Eccentric?billionaire Miles Bron (Norton) invites his favourite friends and “disruptors” to a private Greek island for?a murder-mystery party. When a guest actually dies, it’s up to detective Benoit Blanc (Craig) to?once again solve the case.

古怪的億萬(wàn)富翁 Miles Bron(諾頓飾)邀請(qǐng)他最喜歡的朋友和“破壞者們”到希臘的一個(gè)私人島嶼參加一場(chǎng)神秘謀殺派對(duì)。當(dāng)一個(gè)客人真的死了，偵探Benoit Blanc(克雷格飾)將再次破案。

Whether you’re a detective or a director, taking on a new case is always?tricky.? The last time Rian Johnson made a sequel (2017’s?The Last Jedi), he nearly?broke the internet, or at least the corner of it that likes to argue about Star Wars;??the last time gentleman detective?Benoit Blanc solved a case (in 2019’s Knives Out, Johnson’s part love letter to, part?subversion?of the Agatha Christie murder-mystery genre), he nearly fell into?a metaphorical doughnut-hole.

無論你是偵探還是導(dǎo)演，接手一個(gè)新案子總是很棘手的。上次 Rian Johnson（萊恩·約翰遜）拍續(xù)集(2017年的《最后的絕地武士》)時(shí)，他差點(diǎn)把互聯(lián)網(wǎng)攪得沸沸揚(yáng)揚(yáng)，至少是那些喜歡討論《星球大戰(zhàn)》的人。紳士偵探伯努瓦·布蘭科上一次破案時(shí)(在2019年的《出鞘之刀》中，約翰遜一半是給阿加莎·克里斯蒂寫的情書，一半是對(duì)阿加莎·克里斯蒂謀殺懸疑小說風(fēng)格的顛覆)，他幾乎掉進(jìn)了一個(gè)隱喻式的甜甜圈洞。

This?follow-up?to Knives Out — the first of?a massive, multi-million-dollar deal?made with Netflix — establishes?the Christie-esque precedent?that Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) is?the only recurring element?in the series;? a new case and a new cast of characters will appear each time.? So as much as this is technically a sequel, it feels more like the latest entry in?an ongoing anthology, a singular story that can be enjoyed?purely on its own terms.

這部《利刃出鞘》的續(xù)集是與Netflix達(dá)成的第一筆巨額、數(shù)百萬(wàn)美元的交易，它開創(chuàng)了克里斯蒂式的先例:伯努瓦·布蘭科(丹尼爾·克雷格飾)是該系列中唯一一個(gè)反復(fù)出現(xiàn)的元素;每次都會(huì)出現(xiàn)一個(gè)新的案例和一組新的角色。因此，盡管從技術(shù)上講，這是一部續(xù)集，但它更像是一部正在進(jìn)行的選集的最新一集，一個(gè)可以完全按照自己的方式來欣賞的獨(dú)特故事。

That’s not to say there?aren’t commonalities?with the original, and in fact this is very much more of the same:?a delightful retread?of everything that made?Knives Out?so deeply satisfying. There is, once again, a mysterious crime that self-awarely references the genre as it goes (the first film was set in a crime novelist’s home, mirroring the author’s?fictional crimes; this is set during a weekend-long murder-mystery game). There are bodies and?blood-splatters. There are?twists and misdirects,?rewarding repeat watchers.?There is a final summation and big reveal, in the equivalent of a?drawing room.

這并不是說它與第一部沒有共同點(diǎn)，事實(shí)上，它與第一部有很大的相似之處:這是一部令人愉快的改編之作，改編自那些令《利刃出鞘》這樣令人滿意的作品。影片中又一次出現(xiàn)了一個(gè)神秘的犯罪事件，它自覺地參照了該類型電影的發(fā)展(第一部電影的背景設(shè)置在一個(gè)犯罪小說家的家中，反映了作者虛構(gòu)的罪行；這是一個(gè)周末的謀殺謎題游戲。到處都是尸體和血跡。其中不乏曲折和反轉(zhuǎn)，會(huì)讓反復(fù)觀看者大呼過癮。在相當(dāng)于客廳的地方，有一個(gè)最后的總結(jié)和大揭露。

But it all looks and feels?markedly different, and not just in?the budget flexes?Netflix can now afford. Where?Knives Out?was?a claustrophobic, autumnal, New England kind of whodunnit—?evoking the gothic suspense?of?Sleuth?or the?arch wit of?Clue?— Johnson?opts for a completely different setting?here: a summer holiday gone wrong, his take on?Christie’s?A Caribbean Mystery, or?more accurately,?Stephen Sondheim’s?The Last Of Sheila?(and Sondheim in fact earns a?brief, brilliant posthumous nod?in this film).

但這一切看起來和感覺上都有明顯的不同，而且不僅僅是Netflix現(xiàn)在能承受的預(yù)算彈性。《利刃出鞘》是一部幽閉的、秋日的、新英格蘭式的懸疑小說——讓人想起《足跡》的哥特式懸疑或《妙探尋兇》的機(jī)智——約翰遜在這里選擇了一個(gè)完全不同的背景:一個(gè)錯(cuò)亂的暑假故事，是他對(duì)阿加莎·克里斯蒂《加勒比海之謎》的全新演繹，或者更準(zhǔn)確地說，是斯蒂芬·桑德海姆的《勾魂游戲》(實(shí)際上，在這部電影中也對(duì)桑德海姆進(jìn)行了簡(jiǎn)短而巧妙的追思)。

This time, too, Blanc is no longer “merely a passive obsuh-vuh of the truth” — he’s an active player in the case.? A character previously introduced in?an out-of-focus background shot?now comes to the foreground: we learn a little about his personal life, his?insecurities, his?proclivity for?taking long baths while wearing a fez, and his?extensive collection of linen neckerchiefs.

