Threaded Order Chronological Order
| I was surprise to see them | |
| Posted by: dramedy 01:51 am EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: How Angela Lansbury and Stephen Sondheim Came to Appear in ‘Glass Onion’ - Unhookthestars 01:38 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| And wondered if they were cg. I don’t subscribe to nytimes so I’ll never know. I didn’t care for the movie that much. I thought the first one was much better. | |
| reply to this message |
| I guess I won't be | |
| Posted by: Ann 04:06 am EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: I was surprise to see them - dramedy 01:51 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| And I was disappointed in the first one. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: I guess I won't be | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 10:22 am EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: I guess I won't be - Ann 04:06 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| The sequel is an improvement, but it's much too long. The Sondheim/Lansbury appearance is mercifully early. Gimmicky as it is, it would probably have been just as good to see them even if they hadn't passed on. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I guess I won't be | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 01:29 pm EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I guess I won't be - TheOtherOne 10:22 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| I found the 2nd movie a big disappointment. I watched it in a theater. The cast was good. But the mystery elements weren’t that interesting. The writer-director is no Agatha Christie. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I’m surprised you think it’s better Spoiler inside | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:49 am EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I guess I won't be - TheOtherOne 10:22 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| I guess he didn’t talk much in the first one so that accent wasn’t as grating. And someone that allergic to pineapple juice would carry an epi pen. I thought he was the killer near the beginning so rather obvious. The only surprise was the twin sister. I felt the first movie was almost as good as Agatha Christie story—this was not. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I’m surprised you think it’s better Spoiler inside | |
| Posted by: StanS 04:06 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: I’m surprised you think it’s better Spoiler inside - dramedy 11:49 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with you that the first one was much better. Glass Onion was entertaining but the ending was totally unsatisfying. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I’m surprised you think it’s better Spoiler inside | |
| Last Edit: TheOtherOne 10:33 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 10:20 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I’m surprised you think it’s better Spoiler inside - StanS 04:06 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| I do think it’s marginally better. The first had a good cast but wasn’t quite glib enough to work as parody or intriguing enough to be suspenseful, though it ended well. The second started well, had an impressive twist and a cast that largely* knew when to wink and when to be dead serious, but it dragged on for too long. I wish him well next time out, I love and miss good mysteries. *I don’t think Kate Hudson pulls this off. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I’m surprised you think it’s better Spoiler inside | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 11:58 am EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: I’m surprised you think it’s better Spoiler inside - dramedy 11:49 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| I did not like the first one at all. I thought the killer was obvious in both, but found the overall mystery more engaging in "Glass Onion." I didn't think Craig's accent was as bad this time, frankly, but that's subjective. My only serious complaint about this film is that, as I said, it is much too long. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I guess I won't be | |
| Posted by: Delvino 10:02 am EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: I guess I won't be - Ann 04:06 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| Same; lasted 35 minutes through the 2nd one. Among other things, this ended up my year for Daniel Craig fatigue. Haven't gotten over his Thane of Glamis exiting to open a beer can in the wings. Wait. Maybe that means I have Sam Gold fatigue. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I was surprise to see them | |
| Posted by: Unhookthestars 02:04 am EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: I was surprise to see them - dramedy 01:51 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| Here’s a link that should work without a Times subscription. | |
| Link | Paywall-free link |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| It didn’t work | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:51 am EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I was surprise to see them - Unhookthestars 02:04 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for trying. I just don’t read enough articles for $1 a week | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| One last attempt to share the article for free | |
| Last Edit: Unhookthestars 06:58 pm EST 12/26/22 | |
| Posted by: Unhookthestars 06:57 pm EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: It didn’t work - dramedy 11:51 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| Crossing my fingers (link below): | |
| Link | Sondheim & Lansbury |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Natasha Lyonne | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 07:32 am EST 12/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I was surprise to see them - Unhookthestars 02:04 am EST 12/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| The article is a must-read if only for her first quote. Priceless. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.083418 seconds.