M. Night Shyamalan's GLASS (Dragonlord's Review)

[Loiosh]

What the fuck could our astronauts have used to defend against them if they were hostile even if all the Aliens had were numbers and some moon rocks to throw?

The astronauts had guns wth them. Seriously.

It’s at least plausible that Aliens -even with great traveling technology- would be unprepared to face certain forms of life and worlds that they encounter. Their job would still come with risk -as does being an astronaut- and could very well be dangerous for them.

No, it is not plausible. Great travel technology without a detailed understanding of chemistry isn't science, it's magic. We know exactly what's waiting for us on every planet in our solar system and why it would kill us if we don't take extreme measures.

 

[Loiosh]

10 Cloverfield Lane was basically better Shyamalan than (post-2004) Shyamalan, a better version of Split or The Visit. But nobody in the general public gives a crap about Josh Campbell or Matthew Stuecken (the writers).

These days, it's a celebration and a return to form if Shyamalan writes something that isn't just plain terrible.

The Visit was not good. It was just a lot better than The Last Airbender. Even Split was nothing special, and by the very end scene with Bruce Willis, he was back to clunky, forced, "first draft" dialogue.

10 Cloverfield Lane is a story that has been told a dozen times in science fiction anthologies, both in film and print. The only saving grace was an excellent John Goodman.

 

[God_Emperor_Of_Mankind]

Superb movie, watched it today. This is how superhero movies should be. Not about either saving the world or the universe all the time.

 

[THEfightsAREfixed]

I found the film to be entertaining, I didn't want to turn it off at any point, but the ending was a bit sloppy even if it was kind of clever and had some good tension, overall it was about as disjointed as you would expect trying to mash this together but the stars are great actors and carry the film

 

[Peteyandjia]

 

[RayA]

Superb movie, watched it today. This is how superhero movies should be. Not about either saving the world or the universe all the time.

You seem like one of the only people praising the movie.
I agree that It's fine not having some kind of world saving conflict every hero movie. One of most fun aspects of this movie is that neither of these guys know how to fight. Neither of them even know the full potential of their abilities. We discover what they can do essentially as they do, and it's nothing over the top.

I just didn't like having the characters sit on their ass the entire time pushing an unbelievable concept.

 

[Amerikuracana]

10 Cloverfield Lane is a story that has been told a dozen times in science fiction anthologies, both in film and print. The only saving grace was an excellent John Goodman.

Naw.. It was a good script. Sad the dude went out like that.

Imagine if shamylaneoneeon's big concept ideas would have been written by somebody that didn't write dialogue as if English was their third language.. 'The happening' could have been a decent movie. I Some times flip it on remembering only the basic idea, and I think I'm going to think it's better than people give it credit for.. Last couple times I tried, that failed. The dialogue and script is terrible.

 

[Loiosh]

Naw.. It was a good script. Sad the dude went out like that.

That doesn't change the fact it's a story that's been told many times.

 

[Amerikuracana]

That doesn't change the fact it's a story that's been told many times.

Ok.

 

[Madmick]

Here's what I don't understand. Glass says to his mother, "This was never a limited edition. This was an origin story."

Whose origin story?

The end of the movie would suggest it's the origin of a new superhero age like the X-Men simply because of belief. Glass is arguably the true protagonist of the film because he's the one that ushers this in; first by "creating" the superheroes, and then by upending 10,000 years of ignorance perpetuated by the three-leaf clover society who murders these superhumans in their infancy while covering it up. The psychiatrist insists her secret society isn't evil, but the only motivation it's attributed is envy ("it's not fair") to justify drowning a helpless man, who did nothing but help people, in order to conceal the truth. Seems pretty evil.

Yet there appears to be a somewhat similar rule in this movie that existed in the film Hancock. The psychiatrist said, "When one of you appears, your opposite shows up, and things escalate."

That was Unbreakable. As Mr. Glass said at the end of that film, "You know how you can tell who the villain is? He's the exact opposite of the hero in every way." Mr. Glass is Overseer's opposite. Overseer may be fighting the Beast in this movie, but The Beast isn't his opposite-- at least not in every way. The Beast is the defender of "the broken", and you might call Kevin broken because his personality has been shattered, so he is like a spiritual/emotional version of Mr. Glass. His personality is in shards. But the Beast isn't broken or fragile.

Nevertheless, this seemed to be revision intended by the movie. Glass is now a "parent". I'm guessing this is why light is Beast's weakness. Light= fire. Meanwhile, David's weakness is water.

The reason I'm confused is because there are three, goddamit, not two. Unless Glass/Beast are meant to be a hybrid opposite to Overseer there should be a fourth superhuman, already, and in the comics, superheroes have many enemies, but only one archnemesis. Three doesn't make sense. Beast didn't hurt the girl in Split because he sensed she was like him. I expected this movie to be her origin story where she would manifest her powers to counter the Beast.

Didn't happen. The most opposite character in this movie was the psychiatrist versus Glass. He seeks to create superhumans. She seeks to destroy them. He seeks to enlighten the world to the truth. She seeks to deceive the world. He pursues his goals at the cost of chaos. She pursues her goals in service of order.

Did Shyamalan not realize she was supposed to be a superhuman? Dude was asleep at the wheel.

 

[Smokes]

Here's what I don't understand. Glass says to his mother, "This was never a limited edition. This was an origin story."

Whose origin story?

The end of the movie would suggest it's the origin of a new superhero age like the X-Men simply because of belief. Glass is arguably the true protagonist of the film because he's the one that ushers this in; first by "creating" the superheroes, and then by upending 10,000 years of ignorance perpetuated by the three-leaf clover society who murders these superhumans in their infancy while covering it up. The psychiatrist insists her secret society isn't evil, but the only motivation it's attributed is envy ("it's not fair") to justify drowning a helpless man who did nothing but help people in order to conceal the truth. Seems pretty evil.

Yet there appears to be the similar rule in this movie that existed in the film Hancock. The psychiatrist said, "When one of you appears, your opposite shows up, and things escalate."

That was Unbreakable. As Mr. Glass said at the end of that film, "You know how you can tell who the villain is? He's the exact opposite of the hero in every way." Mr. Glass is Overseer's opposite. Overseer may be fighting the Beast in this movie, but The Beast isn't his opposite-- at least not in every way. The Beast is the defender of "the broken", and you might call Kevin broken because his personality has been shattered, so he is like a spiritual/emotional version of Mr. Glass. His personality is in shards. But the Beast isn't broken or fragile.

Nevertheless, this seemed to be revision intended by the movie. Glass is now a "parent". I'm guessing this is why light is Beast's weakness. Light= fire. Meanwhile, David's weakness is water.

The reason I'm confused is because there are three, goddamit, not two. Unless Glass/Beast are meant to be a hybrid opposite to Overseer there should be a fourth superhuman, already, and in the comics, superheroes have many enemies, but only one archnemesis. Three doesn't make sense. Beast didn't hurt the girl in Split because he sensed she was like him. I expected this movie to be her origin story where she would manifest her powers to counter the Beast.

Didn't happen. The most opposite character in this movie was the psychiatrist versus Glass. He seeks to create superhumans. She seeks to destroy them. He seeks to enlighten the world to the truth. She seeks to deceive the world. He pursues his goals at the cost of chaos. She pursues her goals in service of order.

Did Shyamalan not realize she was supposed to be a superhuman? Dude was asleep at the wheel.

just watched it last night and thought that the son was the opposite to Glass. He starts off as a helper to dad but prove that he was just as smart as Glass when he figured out that he Glass killed Kevin Dad and then work as Glass's helper kinda by helping expose Superhuman to the world. The Dr thought she stop all the hero and the Mastermind but the Son was left and he could be consider another mastermind type guy. Glass help make superhero and the Son showed them to the world.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Here's what I don't understand. Glass says to his mother, "This was never a limited edition. This was an origin story."

Whose origin story?

The end of the movie would suggest it's the origin of a new superhero age like the X-Men simply because of belief. Glass is arguably the true protagonist of the film because he's the one that ushers this in; first by "creating" the superheroes, and then by upending 10,000 years of ignorance perpetuated by the three-leaf clover society who murders these superhumans in their infancy while covering it up. The psychiatrist insists her secret society isn't evil, but the only motivation it's attributed is envy ("it's not fair") to justify drowning a helpless man who did nothing but help people in order to conceal the truth. Seems pretty evil.

Yet there appears to be the similar rule in this movie that existed in the film Hancock. The psychiatrist said, "When one of you appears, your opposite shows up, and things escalate."

That was Unbreakable. As Mr. Glass said at the end of that film, "You know how you can tell who the villain is? He's the exact opposite of the hero in every way." Mr. Glass is Overseer's opposite. Overseer may be fighting the Beast in this movie, but The Beast isn't his opposite-- at least not in every way. The Beast is the defender of "the broken", and you might call Kevin broken because his personality has been shattered, so he is like a spiritual/emotional version of Mr. Glass. His personality is in shards. But the Beast isn't broken or fragile.

Nevertheless, this seemed to be revision intended by the movie. Glass is now a "parent". I'm guessing this is why light is Beast's weakness. Light= fire. Meanwhile, David's weakness is water.

The reason I'm confused is because there are three, goddamit, not two. Unless Glass/Beast are meant to be a hybrid opposite to Overseer there should be a fourth superhuman, already, and in the comics, superheroes have many enemies, but only one archnemesis. Three doesn't make sense. Beast didn't hurt the girl in Split because he sensed she was like him. I expected this movie to be her origin story where she would manifest her powers to counter the Beast.

Didn't happen. The most opposite character in this movie was the psychiatrist versus Glass. He seeks to create superhumans. She seeks to destroy them. He seeks to enlighten the world to the truth. She seeks to deceive the world. He pursues his goals at the cost of chaos. She pursues her goals in service of order.

Did Shyamalan not realize she was supposed to be a superhuman? Dude was asleep at the wheel.

His scripts, and especially dialogue, have been checkers and not chess, since 'the village.'