這一次，布蘭科也不再是“一個(gè)被動(dòng)的真相的無神論者”——他在案件中是一個(gè)積極的參與者。一個(gè)以前在模糊的背景鏡頭中出現(xiàn)的人物現(xiàn)在來到了前臺(tái):我們了解到一些他的私生活，他的不安全感，他喜歡戴著氈帽長(zhǎng)時(shí)間洗澡的癖好，以及他大量收藏的亞麻圍巾。

As such, he feels more rounded as a character, both?narratively?— Johnson is keen to emphasise his?empathy and wisdom?— and?comedically, blessed with more delicious “Southern hokum”, as Blanc himself self-deprecatingly puts it. (Those who enjoyed the “doughnut holes” of the first film will?take particular succour?in the way Craig repeatedly?wraps his lips?around the word “buttress”.) Spending time in Blanc’s company remains?a singular pleasure, and if this is to be?an ongoing affair, as it appears to be, there’s every chance Blanc will be as?defining a role?for Craig as Bond.

因此，他覺得自己作為一個(gè)角色更加全面，無論是在敘事上(約翰遜熱衷于強(qiáng)調(diào)他的同理心和智慧)，還是在喜劇上(布蘭科自己自嘲地說，他擁有更多美味的“南方廢話”)。(那些喜歡第一部“甜甜圈洞”梗的人，這次會(huì)從克雷格反復(fù)把“buttress”這個(gè)詞掛在嘴邊的方式中得到特別的撫慰。)和布蘭科在一起仍然是一種獨(dú)一無二的樂趣，如果這是一段持續(xù)的戀情，就像它看起來的那樣，布蘭科也會(huì)想詹姆斯邦德007一樣，成為克雷格的決定性角色。

He is surrounded, naturally, by?another superb collection?of potential murderers/murder victims, Johnson once again?showing his knack?for drawing from?an embarrassment of acting riches. (If anything, it’s too good a cast, with?superlative talents?like?Kathryn Hahn?given less to do.) You could pick a different favourite each time you think about it, but?particular praise?must go to?Janelle Monáe, showing?versatile comedy chops?for the first time in a complex role that requires both?drunken pratfalls?and?if-looks-could-kill stares; and?Kate Hudson, having a blast as an?endlessly cancelled fashionista?with a?penchant?for tweeting?racial slurs.

很自然而然地，他的周圍又聚集了一批潛在的殺人犯/謀殺案受害者，約翰遜再次展示了他從假裝炫富的尷尬中獲得靈感的才能。(要說有什么區(qū)別的話，那就是這個(gè)演員陣容太好了，凱瑟琳·哈恩(Kathryn Hahn)這樣的頂級(jí)天才的戲份太少了。)你可以每次都選一個(gè)你最喜歡的，但特別要表?yè)P(yáng)的是加納兒夢(mèng)奈(Janelle Monáe)，她第一次展現(xiàn)了多才多藝的喜劇才能，在一個(gè)復(fù)雜的角色中，既需要醉酒出丑，也需要眼神致命的凝視;還有凱特·哈德森(Kate Hudson)，她扮演一個(gè)經(jīng)常被取消演出的時(shí)尚達(dá)人，喜歡在推特上發(fā)表種族歧視言論。

They are all extremely funny, and with that?change of scenery?from the first film comes?a change of tone, lightening as the weather brightens. The first film seemed like a mystery with some comic peppering; this feels more like a comedy first, mystery second. Sometimes there’s a slight sense that the wackiness could have been reined in a little — there are, by our count, nine celebrity cameos drizzled throughout, plus cheeky references to celebrity product endorsements, which begins to feel a little overindulgent.

它們都非常有趣，隨著第一部場(chǎng)景的變化，基調(diào)也發(fā)生了變化，隨著天氣變亮而變亮。第一部電影看起來像一個(gè)帶有喜劇色彩的懸疑片;這感覺更像是一部喜劇，其次才是神秘。有時(shí)會(huì)有一種輕微的感覺，古怪的行為可以被控制一點(diǎn)——根據(jù)我們的統(tǒng)計(jì)，有九個(gè)名人的客串貫穿整個(gè)，加上厚顏無恥的名人產(chǎn)品代言，這開始感覺有點(diǎn)過分放縱。

If the?denouement?doesn’t quite have the same sting of surprise as the first film’s, you will still leave feeling?supremely satisfied. It is, fundamentally, a?proper crowd-pleaser, and best experienced with one. To misquote Blanc: it just makes damn sense. On to the next case!

即使結(jié)局不像第一部那樣令人驚訝，你也會(huì)感到非常滿意。從根本上說，它是一款適當(dāng)?shù)娜偞蟊姷钠?/strong>，而且是技巧最嫻熟的那種。錯(cuò)誤地引用布蘭科的話:這是有道理的。下個(gè)案子見!