Film Review: Glass

"My Work Concerns A Particular Type Of Delusion Of Grandeur. I Specialize In Those Individuals Who Believe They Are Superheroes..."

So where do we being with Glass? Let's begin at the end of the twentieth century in which an up and coming M. Night Shyamalan blew critics and audiences away with The Sixth Sense, a psychological chiller which to this day remains one of the go-to texts for jaw-dropping, I-never-saw-that-coming twists, and a movie which solidified Shyamalan a pathway in Hollywood forevermore to make pretty much whatever he wanted. Following on from The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable continued the interesting pathway the Indian-born filmmaker had already set sail for, introducing both Bruce Willis' (Die Hard) David Dunn, the football player turned security guard with a miraculous ability to see criminal acts alongside an abnormal level of strength, and Samuel L. Jackson's (Pulp Fiction) Elijah Price/Mr. Glass, who during the climactic twist of the movie is revealed to be the overarching villain with an unhealthy obsession with comic book heroes. From Unbreakable onwards, Shyamalan tortured audiences with wave after wave of downright insulting big-screen releases, only to fully redeem himself in 2017 with Split, the James McAvoy led B-movie horror of which Shyamalan's latest, Glass, acts as a direct sequel. Confusing a huge majority of audiences who if unaware of the events of Unbreakable, questioned in tandem during the post-credit scene of Split , "why the hell is Bruce Willis in a diner?" Glass attempts to band together both Split and Unbreakable in an Avengers style team-up, offering up a confusing and sanctimonious muddle of tonal waverings whilst featuring some of the most laugh-out-loud moments of unintentional hilarity I have seen in years. 

Let's face it, on a fundamental level, Glass really doesn't need to exist in any form whatsoever, with the gap between Unbreakable and Split so vast in terms of time that the decision to stitch those two films together in the first place ultimately lessens both works as a whole, with the individual picture much better as a single story rather than being the victim of utmost contrivance by slamming them altogether as trilogy. With Glass therefore, audiences heading in without previously seeing either Unbreakable or Split will have no idea whatsoever going in, a perfectly reasonable notion considering the franchise dependant world we are currently in, however with gargantuan levels of teeth grinding exposition, Glass doesn't even attempt at playing it low-key in terms of storytelling ability and instead goes straight to the George Lucas handbook by screaming every single minor detail in the loudest way possible. I mean come on, Glass is the type of film which has incidental characters literally spell out what is happening even when the audience is already a million steps ahead. Now I'm all for silly movies, I mean Skyscraper was stupid but managed to pass the time rather nicely, yet as with anything stamped with Shyamalan's name on, there seems to be a overriding sense of sanctimony creeping over it, and when the creator believes his work to be of such great importance, the weaknesses become more obvious and the grating, angry emotions begin to fester, particularly in regards to a movie which has such gaping plot holes, I literally just began to laugh at how amateurish the storytelling was out loud in a cinema full of paying customers. With no substance and a reliance on dull, uninteresting levels of wacky supposed "style", Shyamalan returns to the cinematic black hole his career once fell into, with Glass a movie which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and annoyingly degrades the watchability factor of two of his three best movies. Oh well, at least we still can watch The Sixth Sense again without puking. 

Overall Score: 3/10 

Film Review: Death Wish

"How Did Faith Work Out For Those People..?"

Acting as a more than unnecessary reboot of the Michael Winner 1974 film of the same name, torture porn aficionado, Eli Roth (Hostel, Knock Knock) takes control of Death Wish, a ridiculously mainstream B-Movie attempt which swaps Charles Bronson for Bruce Willis as Dr. Paul Kersey who wreaks havoc on the criminal fraternities of Chicago after his wife and daughter are caught up in a robbery gone violently wrong. Forged around a screenplay by Joe Carnahan (Smokin' Aces, The Grey), Roth's latest is a strangely inert and viciously edited piece of nonsense which although fails to live up to perhaps the levels of incompetence many would suspect, is still a cliched and generously predictable ninety minutes with a Bruce Willis on hilarious form with arguably his worst on-screen performance in his entire career thus far. With vigilante justice a mainstay of cinema and television alike, with John Wick: Chapter Two and Netflix's thoroughly entertaining The Punisher released in the past year, albeit one delayed due to questionable murmurings regarding its' violent tendencies, the argument for whether yet another film depicting the horrors of U.S gun control in a day and age ripe with high profile massacres and murders is simply one I tend to stay away from, with instead focus directed primarily on the film as a work of cinema, rather its' place in the overriding social stratosphere. 

