"Shaun" (Simon Pegg) shares a house with his lazy old pal "Ed" (Nick Frost) living a life of mundanity. His girlfriend "Liz" (Kate Ashfield) is getting a bit fed up with his haplessness, and eventually decides that she is just too bored of their evenings in the local boozer. Suddenly, there start to appear reports on the television reports that there's some sort of plague going on. The two men are fairly oblivious to this until they discover strangers in their garden who seem impervious to shouts of abuse and latterly having things chucked at them. Quickly they repair indoors and realise that flesh-eating zombies have taken over the place. Quickly, the two men decide that they have to rescue "Liz" and her mum (Penelope Wilton) and try to find safety, ideally in their usual fortress-like watering hole - the "Winchester". Can they survive the throng of marauding creatures to gather everyone together? Then what? Can they live on crisps and beer for the rest of their lives? With panic setting in and tempers flaring, it's down to this intrepid bunch to stop from being munched upon and facing a fate worse than death. It's it's very normality that makes this work. Ordinary people, thinking on their feet, dealing with a catastrophe whilst simultaneously coping with the daft problems of day-to-day, turbulent, relationships. The writing is quickly paced and frequently quite witty, with engaging and cohesive efforts from the two at the top of the bill, but also from the briefly used Bill Nighy and the always reliable Wilton who has considerable skill when it comes to comedy timing and accompanying facial expressions. I can't say I've ever seen a collection of vinyl LPs used as an offence weapon before, and that sets the tone for the entertainingly spoofy daftness of the proceedings that isn't maybe the most original ninety minutes of cinema you'll ever have seen, but it stays the right side of slapstick and is good fun throughout.

Shaun of the Dead-If U like Romero/Python Pick This Up:D
This was one of the best movies I saw in the last year or two. The acting was good, the plot was fairly well thought out, and it was very funny. It helps if you are a zombie movie(i.e. G. Romero)fan and enjoy British type humor(like the Monty Python troupe), but if you are neither it will not stop you from enjoying this movie. It is a weird mix of several genres(coming of age, buddy movie, comedy, love, horror)but it definitely works on all levels. The main characters(Shaun and Ed)will definitely remind you of some slacker you knew(or know) The facial expressions, dialogue, and general behavior of these two make for some of the best scenes in the movie. There are also some very good make-up effects, and a decent amount of gore. This is definitely one worth owning.

Fun and quite smart.

Terminator Salvation was pretty bad, but this brings it to a whole new level. What we have hear is a reboot of the canon that no one actually asked for, that no one actually wanted, and that makes really no sense.
Honestly, it's even worse than T3, which at least felt like a continuation of the series.
Here everything is changed so much that, well, there is nothing left. It took the entire Terminator franchise, and re-worked it to kill all the canon, all the mythology, for no apparent reason whatsoever.
And what you have left is a disheveled mess that is guaranteed to make the old fans give up and walk away because of the sheer needlessness alone.

Some people have said that _Terminator: Genisys_ is disrespectful to its source material (first two films) but I disagree. Out of what is clearly a massive homage to _Judgement Day_, _Genisys_ gives away the entire plot and central “twist” in its promotional material months before its release, just like _Judgement Day_ did!
All levity aside, _Terminator: Genisys_ is not great. They took some risks with their casting and it didn’t explode in their face which is nice, a lot of the effects were very visually impressive, and it was fun to see the weapons of the future be purple lasers again, but these aren’t things that make a good movie by themselves. When you mix them up with a plot that doesn’t completely make sense, a story that’s just plain not all that great, some hammy dialogue and a lacklustre ending, then you SPOIL YOUR OWN DAMN MOVIE IN THE TRAILERS **AND** POSTERS, then you’re lucky to even be coming away with a middle of the road score like this one.
At least it’s not _Rise of the Machines_.
_Final rating: ★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

"Wonder Woman" was a groundbreaking film that revitalized the DC universe and reignited excitement for the Justice League. Gal Gadot's portrayal of Wonder Woman, while criticized for her acting skills, was visually captivating and suited the role perfectly. The film's World War I setting and character interactions added depth to the storyline, with quick wit enhancing the overall experience. The fight scenes were exhilarating, showcasing Wonder Woman's badass persona and making the movie a must-watch despite any shortcomings in acting.
On the other hand, "Wonder Woman 1984" failed to live up to its predecessor, delivering a disjointed and disappointing sequel that veered off course from the established DC universe. The film's messy plot, lackluster excitement, and underdeveloped villain undermined the legacy created by the first movie. Director Patty Jenkins' handling of the story and character arcs fell short, leaving viewers with a subpar viewing experience marred by excessive CGI and a lack of substance.
Ultimately, "Wonder Woman 1984" was deemed a misstep in the Wonder Woman franchise, failing to capture the magic of the original film and disappointing fans with its lackluster execution. The film's flaws overshadowed any potential it may have had, leaving audiences longing for a more cohesive and engaging continuation of Wonder Woman's story.

