I thought it was pretty terrific. Well acted and had a story that I tried my best to figure out but was well written and clever enough to keep me guessing the whole way through.
Ana De Armas in particular surprised me in this one. I've always thought of her as an above average but not overly remarkable talent. This was the first movie I've seen her perform that I came away impressed.
An old man with a fortune and a family who wants their share. Each member proclaims their love for the patriarch, but each has a motive to cut his throat, keeping in mind that the only thing this family hates more than the man controlling the purse strings, is each other.
In comes a brilliant eccentric detective. He's smarter than everyone else and that's saying a lot because everyone in this story is smart. He adopts a kind hearted nurse to act as Watson to his Holmes, and together they solve this Agatha Christie-esk mystery.
The acting is terrific, the writing is first rate, and the movie looks cool. And while the 2 hour run time seems excessive, I can't think of anything I'd cut - the film gets better as it goes on. It's also really funny.
Before watching Knives Out, I hadn't seen a movie that stood out as the best of 2019. Now I have.
This movie is a blast. Chris Evans and Daniel Craig and the cops are all really fun to watch in this. I thoroughly enjoyed myself this movie but the ending felt flat.
Ana de Armas is so cute with her big eyes and everyone in the movie constantly says what a great, kind hearted person she is, the entire time I was thinking that there would be no way they would play this character straight.
But they did.
Marta is the expert Go player, so the setup for being the mastermind was there all along. She also initially tells Harlan she can't play Go because she's been drinking but later a flashback reveals she turns down champagne because she's "technically working"
I was expecting her to have invented the "if I lie I'll vomit" condition as convenient way to escape suspicion.
So the twist in this movie is there was no twist at all. Everything was straightforward.
It's a simple story competently told but it's very forgettable.
I guess it was part of the blood splatter (I feel like blood could theoretically reach that far but it would be terribly unlikely), but it was barely a plot point so I didn't really linger on that issue even though I thought about it at the time as well
I like how each of the Thrombey family each referred to Marta from a different South American country - Eucador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil. Did i miss any other countries
I also like, "I wanted you to come to the funeral, but was out voted". Made me smile the same excuse was used each time.
i didn't like that they named Chris Evans character "Ransom". Makes it a bit obvious that he would be the person plotting against the family, with a name like Ransom
God knows, I wasn't expecting this thing to be profound or anything like that. "Deep" as a Mission Impossible or Star Trek movie would have been fine with me. But Knives Out had the "depth" of a Murder, She Wrote episode. I expect more from my entertainment movies than that.
Another problem I had with the movie was that the villain was too easy to figure out. It took me about 15 minutes once things got underway. Of course, movie villains are (almost) always easy to figure out, far easier than book villains. Curiously I didn't need a formula to figure it out either, though the movie ends up fitting one nicely. (As to my formula, most people wouldn't want to know. For the curious, caveat emptor)
Figure out who the second or third male lead is in the movie. If the detective has a sidekick, ala Holmes and Watson, it's the third male lead who did it; if the detective works solo, ala Sam Spade, it's the second male lead who is likely the culprit. (With female detectives who work alone, like Miss Marple, it's usually the second male lead as the first male lead is usually some guy there to protect her even if she doesn't need it. These days such male characters are quickly becoming an endangered species--which is good--but it does complicate the formula).
While the formula doesn't always work, maybe two thirds of the time it does. I get around this by knowing as little about the cast as possible (I only knew Craig and Curtis were in the movie in this instance) and avoiding trailers before I see the movie. Anyway you want to cut it, though, it was way too easy.
Another problem I had with the movie was that the villain was too easy to figure out. It took me about 15 minutes once things got underway. Of course, movie villains are (almost) always easy to figure out, far easier than book villains. Curiously I didn't need a formula to figure it out either, though the movie ends up fitting one nicely. (As to my formula, most people wouldn't want to know. For the curious, caveat emptor)
Figure out who the second or third male lead is in the movie. If the detective has a sidekick, ala Holmes and Watson, it's the third male lead who did it; if the detective works solo, ala Sam Spade, it's the second male lead who is likely the culprit. (With female detectives who work alone, like Miss Marple, it's usually the second male lead as the first male lead is usually some guy there to protect her even if she doesn't need it. These days such male characters are quickly becoming an endangered species--which is good--but it does complicate the formula).
While the formula doesn't always work, maybe two thirds of the time it does. I get around this by knowing as little about the cast as possible (I only knew Craig and Curtis were in the movie in this instance) and avoiding trailers before I see the movie. Anyway you want to cut it, though, it was way too easy.
Another problem I had with the movie was that the villain was too easy to figure out. It took me about 15 minutes once things got underway. Of course, movie villains are (almost) always easy to figure out, far easier than book villains. Curiously I didn't need a formula to figure it out either, though the movie ends up fitting one nicely. (As to my formula, most people wouldn't want to know. For the curious, caveat emptor)
Figure out who the second or third male lead is in the movie. If the detective has a sidekick, ala Holmes and Watson, it's the third male lead who did it; if the detective works solo, ala Sam Spade, it's the second male lead who is likely the culprit. (With female detectives who work alone, like Miss Marple, it's usually the second male lead as the first male lead is usually some guy there to protect her even if she doesn't need it. These days such male characters are quickly becoming an endangered species--which is good--but it does complicate the formula).
While the formula doesn't always work, maybe two thirds of the time it does. I get around this by knowing as little about the cast as possible (I only knew Craig and Curtis were in the movie in this instance) and avoiding trailers before I see the movie. Anyway you want to cut it, though, it was way too easy.
A good practice. This is a cousin to an old Roger Ebert-ism that I believe he called "the law of economy of characters." Or, if you're wondering why a certain actor/actress is in a movie where they're not given much to do ... they probably did it.
I too thought the who was relatively easy to deduce ... but the how kept me pretty engaged, especially given the big red herring that's thrown to the audience rather early. Good fun.
De Armas's character is the heart and soul of the movie and the only genuinely good-hearted member of the Thromby/Drysdale clan, and I thought the film did a great job of getting us on her side. There is also some interesting class warfare stuff going on, and I think the primary message of just trying to be a good person and treat people well was enough to give the film some extra weight.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
