Change Your Image
djmattm2002-913-491227
Reviews
Glass (2019)
It has its moments, and I could enjoy it for what it was. But it could have been better.
This will contain SPOILERS as my review is more of a discussion on what I enjoyed about the film and what could have been better. And that being said, it is written on the general assumption the reader has already seen this at least once.
The good:
The acting in this was great, but James McAvoy was incredible. Subjectively, his performance(s) in Glass compared to Split felt even much more convincing, with the speech and mannerisms more "polished" so to speak. For example, there were a few scenes where it was easier to guess whether Patricia, Dennis, Hedwig or Kevin was 'in the light'. Even before any dialogue was spoken and while wearing the same clothes.
Regarding the story, I did like how they portrayed Elijah Price as the classic 'mastermind', and for this reason the film was titled "Glass" to focus on his cunning and intelligence in manipulating the character and events. When I watched it the first time, I was taken by surprise when he puts his plan into motion. Up until that point, the rather slow pacing and Elijah appearing completely sedated, lulled me into a state where I couldn't predict when or how he'd make his move. -- When he does, things get a bit more interesting. The 'ticking' theme soundtrack for Elijah's scenes being one of them. -- I'll wrap this up by saying I liked the action/fights scenes. Not everyone did, and I'll note on this at the end of the review.
The "bad", or disappointing / what I feel could have been better:
Quite simply, I agree with the critics on how David Dunn's screen time was limited, his very disappointing (SPOILER) death scene, and his theme soundtracks from Unbreakable missing from this. His death and how it didn't seem to count for anything, is so much of a disappointment, that makes any other nitpicks fairly petty by comparison.
-- I'm going to offer my 0.02 on two things I would have changed about the ending...under the premise that all 3 characters were always intended meant to die. -- Firstly, David should have died a hero protecting his son. Maybe revealing him having drowned during the water tank fight, before it drained completely. I still would have had a twist with the SWAT disguised kill team 'confirming' the kills after Staple leading Joseph, Casey and Elijah's mother away to 'help them cope'. -- And secondly, after the streamed footage goes public, (which also shows Staple's involvement), I would have had a scene showing Staple at a secret meeting, where a dozen FBI agents enter. Nothing too dramatic, just something that lets the audience know that David's death was caught on camera and Staple's people didn't get away with it.
Finally, a note on the action/fight scenes that a few critics thought were 'underwhelming', in comparison to Marvel or DC movies. This was, in a way, kind of the point. To make a 'superhero' movie as believable as possible. Elijah mentions this in Glass when he says "We we can do has a basis in science, but it has limits, this isn't a cartoon." This notion wasn't any different in Unbreakable, which the same critics also didn't like back then either. It's understandable that many comic book and cinematic universe fans prefer (and expect) such movies to be the opposite of reality, "Fantasy". Where the movie is supposed to give them an escape from reality, rather than reminded them of it. Nothing wrong with that preference. But also nothing wrong with preferring a movie that feels much more compelling *because* of how realistic the story, setting, characters. -- And that's what I appreciated about these movies. If David Dunn and the Beast were throwing cars, jumping around rooftops, and that sort of thing; it would have been cheesy. And if they could do all of 'that', then Dr Ellie Staple wouldn't have been able to do her job of trying to convince them they were ordinary or delusional.
Overall, despite the things I didn't like, there was enough dialogue and moments I did like to make me want to rewatch them, and spend time making this review.
Battle: Los Angeles (2011)
Better than expected, but could of been much better as a series
When I went to go see it the first time opening night, had I wrote my review then, I might of given it 9 stars. Simply because the trailer made me think it was going to be a cheesy, unrealistic sci-fi film such as what Michael Bay and Emmerich put out.
I'm going to try not to spoil anything...but as some of the things I'm about to write were things I had no idea would even be in the movie; I'm going to assume, in some degree, they could be 'Spoilers', so with that, consider it a fair spoiler warning.
