I think people just doesn't get this movie.
For me, this was the best of the trilogy. Why? Because it is the most clever of them all. The first was just an overhyped "OK" movie, and the second one was pretty bad. They both had a serious tone, yet it always seemed the director was messing with everybody with those ridiculous taglines etc. And here we finally go full circle in this franchise. All seriousness is stripped away and it's just a full out onslaught of cheesyness, jabs at critics, jabs at the franchise itself, jabs at fans, jabs at the actors (the main actors here are the same as in the previous two movies but as other characters) and the result is just downright hilarious. Dieter Laser is very good and very funny here. For some good measure we also have some porn acting (I mean one of the main characters is actually a porn star).
And now add the grossness from the first two films and multiply it by two and shove that into the film. The result is pretty spectacular. The movie is much more gross than the previous ones and yet you find yourself laughing out loud instead of being repulsed most of the time. It's very effective and entertaining and I actually wish the entire franchise would have been like this instead.
The plots banality has also been cranked to eleven in this and is as over the top as the rest of the movie. It fits really well.
Bottom line is that this movie never takes itself (or anything really) seriously, and that's what makes this a rather excellent closer to an otherwise mediocre franchise.
Initially, M. Night Shyamalan was a force to be reckoned with. This may all be ancient history, of course. Most folks no longer care enough about the man to fact check his history, but he really was perceived to be the next big thing. In fact, out of all of the films in his roster, the only movie that people loved so much they demanded a sequel to was Unbreakable, and now they finally have a real sequel. Sure, Split was a part of that as well, but in my books, it’s not a true sequel unless you continue the story following the original characters – and that’s what Glass finally does – but has M. Night let too much time pass?
As amazing as it is to see all of these characters finally occupy the same space together, I think Shyamalan lost his spark as far as his ability to tell a story goes. When a new M. Night Shyamalan film came out, people knew his films would be similar in tone, concept, cinematography, and visuals. Think about how many of his films feel dreamy, like a dark foreboding mystery that makes you cry out what is happening!? The way he solidified that idea was with great characters, symbolic imagery and elements (like water) and visuals (like light and color), soft-spoken dialogue, and a unique use of camerawork. It all came together to feel unlike anything else out there. Typically, his early work also ended with a massive twist-ending that changed the very way you watched the film, making an additional viewing that much more special in the long run.
The more films he made, the more of the aforementioned list he did away with. Whether or not he lost the things that made him special was on purpose or not is unknown, but the fact remains true: it’s not a well-oiled machine anymore. What remains in Glass are really great characters, and only one shot of great lighting and colors, but that’s where it stops feeling like M. Night Shyamalan. It’s not foreboding, it’s not soft-spoken, the camerawork isn’t really impressive, there’s not much focus on symbolic imagery, elements, or visuals. Actually, it’s kind of messy because I’m not sure Shyamalan knew how to write a movie with all of these characters and instead threw something together that wasn’t very solid. But we have lots to discuss. Let’s do it.
PEOPLE – 85% (17/20)
Acting – 3/4 | Characters – 4/4 | Casting – 4/4 | Importance – 3/4 | Chemistry – 3/4
Starting off with the People Category, you’ll notice that M. Night mostly did a great job here. There’s nothing wrong with the casting, characters, or honestly, acting. Pretty much every great thing in this category was borrowed from Split and Unbreakable but I digress. McAvoy is the pure definition of “range of acting” – so his performance impresses the most, and that is probably why it focuses a lot on his character, I just wish it focused more on the characters we haven’t seen in 19 years. I’d say there was definitely some great chemistry, just not everywhere it was needed, and because it is a bit of a sloppy story, I can’t say the characters hold much independent importance, but everyone does play a vital role into the general direction of the plot.
