Glass (January 18, 2019)

Just got back from seeing Glass, and I really enjoyed it. Great color from Mike Hatzer and the team at Technicolor, and (despite critics to the contrary) I thought it was dramatic, scary, and surprising throughout. It's definitely got what I would call a slow, deliberate pace, but it's not boring. And I did not see the ending coming (with two, count 'em, two major twists). Be warned a lot of it only makes sense if you know the movie Unbreakable (which is a favorite of mine). It's not a movie for everybody, but I went in with very low expectations and wound up being thoroughly entertained.

The budget was only $20 million, and Shyamalan funded it out of his own pocket.

Note that the movie made $89 million worldwide this weekend.

‘Glass’ Cracks $89M 3-Day Global Bow

 

This is what I am hearing also. The audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is 78% which is almost identical to split. I am surprised so many critics fell on the negative side of it.

 

Saw it last night and enjoyed it.

Spoiler

A little bummed they all died at the end, but ho-hum. Was also waiting for the big new building to explode and was pleased that wasn't the angle at the end.

 

The direction was so lackluster at the end of the movie it was incredible. People were supposed to be seeing these amazing things on their phones yet they sat there with mildly interested look on their face like they were looking at the latest Snapchat pics of Kim Kardashian. As a director I might be shouting something like “try to look a little excited.”


My guess is, since most look like non-professional actors (probably his friends) he shot some reaction shots but they were so phony he cut them out and he didn’t want to go back to the train station to reshoot them. I get the feeling he was shooting this on his dime so he rushed through it like a demon and had to try and patch it together. It definitely felt cobbled together and sloppy to me.


Surprises? To me the movie was like a riddle, wrapped in mystery, inside a burrito. The whole movie plodded on for two hours with the main characters locked up. I’d venture to say silence of the lamb wouldn’t have been as interesting if Dr. Lecter has simply drooled for an hour and 40 minutes.

The big reveal was so lame I couldn’t believe it.Once again Ill repeat my tattoo joke: I always knew it was the Irish holding us back from advancing as a race.

 

"Better" is a subjective term. What you think is better, I might intensely dislike, or vice-versa. What one person thinks is "better" isn't anything I'm personally concerned with. I haven't seen the movie yet but perhaps I would think it was by far the best one out there at that moment. Who knows? It wouldn't make me wrong if a critic (or you) believe otherwise. It just means that our opinions differ, which is fine.

Critics can write whatever they want but it doesn't mean a thing and carries exactly zero weight with me.

 

Does that budget include the actors fee?
Did the 2 A list actors work for next to nothing as part of some trilogy deal?

 

I know "better" is subjective, but I also know that film advertising is not a level playing field. This film has a huge, like 60 foot tall, advertisement on the glass of the theater. The trailer has played for months. There are big cardboard stand-ups for it.

Whatever you're looking for, there is very likely another film at the theater that contains more of it than Glass - action films with more action, more horrifying horror, etc. Glass just seems to be one of those films that people see because it's heavily advertised to them.

If you genuinely liked it more power to you. The sad part is that most people don't know about all the other films that are playing, that they could enjoy far more.

 

I bet the actors have a minimum and then a % deal of gross or net profit * Would make sense

* with Hollywood it’s best to get a % of gross deal since clever bookkeeper can show no profit on paper even if it makes $200 mil.

 

Well, that's just the name of the game. There's so much stuff out there that it's impossible to be aware of it all and have the time to experience it all. So, we all make choices. Whether you agree or disagree with those choices is immaterial. If people enjoyed or disliked their experience, that likely won't affect you anyhow.

Tons of movies are advertised like crazy and generate enough buzz to have people who normally wouldn't go to view it. I can be made aware of a movie but whether I decide to spend time watching it is up to me and no amount of being hit over the head with posters would ever change that.

Last movie I saw was The Guilty (Den Skyldige), a Swedish movie that was quite interesting and different (strike one), featuring subtitles (strike 2), and no action as the whole movie is through the perspective of a single person usually stuck in one room (strike 3).