After reading many of the 1 star reviews, it seems the 'between the lines' reason is that they hate the military and any movies that attempt to portray it realistically. If this describes (you), I would advise skipping this review. -- Yes I served. And if that alone makes you hate me, then...do whatever makes you happy. Moving on with the review:
Ironically, I served in the same battalion and regiment featured in this movie (2/5 1st Mar Div). I happened to enjoy it the first time simply because I wasn't expecting any of the details that they did get right. Correct unit/rank structure, correct uniforms (mostly), correct terminology. It was the first time hearing any of it in an alien film. And it made the invasion threat feel that much more real. The language in the opening newscast was as real as it gets. -- But it wasn't enough to cover its shortcomings.
I also rated the movie soundtrack by Brian Tyler 10/10 stars. It's so good, one can close their eyes and imagine the movie this should have been. Which brings me to my criticisms...
The 'shaky cam'...I have to agree with the critics. While combat is indeed a chaotic environment, I'll cite the beginning of Saving Private Ryan as an example of how to do it....without overdoing it. Same with Black Hawk Down...and imho, they should of asked Ridley Scott's help in making this.
Regarding what else the movie was trying to be, which was a decent attempt at an authentic war movie focused on a single platoon... they could of did a better job with a 10-16 episode TV series like Band of Brothers, Pacific or Six. When it comes to war movies that start and end in under 2 hours...there's no real way to avoid pacing and character development that feels rushed.
The only other criticisms are extremely minor. As someone who served in 2/5...we don't go around yelling "retreat hell" everywhere we go. Everything from how the Chinooks flew over enemy-held territory with anti-air (when they didn't have to) and how the platoon walked into several ambushes they way they did...it killed the suspension of disbelief that these were supposed to be trained 0311 and 0331 Marines. Even someone like 2nd LT Martinez would of known better than to maneuver out in the open, behind enemy lines. SSGT Nance...while he has the correct rank for a platoon sergeant, anyone with close to 20 years in Marine Corps would likely be at least an E8 than an E6. -- Again, these are minor details.
I appreciate what the movie was trying to do, which is why I give it 6 stars; but with a bit more effort this could have been a movie worthy of 10. Military accuracy might not mean anything (or might anger) others that didn't serve or hate the military, but I happened to appreciate it and wish more movies would make the effort.
Philadelphia Experiment II (1993)
I liked the movie for what it was
(This review assumes the reader has seen the movie, this is my spoiler warning)
I first saw the movie when it was released in 1993. I was 11 or 12 at the time. Being mostly dialogue driven, I remembered very little of it. The part I did remember that stuck with me was where the stealth was sent back, and how the house interior changed in the snap of a finger with his son disappearing, and the way he runs outside and stops in shock of a landscape that went from a beautiful southern California environment to a post-war industrial wasteland with old abandoned factories looming in the background. -- Seeing it again 20 years later, the actor portrayed the characters emotions pretty much how I would of felt in the situation.
This might sound dorky, but what made me want to see it again was to catch the dialogue. That stuff didn't interest me at age 12. My main question being why the villain would still want to create the time machine and what exactly happened to the stealth.
Though the movie doesn't *show* the 50 years of history, the dialogue let my imagination fill in the blanks about how the world transformed into what it was. The scene where David meets Longstreet in the alternate 1993 was rather profound in answering those questions. The way Longstreet's actor explains the events, and the way David sits silently trying to process everything before and after being handed the photograph of the stealth was done pretty authentically. I felt like I was in David's shoes processing the information, visualizing what happened. Imagining the events just as if I was reading a book. This might not work for younger audiences who like to be shown dazzling scenes vs using their imagination...but I kind of like movies that let me think for myself.
The movie has its flaws, the acting in the rest of the movie isn't the greatest, but again what made me appreciate it was being able to relate to the character as he's trying to make sense of the world that transformed unexpectedly around him. We know that a stealth was sent back, though considering he did not know this (until much later), makes his performance believable.
I can't compare this to the first movie. I watched it out of curiosity but it wasn't of me. This one felt more like a stand alone original than a movie sequel.