WRITING – 40% (4/10)
Dialogue – 1/2 | Balance – 0/2 | Story Depth – 0/2 | Originality – 1/2 | Interesting – 2/2
We jump straight from one great category to one bad…but what exactly is so bad about the writing in Glass? In general, everything. The first thing I realized while watching the film is there is no main character. There is no real protagonist or antagonist. You can discern the protagonist is Bruce Willis and the two antagonists are Samuel L. Jackson and James McAvoy from common knowledge, but the way the characters are focused on in the movie doesn’t quite feel that way – not from a movie vantage point…and honestly, I don’t think that was the intention. I don’t think M. Night knew how to write all the characters and their roles from a normal cinematic approach. Another problem was it was messy. You absolutely HAVE to watch the other movies to have any real idea on who these people are – it’s like the next scene in a movie, not an entirely different film – which means, as I’ll get into later, the introduction is weak. It has a hard time juggling between the characters and their relevance to the story. Because of that, you have no real story depth because it’s too busy trying to find footing elsewhere. Heck, even the dialogue was weak. Technically, it’s average, but you expect big memorable speeches from Samuel Jackson, and it never quite reaches that level. All-in-all, I’d say the writing was very weak.
BTS – 80% (8/10)
Visuals – 2/2 | Cinematography – 1/2 | Editing – 2/2 | Advertising – 2/2 | Music & Sound – 1/2
The approach taken behind-the-scenes was mostly done pretty well. I wouldn’t necessarily say as well as it used to be back in the early 2000’s, but still pretty good, generally speaking. The visuals are mostly normal, but there is one really cool shot where they use lighting and color in an impressive way, and I can’t ignore it, so that gets full points. Editing is also really good when they transition between modern shots filmed for this film mixed seamlessly with shots taken for the original film – so editing gets full points, but that’s it. As much as I loved the music in Unbreakable, I don’t think I can say the same for this film. It’s just fine for what it is, and the camerawork is as typical as it gets, which is very unlike M. Night Shyamalan.
NARRATIVE ARC – 80% (8/10)
Introduction – 1/2 | Inciting Incident – 2/2 | Obstacles – 1/2 | Climax – 2/2 | Resolution – 2/2
For the most part, the narrative structure in this film is fine. It has an issue fully introducing you to the characters, as it heavily relies on previous films to do that, but once they get that over with, everything is mostly fine. There’s not much of a central plot underneath it all, which doesn’t really help much, but there is an event early on that changes things, that is the inciting incident. There is a big culminating event towards the end that is easily seen as the climax, and it does calm down and return to a new sense of norm for a resolution.
ENTERTAINMENT – 60% (6/10)
Rewatchability – 1/2 | Fun Experience – 2/2 | Impulse to Buy or Own – 1/2 | Impulse to Talk about or Recommend – 1/2 | Riveting – 1/2
As mentioned beforehand, this was an anticipated film with a group of characters you’ve been dying to see for nearly two decades, of course it’s entertaining. It’s entertaining without really trying to be for the most part. I would definitely rewatch this movie, but I’d probably only do that as a series rewatch, if a friend popped it in, or if I caught it live on TV. Half points. I did have a good time watching the film in general, so that gets full points. I do have an impulse to own it, so I’d add it as a wish list item, but I probably wouldn’t buy it myself. I also think there’s plenty to discuss about the film, but I don’t really feel like recommending it. Finally, I think there is enough in the movie that’s important enough to make you feel like you can’t pause it, but that’s not always the case, so that gets half points.
SPECIALTY – 75% (30/40)
Unbreakable Franchise – 5/10 | Sequel – 10/10 | M. Night Shyamalan – 5/10 | Halfway Decent – 10/10
Finally, what do you expect to see from this film? Especially if you’re a fan of Unbreakable or M. Night Shyamalan? What is it that you actually want to see happen? That answer is different for everyone, but I think there are a few things that anybody would ask. Does it feel like it fits in well with Unbreakable? Yes and no. I think the characters fit in wonderfully, but it strangely feels more like a sequel to Split than Unbreakable, at least in tone and overall feel – so this gets half points. As a sequel, did people want to see it and did it add anything new? Yes and yes. Like I said before, in all of Shyamalan’s filmography, people wanted this film to be made – and does it add anything new? Absolutely – the inclusion of James McAvoy makes more sense than I originally thought – as Samuel L. Jackson is no physical match for Bruce Willis. Full points. As an M. Night Shyamalan film, I think it’s fine, but it doesn’t really feel like him, half points. Halfway Decent – did they make the movie they intended to make from the get go? I had to think on that for a while, but I think for the most part, it did, so that gets full points.
