Fully disagree with that sentiment @Coombs.
I thought much of the photography, which was blatantly lifted from Craig's turns as James Bond, was dire. I was cringing all through that scene on the docks. The direction, too, was hamfisted, with Johnson having given the blocked cast members in each dialogue scene a repertoire of "reacts" to cycle through as limited as Facebook's emoji palette.
The politics too! Milquetoast, and in many ways because the character ideas were so poor. For example, as a Silicon Valley template billionaire, Norton's character was a much less compelling or plausible creation than, say, the small roles afforded to Riz Ahmed in JASON BOURNE, or Mark Rylance in DON'T LOOK UP. Or as I've pointed out, SBF in real life. For me the proof of that harsh assessment was the absence of any feeling of catharsis during the dénouement. I simply didn't care.
Meanwhile, the backstory—where people who were actually struggling had come up with an idea that was actually disruptive—was deeply uncharacteristic of where and how wealth is concentrated in these times.
We had a "scientist" who did no science, a Kathryn Hahn character who was like an emptied-out signifier of Wendy Byrd from OZARK, a Kate Hudson character who was deeply unlike what we know of contemporary pop celebrity … Dave Bautista was pretty much the only cast member lucky enough to both get a role where he could pull his weight, and deliver a performance.
Take out Craig's indubitably charming retread of Benoit Blanc, despite the lack of commitment shown to proper comedic ideas like his apparent live-in relationship with Hugh-Grant-in-a-dressing-gown, and … it truly was a glass onion: it had a few layers, but was structurally simple in the end, transparent, and tasted bad.
