Glass (M. Night Shyamalan)

[megladon8]

Curious why Dunn is in shackles.

[Ezee E]

Curious why Dunn is in shackles.

Same question.

[Dukefrukem]

Trailer Friday!

[Ezee E]

I'm in.

[Wryan]

Looks good. Hope it's fun.

[Wryan]

Didn't realize that Spencer Treat Clark is coming back as David's son. That's cool.

[Scar]

I am intrigued....

[Dead & Messed Up]

Didn't realize that Spencer Treat Clark is coming back as David's son. That's cool.

Yeah, there's a shot in there with David's son, Anya Taylor Joy, and Glass's mother. Intriguing, like Scar said.

[Morris Schæffer]

Not sure if I'm intrigued. Seems straightforward, simply a bigger canvas now than before. Ok, so we know shyam can do twists, but that's become a double-edged sword since 2004. It looks promising though.

[DavidSeven]

I’m into it, but this will forever bother me:

Ugh, this should've been called Shattered.

Unbreakable —> Split —> Shattered. Perfect.

[Watashi]

I hope it at the end, we see Mel Gibson eating at a diner and there's a news story about an unknown disturbance in space or something.

[Wryan]

I hope it at the end, we see Mel Gibson eating at a diner and there's a news story about an unknown disturbance in space or something.

But then he just assumes it to be the machinations of Jews and goes back to eating his patty melt.

[megladon8]

Preliminary reviews are very bad.

Yikes, sounds like this is a colossal miss.

[transmogrifier]

Big surprise given that critics by-and-large embraced Split quite enthusiastically. Weird. Seemed like a no-brainer.

[Irish]

Well fuck me. This is getting badly panned. Even some of the fanboy blogs are ambivalent.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/glass_2019

[Morris Schæffer]

Well fuck me. This is getting badly panned. Even some of the fanboy blogs are ambivalent.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/glass_2019

average rating is 5/10 so that's at least better than seeing '36%'.

[Dead & Messed Up]

In the past few years, I've started diverging from the RT Meter more, just in terms of what I like and what they like (as opposed to some sort of "Fuck the Tomatometer!" attitude (although it does have problems)). The big thing is that I think most critics still try to assess whether or not a film is "good" (aka worth the $10 ticket), while I'm much more interested in whether or not a film is idiosyncratic / different / interesting (although I'd still prefer the flick be competent and effective, obviously). The 40% for Speed Racer is a good example. Aquaman scraping by with a 64% when I really dug its Silver Age absurdity is a more recent example.

[Skitch]

I would respect the tomatometer more if the critics selected the rotten/fresh themselves, and not RT interpreting their reviews.

[Dukefrukem]

In the past few years, I've started diverging from the RT Meter more, just in terms of what I like and what they like (as opposed to some sort of "Fuck the Tomatometer!" attitude (although it does have problems)). The big thing is that I think most critics still try to assess whether or not a film is "good" (aka worth the $10 ticket), while I'm much more interested in whether or not a film is idiosyncratic / different / interesting (although I'd still prefer the flick be competent and effective, obviously). The 40% for Speed Racer is a good example. Aquaman scraping by with a 64% when I really dug its Silver Age absurdity is a more recent example.

Entertainment / Re-watchable / Informative / Artistically Impressive are the things I look for. There are movies that I find incredibly impactful, that are not very re-watchable. And movies that are super entertaining that are not very artistically original.

[Irish]

In the past few years, I've started diverging from the RT Meter more, just in terms of what I like and what they like (as opposed to some sort of "Fuck the Tomatometer!" attitude (although it does have problems)). The big thing is that I think most critics still try to assess whether or not a film is "good" (aka worth the $10 ticket), while I'm much more interested in whether or not a film is idiosyncratic / different / interesting (although I'd still prefer the flick be competent and effective, obviously). The 40% for Speed Racer is a good example. Aquaman scraping by with a 64% when I really dug its Silver Age absurdity is a more recent example.

If they actually did the bolded part, the service might be worth something. But I'm not sure critics do that anymore. (They used to, when they worked for a local paper with a specific readership, and keeping the job meant developing a connection with that readership.)

These days I get the feeling they're either writing for each other or for an imagined reader who happens to share their exact taste, education, and background.