I'm aware most people won't even give it a go and I'm fine with that. Some just want goofy junk with colorful explosions. Personally, I like something with more substance and less flash but I'm aware I am in the minority. It's OK and doesn't ruin my day in the least that they favor that generic crap over something that I personally consider to be far superior.

To each their own.

 

My guess is that everybody worked at a reduced fee in order to get it made cost-effectively. Generally when that's done, they all get a piece of the back end once the movie has hit a "break-even" point. That's a gamble, but sometimes it can pay off. For example, Sandra Bullock took a lower fee for Gravity, but because she got about 10% of the gross, she wound up getting over $70 million, making her (for a time) the highest-paid actress in Hollywood.

The trick is where the "break-even" point is determined, and that can be tricky. For a $20 million film, chances are it's not when the movie has grossed $20 million -- because the studio doesn't actually get all the money, and there are advertising, distribution, and interest expenses that still have to be paid. My guess is that it would have to hit at least $60 million before it really goes into the black. Once that happens, then I'm thinking Shyalamalan, Willis, Jackson, McAvoy, and Paulson will all start seeing serious money. It's possible the other actors (like Spencer Treat Clark) will share as well. I think it's very possible the film will wind up making somewhere around $400 million worldwide, which is a lot more than anybody predicted.

Variety has a good rundown on why Glass did as well as it did.

‘Glass’: Five Box Office Takeaways From M. Night Shyamalan’s Thriller

The TL;dr version: they released the film at a perfect time, when audiences were ready for an intense horror/thriller and there was nothing else like it in theaters. BTW, I was shocked that this was a combined Universal/Disney release, because that just about never happens. They had to cut Disney in on the deal because of the tie-ins with Unbreakable (up to and including outtakes used in this film).

Ehhhhh... I would say there were three surprise reveals:

Spoiler

The doctor was part of a massive conspiracy to cover up the existence of superheroes. Mr. Glass deliberately engineered the train wreck 19 years ago not only to force Willis to realize he had superpowers. And Glass never intended to attack the new downtown building: that was just a distraction so he could grab all the videos and upload them to the net, telling the world that superheroes actually exist in the real world.

I honestly didn't see any of these coming, so from my perspective, they were a surprise twist for me. I'm so jaded and cynical, when a movie like this can surprise me, I'm generally impressed and entertained.

I'm not saying it's a great film, or even a very good film, but I think it's a good film that held my attention for two hours, didn't bore me, provided good characters I could empathize with, the story made sense, and eventually wound up with logical explanations for some fairly far-fetched situations. Several times, I caught myself saying, "but how did they do that?" And eventually, the director explained it.

 

I want to say one thing which occurred to me while watching “Glass.” I don’t believe it’s a spoiler because it goes back as far as “unbreakable.”


All this hubbub about Bruce Willis being a sole train wreck survior. What? No one’s ever heard of a crash before where a person managed person to survive? You know, “miracle baby found in rubble!” Especially a big crash like a train wreck? Now if his plane had blown up in mid air that would be a different story.

 

My favorite thing in the unbreakable trilogy is Mr. Glass’ purple outfit. At least HE knows how to dress like a superhero.

 

It's very rare, especially when hundreds of other people died. I had a good friend in the 1980s who was on a high school team school bus a decade earlier, and when they were coming back from a game, they had a terrible collision and crashed off a cliff, and every other player died, more than fifty in all... except him. He was critically injured, but recovered after 4 months. He told me he still had nightmares about it every week, and actually hated for a long time that he was the only person who survived, suffering from terrible guilt. So the psychological impact has got to be overwhelming, even in the fictional setting of Unbreakable.

So I think your quarrel is more with the 2000 film's concept than the current one. Me, I totally bought into the idea and it's explained fairly well in Unbreakable. They go back and forth for quite some time as to whether Willis is just crazy, or if there's just a lot of lucky coincidences, or if perhaps there's something real there. And of course, that's also a major issue in the new film.

Some of the best fiction ever written (and some of the best movies ever made) just start with a simple "what if" idea and build a story around it. "What if... there was a guy who never thought he was exceptional in any way, but he discovers by accident that he's almost invulnerable and extremely strong? And then he has to decide what he's going to do with that power?" It's a great idea, even if it's no more than just a comic book. And of course, comics figure heavily in both films.

