Yeah that one was particularly bothersome for me as well because it started out *so* strongly as a conventional horror film. And to a lesser extent I felt that that was where The Menu was going both from the trailers and much of the first act. Glass Onion to its credit was much more upfront about what it was presenting right from the get go and was very consistent throughout.But, on the earlier point of a movie failing to work on two levels, I can relate to your view because of how I perceive The Babadook. That movie is supposed to be a horror film on one level and an allegory on the other, but it just doesn't work *at all* on the litaralist level. It only works as a metaphor for grief/depression/postpartum. For it to work as a horror, the "monster" would have to be literally viable as an actual real-world entity. But the ending undoes that so completely that it doesn't work on both levels.
You know the more I think about it the more I want to even question whether The Menu really was even intended to be satire? Social commentary no question, but I can't help but wonder if it was intended to be more of a straight horror film with a message but ended up being executed so cartoonishly in parts that people are assuming it was intentional and praising it as ingenious satire? Just googling it everything seems to list it as a straight horror/thriller, HBO Max called it out as horror (and rated R for language and graphic violence-yeah right on the latter) and so on. Just rethinking about it in the context of Glass Onion, a film that clearly knew what it wanted to be and achieved it, I'm wondering if the same doesn't hold true for The Menu.
Last edited: