Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Glass - M Knight

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    Mr E wrote: »
    I really loved this. It was a great story, it tied into the other two movies very well (particularly how it linked Kevin to Unbreakable) and I loved the climax and ending.
    It was better than Split too.

    With 36% on RT and 42 on Metacritic, this is one where the critics got it COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY wrong.

    Loved it.
    Yep, I enjoyed it. I didn't see the twist coming either, I knew there'd be one obviously, but wasn't quite expecting what came. Nice to be surprised in a world where most modern movies have become very predictable!


  • Registered Users Posts: 44,877 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    I really liked it. thought it was very interesting, and i freaking love McAvoy as this character.

    Couple of things...
    KC benging on about Metropolis being New York as is this is some kind of revelation... WTF? Are you thick? How can you think that is an argument.


    The really weird and REALLY BAD sketch drawing of the Osaka building in the Philli skyline - that was jarringly terrible. An intentional attempt to look like a comic panel for that moment?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭correction


    Saw it on Friday night and absolutely loved it. I thought Unbreakable was an excellent film and enjoyed Split too so this would be very high up on the greatest trilogy's (though I've seen people say it's not a trilogy?) list for me. I've noticed in general the audience reception has been quite positive in comparison to the critics.

    Have to say I'm looking forward to the next M Night film. He had an extremely rough period to put it mildly but I thought his early films were great and I've enjoyed his last 3. He's not afraid to take risks and while it's not for every body and certainly doesn't come off all the time I think it's important to have his type making movies in the mainstream.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,990 ✭✭✭ThePott


    I was really enjoying this movie until the last act it became a total mess in my opinion.

    Illogical and overbearing in it's dialogue about comic books. It had potential but I think it became an absolute shambles towards the end.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,502 ✭✭✭bennyl10


    Saw it last night!
    Absolutely loved it!

    Peak M.Night, and yes the ending is a little convoluted at times, but it ties in all 3 very well, without going OTT on it!

    Think I preferred it to Split but slightly under unbreakable.
    Critics are idiots!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 700 ✭✭✭Lefty2Guns


    Went to see it last night myself. Was expecting it to be a bit better to be honest. Found it too slow. Wouldn't be rushing to the cinema to watch it. Overall I'd give 3/5 stars with the performance of James McAvoy dragging it up from a 2/5.

    I really enjoyed both Unbreakable and Split. Just felt MNS tried to combine the two without really having an idea of how to do it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭Venom




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭Autecher


    I saw this today and thought it was enjoyable nonsense that was about 20 minutes too long


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,131 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Saw it last night. Really enjoyed it. Dragged a little bit towards the end, but for the most part, very enjoyable.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,017 ✭✭✭homerun_homer


    Quite disappointed by the end result of this, after the build up since Split, and the time between Unbreakable to now that Shymalan had to form a story. I should have known better, but at least the reviews before hand had me not too hyped going in. It's RT score is a bit harsh, it's not great but it's not that bad. It was at least entertaining but it's not a satisfying conclusion, and just does more
    Shymalan world building by throwing in this new secret group with their own agenda. It's a shame they were cooped up for so much of the movie and then all killed off.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭Gwynplaine


    Saw it Sunday night. Loved it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭tunguska


    I want to see this but I havent seen split. Ive seen Unbreakable though. Would I need to have seen Split before I watch this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,990 ✭✭✭ThePott


    I would say so, there's a lot of Split in there maybe even more so than Unbreakable.

    Split is on Netflix if that helps


  • Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭The Moleman


    A fantastic film.

    Great story and performances.

    I was expecting the film
    to focus on Elijah and I am disappointed there wasn't more screentime for Jackson and Wilis
    but a great film regardless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,690 ✭✭✭Mokuba


    This isn't even a 10th of the movie that Unbreakable was.

    It has some clunky issues in it's first and second act. With the 3 kept apart, it feels like separate movies and a lot of the conversations are repeated. It still has some decent scenes and moments - though it promised more. And it seemed like it was ready to deliver when Glass became a character, and the trio got in a room together for the first time.

    I absolutely loved everything from when the three get into a room together to the point where the first twist is revealed by the son. Loved. Which is why I am so let down by the remainder.

    I don't understand the point of the main twist. It felt it existed just to subvert expectations, just because M Night needs to have a twist. They introduced an organisation in the final 10 minutes as the masterminds of the plot, and we are supposed to be happy 8 minutes later when they get their unexpected comeuppance? But I don't even know who these guys are or know anything about them. Why are you building this up as a huge victory? I literally don't understand it?

    They should have just had Sarah Paulson's character be an extreme skeptic rather than some mastermind. She could still have introduced doubt to the leads. Would have worked far better and allowed the finale to be about the characters that we have enjoyed over the years rather than some shady organisation.

    And there is no forgiveness to how they concluded David's arc. Absolutely disgraceful. You subverted us again M.Night!
    Johnmb wrote: »
    Nice to be surprised in a world where most modern movies have become very predictable!

    Yeah, in the same way it would be nice to be surprised by your cat taking a dump on the sitting room carpet instead of in the kitchen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    Mokuba wrote: »
    Yeah, in the same way it would be nice to be surprised by your cat taking a dump on the sitting room carpet instead of in the kitchen.
    Not every movie needs a happy ending. This was a brutal and unheroic ending, but with the final action it remained true to the characters. It showed that while the shady organisation thought it had all bases covered, Glass truly was a mastermind and was one step ahead all the way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,690 ✭✭✭Mokuba


    Johnmb wrote: »
    Not every movie needs a happy ending. This was a brutal and unheroic ending, but with the final action it remained true to the characters. It showed that while the shady organisation thought it had all bases covered, Glass truly was a mastermind and was one step ahead all the way.


    You're missing some of my point.

    Why did we have to plot twist in a "shady organisation" into the final minutes of the final act, in the third movie of what was effectively a trilogy? Nobody wanted that. Clearly people would have preferred some more concrete resolution to the characters we spent two prior movies getting to know, rather than have to set up a new villain in the final moments of a trilogy to be defeated (by another villain) at the expense of the lives of the main characters!

    M. Night Shymalan presented Glass' outmaneuvering of the organisation as some sort of triumph and a huge victory. Why is this a victory? This organisation has not been developed in any meaningful way. Why would we care? Why would we care that a villain who was presented as a terrible person in Unbreakable (A MASS MURDERER!) had bested this organisation that the audience knew nothing about?

    Why didn't the organisation just kill them all at the beginning? What was the point of keeping them alive for the whole movie. The doctors explanation of wanting to initially convince them they are not special, in order to spare them does not wash when you consider that they have killed others like them many times before. They are murderers. Why bother with the rooms and the time and effort when one of them could accidentally re-discover that they are gifted later on in life! It makes no sense whatsoever. Why would David even doubt something he had been doing for TWENTY YEARS. It took her all of 3 days to have him almost believe that his powers were 20 years worth of coincidence. What rubbish.

    Not every movie needs a happy ending but I have never seen one do it's hero such a disservice by having them die in a puddle to be part of a final twist reveal. It's an attempt to subvert expectations that went badly, badly wrong and it seems you only like it because it subverted expections - regardless of how horrifically it did that and of how pointless and illogical those subversions were.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    Mokuba wrote: »
    You're missing some of my point.

    Why did we have to plot twist in a "shady organisation" into the final minutes of the final act, in the third movie of what was effectively a trilogy? Nobody wanted that. Clearly people would have preferred some more concrete resolution to the characters we spent two prior movies getting to know, rather than have to set up a new villain in the final moments of a trilogy to be defeated (by another villain) at the expense of the lives of the main characters!
    I think you are projecting what you wanted onto everyone else.
    M. Night Shymalan presented Glass' outmaneuvering of the organisation as some sort of triumph and a huge victory. Why is this a victory? This organisation has not been developed in any meaningful way. Why would we care? Why would we care that a villain who was presented as a terrible person in Unbreakable (A MASS MURDERER!) had bested this organisation that the audience knew nothing about?
    He achieved his goal from Unbreakable. It wasn't a victory over the shady organisation. They weren't a new villain, they were a tool used by the original villain to achieve his goal, that was the final twist.
    Why didn't the organisation just kill them all at the beginning? What was the point of keeping them alive for the whole movie. The doctors explanation of wanting to initially convince them they are not special, in order to spare them does not wash when you consider that they have killed others like them many times before. They are murderers. Why bother with the rooms and the time and effort when one of them could accidentally re-discover that they are gifted later on in life! It makes no sense whatsoever. Why would David even doubt something he had been doing for TWENTY YEARS. It took her all of 3 days to have him almost believe that his powers were 20 years worth of coincidence. What rubbish.
    The point of the organisation was that they weren't murderers or villains, they didn't take sides. Their purpose was to eliminate super-powered people. Execution was a last resort.
    Not every movie needs a happy ending but I have never seen one do it's hero such a disservice by having them die in a puddle to be part of a final twist reveal. It's an attempt to subvert expectations that went badly, badly wrong and it seems you only like it because it subverted expections - regardless of how horrifically it did that and of how pointless and illogical those subversions were.
    The film was about a villain, named after him. For him to win, it was likely that the hero would be defeated. You claim it went badly wrong, but that is just your opinion. Many others liked it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭Frank O. Pinion


    Well, that's easily my favourite superhero trilogy, and much better than any of the predictable crap Marvel/DC produce.
    Heroes can die.


Advertisement