hope one day people won’t be told they should focus on “careers” instead of “the arts” like it’s some kind of dirty word.
A straw onion instead of a strawman argument. Great metaphor. :)
"Plastic Turnip" I absolutely love that
@@Story_Sandwich CD's review IS bad critique. The video you commented on literally explains why that is. Also, rude.
I remember watching his video and thinking. "Did this guy actually watch the movie"
And even if it was bad, I'm sick of people saying "movie bad, there for u shouldn't enjoy watching it" as long as it doesn't harm people let people enjoy what they enjoy
If I didn’t have the context from your videos I would’ve assume the drinkers channel was a parody account where the whole bit is that he’s too inebriated to pay attention to the movie he’s reviewing.
I don't know if this is a compliment or an insult, or even sane, but to me the Critical Drinker looks like a character from Glass Onion.
He thought that Midsommer was an anti male movie, completely missing the point of the movie, that it was about how a vulnerable lady torn apart by grief was manipulated by a harmful cult.
Lmao. It IS anti-male. Most stuff today is. Anyway, there is a reason girls text "🔥🐻" if they don't like a guy. Go ahead. Ask one you know. She will confirm what I'm saying.
The movie was dogshit nonetheless anyway. Midsommar sucked as a movie and honestly I would rather watch stranger things it has far more competent story telling in mind.
@@andrewh2593 so is any movie where a guy ends up dead anti-male?
@@dabadshoes8658 Stranger Things hasn't been good since S1, and even that was contrived.
@@andrewh2593 how is it anti-male?
thank you for watching that video. I saw he made a review, listened for 10 seconds and had to stop. I can't stand that guy. Even if he wasn't a shitty guy his media criticism is just so so so bad.
I got a bit further in, but after all the anti-woke whinging befitting an utter snowflake, it only took a couple of comments before it was obvious he'd never actually WATCHED the movie, even if it did play on his tv.
His “why modern movies suck” are rational enough. But this one review though, its not rational its as silly as the Venom movie logic
@@hoyofan533 The problem with him is he does have a good theory on why modern movies suck, and I agree with some parts of his theory, but he puts the blame at "woke" people and not acknowledging that movie companies use social movements to score "points" with certain demographics without actually caring about said social movement.
It's like when all the rainbow flags appear on companies logos during gay pride month in western countries, but in Egypt for instance, the logo doesn't change. Or how Coca cola was pushing rainbow flags but during the Qatar World Cup there were no rainbows. They give the presentation they care without actually doing the work because all they care about is money.
Another example: disney shoehorns a gay kiss into star wars so they can say "we have a same sex kiss, look at us we're so progressive" but then edit the scene to remove the kiss in Middle Eastern countries or in China. It's just shit representation and progressives are just as mad as conservatives with their inclusion albeit for different reasons.
Sorry for the essay.
@@AndaraBledin yeah this is what shocks me about him. For someone whose career it is to watch films, he doesn't actually seem to watch them. Like actively watch them.
I sometimes feel he just enters into a film thinking he knows what it's about and then hating it based on the movie he made up in his head. Then in the "review" carefully crafts his complaints so as to make the viewer believe that they saw his version of the movie and not the real movie.
He basically gaslights his audience. It's wild.
@@MistaZULE Hah! It's like he's Miles, telling everybody he put the glass on the table, while everybody who was paying attention know he clearly handed it to Duke all along.
actually yeah...me and my friends saw the glass pass and eventually figured it out and it was the same as benoit "he cant be that stupid right? it was an accident right?"
And the thing is, Duke's pineapple allergy is very loudly pointed out in the probably first 15 minutes of the movie so it's perfectly rational to think that a fully stocked bar could have pineapples or pineapple juice etc etc
No offense to the fans, but I think that drinker guy is just mean. I've seen his LOTR RING POWER and WILLOW videos, and the meanness and rudeness is rampant. I personally don't watch videos to hear belittling and berating.
Also, go strong female protags!