Unfortunately for Roth however, his decision to focus wholly on the power of violence and delights of retribution without any flip-side or depth to the film's leading character is where the movie ultimately fails, with Death Wish oh so quickly falling into a pattern of an on-screen violent murder followed by minimalist discussion through random radio off-cuts and then quickly back to yet another violent death without any real sense of purpose or character development other than just Willis' Kersey simply acting as cannon fodder for the film's plodding progression. For example, in a remarkably misjudged scene, Willis' Kersey enters a gun store with a busty, flirty female sales assistant happily flouting the power of the many weapons on show with Kersey questioning how easy it is for him to purchase such weapons, a question which I, and perhaps the entire audience, assumed would then proceed to satire the sordid state of affairs American gun control is currently in. Shockingly however, this discussion then leads to a scene later in the movie when Kersey returns hand in glove with a desire to purchase everything and anything in order to violently massacre whom he sees fit, showing that in fact, Roth's view of the American weapon fascination is only for the greater good. With the film so obviously edited to fit under the umbrella of the 15 certificate that at times the picture jumps frames so violently you feel as if you've been shot yourself, Death Wish is still not exactly terrible and at just over ninety minutes, is sort of bearable to some degree, but with lazy decisions and a god-awful Willis, Roth's movie is still utter nonsense. 

Overall Score: 4/10

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For - Quicky Review - SPOILERS

9 years after the original, Frank Miller returns with "Sin City: A Dame To Kill For". Based loosely on the past events, A Dame to Kill for is something of a muddle. Both a prequel and a sequel to the original, this time around we focus on a few characters that we had previously met and a couple new ones to mix it up a little. Being that the movie jumps from past to present, following the general plot would normally be quite the task for many other movies to pull off. Much like the first instalment, it jumps around a lot between characters with no conceivable connection, which I can only assume is to mimic the way comic book series work from time to time. The problem here is that we never saw the host of characters meet/interact in the first one but now we actually do. Although the only connection made is to the muscle "Marv" for some help killing people or beating the utter shite out of them. Although it was fun, connections between characters like Dwight or Johnny and Nancy would have given the movie a flow that was far less jarring and added a layer of character development that could have been extremely fun had it been done in the right way.

Now for a story, I don't quite know how to describe it. Marv just goes around doing what he did in the first, just this time his plot wasn't driven by Goldie's death but more for the hell of it. Johnny is a gambler who has some sort of ability to win everything he does causing problem between him and the senator. On the topic of Senator Roark, Nancy is doing her stripper thing but aided by an alcohol addiction and crippling depression after the death of Hartigan. With the aim to kill the senator, we follow her through a dark process of gaining the courage to act upon her desires. Finally we have Dwight. Originally played by Clive Owen the role has now been filled by Josh Brolin who is being screwed about by Ava (Eva Green) and her lackie - previously played by Michael Clarke Duncan - Manute without the golden eye. Dwight's story is probably the most in depth story from the group and one of the better acted.

Having only watched the original the day before, I wasn't sure how everything would have panned out. For acting, I was expecting something a little more engaging and realistic. Other than going with cheesy one-liners or short quotes like a comic book, I wanted something plausible for this new instalment. Those who really achieved it were Joseph Gordan-Levitt and Josh Brolin. Taking over from Clive Owen isn't a hard job for anyone by Brolin makes the character his own. For all the characters, they had to act like they had come straight from the comic and its rather disjointing when watching Miho jump about killing people as she is frozen in position but the background is travelling and it looks rather corny and honestly terrible. Although Levitt's character was more of a waste of time for those who haven't involved themselves with the comics, he was an interesting character to watch nonetheless. His story arch did little to impact the story of all the characters apart from the Senator but he was enjoyable to follow.