 

If anybody is the real superhero it’s Samuel L Jackson: I had no idea he’s 71!

 

The vulture reviewer mentions two of my biggest beef’s:

“Oh, these poor actors. The great Sarah Paulson has the worst lines (“It would be an honor to get to know your perspicacious mind,” Dr.
Staple tells Dunn) and the worst camera setups. I’d love to be able to forget her last shot. “

A) was wondering why Sarah Paulson looks so bad in this movie. Unflattering photography. Someone mentioned around here “I don’t know how an actress like Sarah Paulson went unnoticed for so long.“ This film shows it she doesn’t really have a big screen face. Shes attractive in a school marm way but she’s not really the “Hollywood type. “)

B)” Anya Taylor-Joy is brought back to be ludicrously mushy and supportive of Kevin, whom Casey supposedly saw massacre teenage girls a mere three weeks earlier. (Casey knows that Kevin’s inner self is sweet and scared.)”

Yeah I didn’t buy that one for a minute. And two minutes later everybody’s forgetting about the security lights and letting her hug the beast. Makes sense.

 

I disagree with that concept when it comes to movies and music. they see more/hear more and I think they're more reliable when it comes to opinions just cause they've got more experience. (I haven't seen glass yet so can comment on that but I didn't think Unbreakable was really anything special s maybe not my cup of tea)

 

He looks great in the film, and he has an acting tour-de-force as the villain. I can point out an additional plot issue: are we supposed to believe that Mr. Glass has been in the nuthouse for 19 years (since the last film)? If so, you'd think he'd be a lot more damaged... or he would have escaped long before now.

 

...and of course being that he was in the most incompetently run mental institution in the known universe, he was able to replace all of his pills with aspirins.

 

High point of the movie!

You called it.

Critic's were being kind.

But, after ten minutes that is over.

All three have impeccable taste.

The end was the best part. Interesting concept. And, @Vidiot was right, we didn't see it coming.

Such an understatement.

It didn't move that fast.

Yep!

Let's see what the 2nd weekend takes in!

 

One thing I liked about this type of superhero / thriller film is the believability. When a superhero destroys a building and we see no evidence of the impact on people I lose interest. This film is so small in impact, which I think can be a problem at times, but it brings superhuman effort to a human level.

I didn't recognise any Vancouver exteriors at all in this movie and I was looking. I can't speak for the interiors but I would be surprised that they came all this way for the interior of Riverview and The Comic Shop. Still if you are certain I guess they would save money doing it.

 

So opinions of Glass between critics, moviegoers and forum members .....................….. appears to be very Split!

Sorry.

 

Yeah, there were a few lapses in logic like that. I noted earlier the deal where I can't recall a single line to explain where they had Mr. Glass socked away for the last 19 years. It also might have been helpful if <major character name omitted> had explained how they knew about Bruce Willis' character's existence, and for how long.

This is one of many films where I'm muttering, "why is no one watching the security cameras? Why aren't there more guards?" But there's a thousand contemporary films that have that same problem.

BTW, M. Night Shyamalan has said there wouldn't be a sequel, but I bet Universal will really pressure him to reconsider if the film makes a ridiculous ton of dough. There will have to be some cast changes <ahem>, but I think the essential concept could continue. In fact, it might actually make a better Netflix TV series than a film series.

 

Spoiler

Another surprise twist was that Elijah/Glass was also possibly inadvertently responsible for Crumb's Beast/mental issues.
I know there was a scene where [as in lot of cases] a lone parent created the monster, but as clever as Elijah was I can't imagine he would have foreseen this happening from the Unbreakable train crash.
One last thing I am still unsure of is [after Elijah and Dunn's son discover who Crumb's father was] why would he say 'not yet' as Dunn's son was about to reveal who killed his father ……………. was he just wanting to see the rest of the confrontation or knew that if Crumb found out it would spell the end of his created hero's?

 

24 episodes featuring all/each of Crumb's 24 alter ego's!

 

I think the "not yet" [avoiding spoilers as much as I can] was done because that character knew what would happen the moment that secret was revealed, and he'd likely be killed soon after. Remember that his whole point was tied into the cameras.