**A disaster of a comic book movie with Batman + Robin level acting and writing and a far cry from its outstanding predecessor.**
What happened?! How did the same director and same cast return from the first movie and make a wildly different quality film? The first Wonder Woman was so powerful, inspiring, and strong. But this sequel was a mess of Batman & Robin-level cheesiness and awful writing. The Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor romance while Steve highjacked a random guy’s body was icky and awkward. Max Lord was way too over the top, and while Kristen Wiig had some good moments, her character was poorly written, and the CGI was atrocious. The effects for the entire film were subpar. How could Warner Bros see this and think it was ready to release? Even the writing for Wonder Woman herself left the character mopey and selfish, which was a significant fall from the incredible writing and performance Gal Gadot gave us in the first one. Wonder Woman 1984 was a massive disappointment that probably killed the franchise and forced a reboot.

Wonder Woman 84 was a love letter to the original series starring Lynda Carter. Visually appealing and just FUN... Pedro Pascal steals the show hands down. It is NOT like its predecessor or any other DC movie with Wonder Woman in it, still, it is a great ride from start to finish and a worthy sequel to the Queen of Amazons.

Awful. I cannot believe how bad this movie was to watch. Leaves you with a bitter, cheated, bored feeling guaranteed. What a total waste of time.
I feel complelled to write this review just so I know I've got it off my chest and can move on.
When it finished my mam said."At least we don't have to ever watch that again.." and that was exactly how everyone felt.
Also half way throuh we were saying when is it going to finish.
Exception - The yound Diana bit was the only bit that had any relivance to the previous movie. The previous movie was quite good.
I'm trying to think what else was good .. Oh and the sparkly poster is quite good, and thats always a red flag that the movie could be bad.

Wow, this movie was really bad. I quite liked the first movie and I am amazed how the writer(s), apparently with Patty Jenkins, in the lead managed to turn this into a boring piece of crud.
The movie is just so boooooring and nonsensical.
Below are my notes when watching this movie (I had to do something while watching it to not get bored out of my mind) which pretty much speaks for itself.
What is it with the stupid beginning? It was just silly lecturing and did not really bring anything to the story.
Those clowns pretending to be robbers. Was it supposed to be funny? Well it was not. Bad start indeed.
25% and this is boring.
40% and this is still f... boring.
A guy used to fly ancient propeller planes can suddenly fly jet fighter planes. And she "forgot" about radar? Seriously?
Flying straight through exploding fireworks and no one saw them nor did the engines get clogged up? And did they not have a world to save instead of sightseeing by the way?
A fighter jet flying from the US to Cairo in one go? Yeah, right!
Finally at 60% there is some action which is of course dragged down by this silly wish stone's impact on Wonder Woman.
And here we go with the illogical emotional bullshit refusing to accept reality.
My God, the bad guy is such an unintelligent and stupid jerk. No charisma whatsoever. The script is really such a juvenile piece of crud that it is unbelievable.
85% and finally some superhero action. Pretty lousy action but at least some action.
Holy crap! Even the finale is boring and dragged out.
This entire movie could have been condensed into a 45 minutes TV show episode, and not a very good one at that.
Patty Jenkins is going on my watch list… for movies that I will avoid!

I am not sure this is not the worst sequel of all time. The hype surrounding the movie touted as the best movie of the year. But, in retrospect, it fits in with the rest of the year of 2020. Lots of hype but miserable on delivery. The storyline was abysmal and the plotlines were weak from the start. Just when you thought it might actually deliver a promising plot twist, it puttered out of the gate. Really disappointed if you couldn't already tell by reading this.

I have read the book "1984" and saw some aspects of the book in this movie- Big Brother, Group Think etc. The moral dilemma that Wonder Woman faces is truly heart wrenching. But as for the rest of the movie, there were some good action scenes and great CGI.I did notice that of all the great nations affected negatively, there was one significant one missing, China. Why would China have been left out of the turmoil affecting the rest of the world? Were the makers of the film afraid to show anything negative about China, but were willing to show other nations in a type of stereotypical light? The depiction of the President of the US, who in 1984 was actually Ronald Reagan, was shown to be an insecure and to be overly ready to shoot off the nuclear warheads. They never called him by name, but the dark hair and the jar of jelly beans were obvious who they were portraying. The hair of the villain of the movie and his ever growing quest for power were subtle clues for another person that Hollywood has deemed a power hungry demonic person. Ironically, the villain uses the same medium to spread his mental suggestions as the media uses to influence us to theirs. The definite political agenda ruined some of my interest in the movie but as eye candy and brain numbing entertainment it fits the bill, They leave the possibility of a prequel or sequel open in scenes at the end - after the credits