TOTAL SCORE – 73%
An emotional portrayal rather than an historically faithful account of Mary's relationship with Elizabeth of England. Although claiming that this film was based on John Guy's book MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS: THE TRUE LIFE OF MARY STUART (a remarkable, groundbreaking historical work, which, driven by curiosity by the movie, I've just finished reading) there is very little evidence the screenwriter finished reading it. Both the book and film present Mary as the beautiful, courtly, intellectual and political equal of Elizabeth I, but, that must have been when the screenwriter stopped reading the book for he departs from the historical record and lapses into a fantasy, portraying Elizabeth as weak and distant from her own political processes, gives us with no credible explanation for why Elizabeth made the decisions she did, which begs the question no historian would pose, "If Mary was a true and worthy queen whereas Elizabeth was weak and an emotional mess, how did Mary end up on the executioner's block and Elizabeth manage to successfully hold her throne for 44 years?" The screenwriter muddles up any political, religious or ideological (or even personal) logic for the climate of the day which inevitably set the course for Mary's life path. There is no clarity given as to whether one was either Protestant or Roman would be such an insurmountable issue, partly because John Knox was so poorly written (despite having hidden the very talented and capable David Tennant behind all the hair). Disappointing story telling. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie give emotionally deep performances, as expected. This was a waste of good actors. I rate this film a 4 (poor) out of 10. I know I may be expressing a minority opinion, because, by and large, the people I spoke to as we exited the theatre, seemed to have liked the movie, but more troubling, they accepted this as an historically accurate portrayal while confessing to each other that they never knew of Mary, Queen of Scotts. [Historical? BioPic]. By the way, a seminole point of John Guy's book is that Mary and Elizabeth NEVER MET!
I am disappointed with this movie. I had such high expectations. There were many gaps in portraying the story. I am very familiar with the British history so I was able to fill in the gaps. But I was with my teenage daughter and she got lost in the story. First of all, there was no explanation as to why the religion mattered. Second, many stories were rushed, no detail provided while some other stories/parts dragged. And as I watched the scene when Elizabeth and Mary met for the first time I realized that this whole movie is about women empowerment. The way the story was told, the focus was on the strength and power of the women (mostly Mary). I don't like how Elizabeth was portrayed as a weak and insecure woman. Actually, the truth was quite the opposite - she was strong and smart woman. She knew what she wanted. She never married because she knew that she would lose power the moment she tied the knot. This is what ultimately brought Mary's demise.
If the focus of the movie was telling the story rather than making a point, the result would have been much better movie. Right now the movie lacks a seamless story telling. What a waste of good actors. And btw, I think they overdid it with Elizabeth's make up.
Hmm...a little late don't you think.
I mean, this should have came out like four years ago when Slender Man was popular, but not now. The popularity has kinda died out.
'Slender Man' is a water down horror movie with more yawns than thrills. It's painfully dull. So boring in fact, I actually fell asleep 12 minutes into it. Of course I had to re-watch it which was horrible.
There's nothing redeemable or anything good about 'Slender Man'. The script is terrible with endless amount of horror movie clichés you thought died out for good. The cliché of how teenagers talk in these type of horror movies. Not forgetting the questionable decisions that leads to their demise.
All the performances were pretty bad and not convincing during the more "scary" elements - Just made the scenes more funny to be honest. Joey King is on a winning streak recently by starring in terrible movies, and she's really bad in the movie.
The atmosphere or tension is none existent to build up any suspense, just loud jump scares through out. Most of the quiet scenes felt like filler than anything else. When it tries to be creepy, it's embarrassing.
Overall rating: Sony, YOU HACKS!