Considering everything I've picked out, the movie was very enjoyable. The acting isn't always great and constantly being barraged with nude/sex scenes is rather painful and often unnecessary but the general flow of the movie was entertaining. Does it make me want to read the comics? I'm still not quite sure. I may invest some time into the first to see how well it goes down but I'm sceptical of the potential. So for an overall experience, you're going to have to watch the first to even understand this appearance but I think it deserves a 6/10, potentially a 7 if it grows on me at some point.

Red 2 - Quicky Review! - SPOILERS -

A follow up to Red, without Morgan Freeman!? This already seems like a mistake as he was one of the funniest characters to appear and it does leave a substantial hole in the film. Dropping into the movie, we find out that Frank (Bruce Willis) and Marvin (John Malkovich) have been put on the CIA/MI6 kill list because of a connection to an old cold war operation called "NightHawk" which is causing huge amounts of trouble between Russia, US and the UK due to its huge danger to national security. Frank, Marvin and Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker) are now on the run trying to solve the issue in the recklessly comical fashion that made the first such a wonderfully fun movie to watch.

So, you may be asking, does this movie follow the success of the last one? Personally, it's a good follow-up but it does feel weak and a little slow at points. The actual filming was very basic and relied on a lot of CGI for many of the intense action scenes that stuck out like a monkey in the insect enclosure, wildly waving it's hands about. A big budget film should at least be able to blend CGI with ease. Alongside a lack of visually extensive scenes, the cinematography was pretty terrible as it was generic and didn't give you those stunning landscapes which are good at setting the scene and conveying the emotions. Yet the comic book transitions between countries was a cool addition that adds some colour and style.

For a movie which prides itself on action, there is a large quantity of it. With a collection of action superstars, the most technically advanced would be Byung-Hun Lee yet the majority of his scenes is so far over the top, it becomes annoying. Plus his hand to hand combat was actually really weak. It felt slow to watch with hits that weren't even close to making contact. The rest of the action was interspersed with comedy one-liners that were pretty funny and got the whole crowd chuckling. The acting is also much the same, when Catherine Zeta-Jones is shot, she shows no emotion. Malkovich plays the psychotic bastard quite well, but his wardrobe makes him the highlight of the show, especially at the end with his fruit bowl hat. Bruce Willis is once again mediocre, born and raised in action does that to him I guess and finally we have Helen Mirren who is probably the best acted character.

The sound and music department should be crucified for their terrible work. Most notably is the use of a Linkin Park song which features a very strong scream that appears once in the song, so you shouldn't use it twice within seconds of each other as it doesn't mix well. Many of the other sounds were also extremely weak and obscure, the dog next door was crying in pain.

In total, I feel it is a 6/10. Its good fun, but there is a load of errors and annoyances throughout that drive you crazy. You just have to deal with mediocre acting from A list actors. Sorry again for another short review! Been very busy but got a few new things coming over the next week or so!

Die hard 6...really, guys...STAHP!

Yes, you have read the title right. Another Die Hard Movie. It's official, we have the name; "Die Hardest" (Original, IKR!).

The upcoming instalment is currently being written by Ben Trebilcook (Google him). Can we trust this to be better than the disaster of A good day to die hard?, no doubt about it. A movie that censors the majority of violence out, just to get a few kids to watch it is money grabbing and made the film feel shoddy and unfinished. Yet, do we really need a sequel? 4.0 was pretty good. Brucy shot a helicopter out of the sky with a police car...that's pretty badass. Plus there was plenty of explosions and swearing which didn't quickly jump to another scene when Willis goes to spits out blood...

As you may already be able to tell, I had many problems with Die Hard 5, I only hope that the DVD

has everything uncensored, but I won't be buying that for quite some time.

Willis is good, but is he trying to grab a little more cash out of the franchise or is it because he is damn bored? We will never know. I like to think he is filling space until he is needed on the set of The Expendables 3 (My favourite brain dead movie watches).



Anyway, enough of my hate and trash talk.
For the Full story visit:
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/exclusive-die-hard-6-gets-a-screenwriter-and-a-title

What's your opinion on this new episode in the Die Hard franchise and what is your favourite?