His twists have no depth. What you say is true. He needs much more outside input for the scripts that carry his broad, decent ideas.

 

[minute bull]

Cool boxart tho

 

[RayA]

Here's what I don't understand. Glass says to his mother, "This was never a limited edition. This was an origin story."

Whose origin story?

The end of the movie would suggest it's the origin of a new superhero age like the X-Men simply because of belief. Glass is arguably the true protagonist of the film because he's the one that ushers this in; first by "creating" the superheroes, and then by upending 10,000 years of ignorance perpetuated by the three-leaf clover society who murders these superhumans in their infancy while covering it up. The psychiatrist insists her secret society isn't evil, but the only motivation it's attributed is envy ("it's not fair") to justify drowning a helpless man who did nothing but help people in order to conceal the truth. Seems pretty evil.

Yet there appears to be the similar rule in this movie that existed in the film Hancock. The psychiatrist said, "When one of you appears, your opposite shows up, and things escalate."

That was Unbreakable. As Mr. Glass said at the end of that film, "You know how you can tell who the villain is? He's the exact opposite of the hero in every way." Mr. Glass is Overseer's opposite. Overseer may be fighting the Beast in this movie, but The Beast isn't his opposite-- at least not in every way. The Beast is the defender of "the broken", and you might call Kevin broken because his personality has been shattered, so he is like a spiritual/emotional version of Mr. Glass. His personality is in shards. But the Beast isn't broken or fragile.

Nevertheless, this seemed to be revision intended by the movie. Glass is now a "parent". I'm guessing this is why light is Beast's weakness. Light= fire. Meanwhile, David's weakness is water.

The reason I'm confused is because there are three, goddamit, not two. Unless Glass/Beast are meant to be a hybrid opposite to Overseer there should be a fourth superhuman, already, and in the comics, superheroes have many enemies, but only one archnemesis. Three doesn't make sense. Beast didn't hurt the girl in Split because he sensed she was like him. I expected this movie to be her origin story where she would manifest her powers to counter the Beast.

Didn't happen. The most opposite character in this movie was the psychiatrist versus Glass. He seeks to create superhumans. She seeks to destroy them. He seeks to enlighten the world to the truth. She seeks to deceive the world. He pursues his goals at the cost of chaos. She pursues her goals in service of order.

Did Shyamalan not realize she was supposed to be a superhuman? Dude was asleep at the wheel.

That was something I thought was a little off, that rule of two's. I think it is more so about, if one exists, another will eventually rise to oppose them.

Glass was a terrorist. A fragile man prone to physical injury, but a genius terrorist given free reign to kill hundreds, if not thousands. Eventually, his actions spawned opposition in the form of David, Who then got him put away. Then David was given free reign, until eventually he encountered The Beast as his new opposition.

Either that, or Shaymalan just thought that line was cool without further thinking about it. I like to think it's along the lines of the former, but I shouldn't have to be doing mental gymnastics myself to justify a hole. Fak. Oh well.

Either way, I think the Beast is a good opposite to David. The Beast himself is not fragile, but his base form, Kevin, is. Not only that, his whole purpose is to overthrow the "unbroken". Those who have never suffered or felt true pain are not pure, and must be cleansed, blah blah. David's whole immunity to physical harm is a perfect antithesis to this.
Also, in terms of personality, David is stoic and reserved. The same cannot be said about the collective of The Horde, or even the Beast himself.

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

am I the only one who thought Unbreakable was awful...
especially this scene:

 

[sloppypie]

am I the only one who thought Unbreakable was awful...

yes

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

yes

nah

 

[minute bull]

Here's what I don't understand. Glass says to his mother, "This was never a limited edition. This was an origin story."

Whose origin story?

The end of the movie would suggest it's the origin of a new superhero age like the X-Men simply because of belief. Glass is arguably the true protagonist of the film because he's the one that ushers this in; first by "creating" the superheroes, and then by upending 10,000 years of ignorance perpetuated by the three-leaf clover society who murders these superhumans in their infancy while covering it up. The psychiatrist insists her secret society isn't evil, but the only motivation it's attributed is envy ("it's not fair") to justify drowning a helpless man who did nothing but help people in order to conceal the truth. Seems pretty evil.

It was intended as the origin of all superhero films (specifically in being taken seriously), because his trilogy was meant to precede the modern glut of adaptations. He didn't fall asleep at the wheel so much as get butthurt UNBREAKABLE had a relatively wan reception.

 

[CrazyN8]

Great point as usual!

By that same token, I suppose one could argue that the aliens might not have even known water was a danger to them if they had never encountered it prior to arriving on earth. If you accept that, then the notion of "why would they come to a planet with so much water" becomes immaterial.

M. Night cameo king does say that they seem to avoid water but that could very well be because some scouts learned the hard way during the initial recon that it messes them up.

No no, they weren't aliens at all. They were demons and holy water hurt them.

 

[zapataxiv]

No no, they weren't aliens at all. They were demons and holy water hurt them.

Well fuck I thought they were all angels and demon water hurt them.