Holy fuck this movie is awful, I don't get how anyone can praise it. The only parts that were good were the fight scenes and some of the training scenes. They did a pretty decent job putting you into the ring with the boxers but that's literally it. The story is complete nonsense, the acting was was below awful, and it was rife with random meaningless bullshit. Two scenes particularly stick in my mind in a way that is so awful that it becomes hilarious. One is a scene where Creed and his shoehorned love interest are about to have sex on a couch with Rocky in the other room and the girl says something about it being weird that Rocky was in the other room and Creed blurts out "He Old!" as justification to continue and then they just fuck. It's hilarious but what the hell were the writers thinking? Then near the end he's running down the street to train, a random kid on a dirt bike asks if he's Apollo Creed's son, he says yeah, the kid says cool, and then the kid just fucking wheelies down the street. What the hell is that supposed to mean? At the very end you get another random ass scene with these dirt bike kids doing wheelies down the street while he trains. This movie is just complete nonsense.
Although it was a little slow to begin with, I was not disappointed at all by this film. As soon as I heard there was a new one, I kept an open mind and told myself that: "If it makes me laugh as much as the first and second, then I will be happy", and thankfully, it certainly did! If I was going to pick between the three, I'd still slightly prefer the second one, but I don't really think we should be comparing them. Why not enjoy them all? I certainly have.
As with all of Rowan Atkinson's comic creations, Johnny English is a hilarious character who can simply be funny in an empty room. So many people discuss his physical ability, which is of course outstanding, but even his ability to phrase words for comical effect can brighten anybody's day. There are so many subtle gags in this film, it's unbelievable.
I loved the return of Bough as his sidekick. He plays an excellent part in both the first one and this new one. His character is equally as brilliant as Johnny English himself.
A wonderful film, filled with brilliant comedy, and there were moments when I didn't think I'd be able to stop laughing. It was fantastic!
Well this is surprising.
The story is about a CIA analyst who just so happens to be responsible for the success of some of the most dangerous missions. But when her partner suddenly disappears and another top agent is compromised, she finds herself going from behind the desk to into the field - deep undercover to infiltrate the inner circle of an arms dealer and prevent a global catastrophe.
Spoof movies on spy films isn't anything new, I mean we've seen some good and some bad ones that are not written very well and the jokes are just flat. "Spy" was a movie that I didn't really care about until the film got it's early reviews from critics and it got positive reviews. So I've just seen the movie last night and I thought the film was very funny comedy, and it's ten times better than Tammy that we got last year.
Melissa McCarthy can be a hit or miss with me, because I know she can do a great performance in comedy movies, I mean she got nominated for Oscar in Bridesmaids so that's saying something. In this movie I thought she was going to be a clumsy over weight women who always slip up and makes things worse, you know the cliches in those comedy's, but I was extremely surprised that this didn't happen in this movie as Meliassa McCarthy character has a comedic ark to her, but she also played a different character and not the ones that she normally pick. Melissa McCarthy did a good comedic performance in this movie and she did better in this movie than in Tammy.
The director of the Paul Feig who previous did Bridesmaids, The Heat and he's doing the upcoming Ghostbusters movie. He directed the movie pretty good and although out the film I keep thinking of The Heat that he did and I'm saying that in a positive way, as it shows he can mix action with comedy very well. Great work Paul Feig.
The rest of the cast in the movie like: Jude Law, Rose Byrne and Jason Statham all did great in the movie, as both of them got their own funny lines and at least they wasn't wasted like in some other movies seem to do with a big cast like this, but luckily it worked out fine.
The writing was good, the one liners in the movie has to be funniest one liners I've heard since the movie Whiplash and some of jokes really worked.
Now for the problems: Some of the jokes in the movie are sometimes predictable and just fell flat to me. I know this may sound like a small little nick pick to most people, but the movie has a Jame Bond like opening just like Bond films always open, but of cause this movie does it's own take on it and it really wasn't all that good, as I said before it's a small little nick pick but it could have been a lot better, I'm just saying.
Overall Spy is a decent comedy and it's way better than some spoof movies on spy films. The acting was good, some of the jokes worked, Paul Feig directed the movie with style by mixing the action and comedy perfectly, and the movie is enjoyable.