House of Dragon, this movie, Black Panther 2, Warrior Nun, great times for women
Well, bad things deserve to get called out
Actually he has made a positive review of a game with a strong female character recently called horizon forbidden west I haven’t played it yet as I’m still on Elden ring rn but from what I saw seems
Like a game sequel (I also played the original)
They are bad, but his jokes and his obsessing with anti-woke is too distasteful for me. With slight film knowledge there are plenty things to talk about cinematography, editing, and symbolism but its clear that he’s aiming for a certain group of young crowd.
The man gives off vibes of a bitter ex who gets invited to the wedding out of obligation, gets full-on drunk, and gives a public meltdown of a speech where they think if they force enough bursts of passive aggressive laughter, they'll convince everyone (and themselves) that they're not still mad.
The "Dede Pritchett" effect, if you will
“It’s a dangerous thing to confuse speaking without thought for speaking the truth.”
He should have ended the video with taht line and dropped the mic :D
@@kronozord8346 What line? 😏
I didn't think that line was all that clever. People have been spouting nonsense since language was invented. It's acting without thought that is dangerous.
That’s exactly what I thought when Pillar started talking.
@@Steamplague same when that pseudointellectual shite CD misses what makes fiction work everytime
14:33. The movie also literally addresses this. When Helen is confronted about how they all went to Andi's house and Helen doesn't know that they went there
What? How does that address the claim that Helens cover could've been blown so easily at so many times... or is the answer again that the characters are just dumb
@@BWGmedia No. They confront her with knowledge only Andi would have if she were alive. They went to Andi's house looking for her after she threatened them with the letter and Helen didn't know because she's not Andi. This also deepens the mystery because, with retrospect, we know the shitheads didn't know Andi was dead. But it in the moment it makes things even more complicated. Maybe they're all in cahoots, maybe one of them killed her then came back, maybe it was just two or three. Plus, they're all actively avoiding her because it's so awkward for them. They're clearly mostly ashamed, aside from maybe Duke.
I genuinely love that one of the criticisms is "What if they ask her questions she doesn't know the answer to," as if refusing to make small talk with a bunch of people who just stuck a knife very publicly in her back is not only an option, but the likely default state of someone who is, on the face of it, only there to make everyone feel ashamed and uncomfortable. The fact that the other guests are understandably going out of their way to avoid her aside, if I wanted to make a group who betrayed me feel awkward, I wouldn't do it by engaging in idle chit chat with them.
@@BWGmedia How could the cover have blown? They literally stabbed Andi in the back, do you think they will then ask questions and be friendly with her? I am sorry but it looks like you are the dumb one here my dude
Every time a clip of the Drinker complaining makes me go 'have you never seen a murder mystery movie before?' Everything he complains about are long-standing parts of murder mystery stories.
Some of them are also so on the pop culture that you can see them in kids shows like Scooby Doo, is like he didn't watched anything ever
Bro what?
Knives Out and Glass Onion clearly presented the antagonist immediately. There's no "mystery" . . . everyone with functional brain cells knows the bad guy because it's so overtly implied, if not shown.
You didn't know who the murderer was on the Orient Express until halfway through the third act. KO and GO are completely the opposite.
They are campy, over the top, ripoffs. Lazily written copies.
The cinematography is incredible though. Rian Johnson should just stick to that particular job.
@@jodo2785glass onion didn't seem lazily written to me. More like very detailedly
@@ANTIStraussian I can make a very "detailed" art piece . . . of paint drying.
It's still boring and devoid of any creativity or entertainment value.
The cinematography is great. That's the only talent Rian Johnson actually has.
But a movie, especially a mystery detective whodunnit movie, requires amazing writing and believable dialogue.
Glass Onion fails completely in those areas.
@@jodo2785 it is ok if you don't like it but I think it did it very gracefully if a little slow at the beginning, is fun and easy to understand, it doesn't have to be a masterpiece to be good, it is competent and clear in it's intentions
"Look into the clear centre of this glass onion. The Critical Drinker is an idiot! "
This.
*This is good.*