Anyway, since you're mentioning it, I'll mention that I've definitely noticed your approach is looser these days. I think that makes you more interesting, as long as you can justify it.

I would respect the tomatometer more if the critics selected the rotten/fresh themselves, and not RT interpreting their reviews.

Back when, I thought Rotten Tomatoes was far more complex than it actually is (like, a crawler scanned every review and then an algorithm assigned "fresh" or "rotten" based on the review's overall sentiment.)

Then I discovered the system is dumb as a brick. It's just a web-based form attached to a database. The critics assign the scores and enter the pullquotes that you see on any given film's page. RT doesn't do anything except basic, dumb math on the collective scores. (And its methodology there is really, really dumb, because it displays the flat average of every submission.)

[Dead & Messed Up]

Anyway, since you're mentioning it, I'll mention that I've definitely noticed your approach is looser these days. I think that makes you more interesting, as long as you can justify it.

Thanks. When you come out of Fallen Kingdom with a smile on your face, you have to recognize that your criteria has shifted.

EDIT: A huge influence in the past couple years was a philosophy professor discussing how much he loved Inception, and a big part of that was what he called the principle of charity (something I didn't know about), which in philosophy circles refers to interpreting an "opponent" and their argument or counter-argument in the most rational and charitable context but for him meant interpreting the movie's byzantine logic as a function of its very dream nature - what looked like flaws in the film's internal structure, he argued, could be interpreted in a more charitable way, that Cobb is still dreaming. I've started applying that to movies, and I tend to come away liking more of them in general and having more positive experiences. I'm sure I'm giving filmmakers too much credit in some cases, but it's better than becoming one of those YouTube soft boys who pokes holes in the logic of an absurdist spectacle like Aquaman for internet points.

[Skitch]

Amen!

[Irish]

Thanks. When you come out of Fallen Kingdom with a smile on your face, you have to recognize that your criteria has shifted.

I haven't seen the movie but I read what you wrote and thought that your taking that stand you did --- and being able to articulate why --- was just ... cool.

EDIT: A huge influence in the past couple years was a philosophy professor discussing how much he loved Inception, and a big part of that was what he called the principle of charity (something I didn't know about), which in philosophy circles refers to interpreting an "opponent" and their argument or counter-argument in the most rational and charitable context but for him meant interpreting the movie's byzantine logic as a function of its very dream nature - what looked like flaws in the film's internal structure, he argued, could be interpreted in a more charitable way, that Cobb is still dreaming. I've started applying that to movies, and I tend to come away liking more of them in general and having more positive experiences. I'm sure I'm giving filmmakers too much credit in some cases, but it's better than becoming one of those YouTube soft boys who pokes holes in the logic of an absurdist spectacle like Aquaman for internet points.

That's a great way to approach things.

If you are being too generous, who cares? I remember Roger Ebert admitted once that he "graded up" by half a star, gambling on the chance that his reader might enjoy a film than not. He didn't like the idea that he might turn somebody away from something they'd love.

Giving the benefit of the doubt is tough, because on some level it's a denial of ego, and not fighting for internet points is tough, too, because this culture --- especially online culture --- encourages reductive thinking.

Kudos for going the other way.

[transmogrifier]

Um, this "being charitable" thing is exactly what mainstream audiences do, and it's the reasons a whole lot of dreck makes a whole lot of money. I'm not sure film criticism needs to follow the same path. (Though, I think a lot of film criticism already has. So many critically celebrated films have massive flaws front and center.)

In other words, I think we could stand to be a little stricter on many of these films. I'm heading in the opposite direction to D&MU - I have less and less tolerance for mainstream blockbusters that are soulless at their core with easter eggs, endless callbacks to other soulless blockbusters, and the odd piece of random esoterics layered on top. So many mainstream films are just "I RECOGNIZE THAT REFERENCE" set to shit blowing up.

[megladon8]

I’m somewhere in between, I guess?

I like a movie to remain true to its internal logic. So I can be forgiving of “dumb stuff” in some but not in others.

Jen and I watched Stone Cold (action flick with Brian Bosworth) the other night, and the horrid writing / acting / ridiculousness of it all was kind of WHY I found it so glorious.