**This movie was horrible... and I realize this isnt my genre..but I sat at Christmas and watched it with my 2 grand daughters as they were sooo excited to see it..and we literally ALL hated it... The movie itself is pointless with alot of dialogue that means nothing... no real build up to anything.. If you have to use an entire 2 hours to "explain" a character your probably doing something wrong..
Was SERIOUSLY disappointed in ALL the actors in it..Particularly the guy from the Chapo Netflix series.. his character was HORRIBLE... and if I am being honest..I am not impressed with this woman they have chosen as WW... not in slightest.. extremely odd looking and well... I didnt even find her acting chops good for a film like this...
It was so bad we lasted about %80 of the film befoe we stopped it and started the older one.. I'm not a fan of this actess nor this take on WW at all... **

Wonder Woman 1984 is solid where it counts, maudlin in the way its fans need it to be, and, similarly, just funny enough to be charming. For all that goes unsaid, the writing is even occasionally clever.

1984, a sequel to the fantastic "Wonder Woman", which showed a cool breeze in the middle of a saturated superhero cinematic market, is a fantastic continuation of the story of our favourite super heroine. Lighter in action, but thematically profound, this may not be a film that pleases everyone.
Let's start with the positives: Gal Gadot, as a wonder woman, continues to prove to be the perfect choice to play the part. The actress maintains a strong bond with the audience , really showing all the strong emotions that the character feels during the course of the story. Without her, the film would lose something really essential: her soul.
The story, thematically linked to greed, our deepest desires and selfishness, provides a journey of development for the characters that makes us reassess certain attitudes taken throughout our lives. The story seeks to develop each of the characters, and this is what gives it so much strength.
Chris Pine, as Steve Trevor, is also one of the film's high points, and his chemistry with Gadot remains explosive, providing the film with an engaging romance that will make anyone feel warm inside.
The film is completely different from the first, its style is radically changed, becoming lighter, like a cartoon we watched on Saturday morning as children. For some, dramatic stylistic change may be a negative factor, but in a year of so much suffering, lightness and hope are exactly what we need to abstract ourselves from real life for two hours.
When it comes to action, the film is not as explosive as first, it is contained and the action sequences, though incredible, are scarce. In a two and a half hour film, this may entice some to feel bored. But in my opinion, the film never slows down because of the incredible characters and their interactions.
As far as the most negative points of the film are concerned, I would say that the rope of suspension of credibility is really stretched during the duration of the film and we are asked to accept really ridiculous things that come out of nowhere. The film is also very cheesy, with sequences that can be considered lame and dull.
All in all, however, this film is a glimmer of hope and joy in a dark and desperate year. I strongly advise you to watch it, it's two hours of fun, with no problems and smiles in the mix. Although not perfect, and inferior to the first, this sequel is worthy of the adjective "Wonder".

Do not trust the reviews before Dec 25th 2020 they are bought and paid for early release reviews, this movie is bad real bad, bad CGI and horrible story shame really the first one was amazing but Patty Jenkins should just stick with directing she is just not a good writer.

This movie is dumber than it should be. In short: it looks fantastic and the action is in perfect WONDER WOMAN style. The problems are with the plot, the attention to detail and coherence. I'm not saying this movie should be more realistic, but a lot of the decisions just don't make any sense and it is loaded to the brim with cliches (eg. ugly duckling that is not ugly at all). If you expect something to happen, it will 100%, there is no try to dig deeper - it is always the most obvious and easiest solution. Especially the all solving "action" of Diana, is more than questionable and leaves so many plot-holes.
If you don't care about logic (not realism) or a challenging story this movie is perfect for you...

Heroes are only as good as their villains. Nothing sums up the disappointment of WW84 more than this.
Maxwell Lord & Barbara Minerva are two of the most dangerously dark psyches in DC lore, both fond of extremely nasty, deliberately sociopathic behavior.
Whoever it was pretending to be them in WW84, it wasn't those two from the comics.
We had some namby-pamby twerp called "Max Lord" who was just a misguided fool trying to fill that emptiness in his pathetic life with a magic dream. Yawn.
Also, some good-hearted ditz called "Barbara Minerva" basically became inadvertent collateral damage whilst Lord's dopey plan panned out. Admittedly, that's vaguely similar to one of Cheetah's later origin stories, but it completely discounts her propensity for choosing the pure evil path.
It could have been fun watching a proper mind-controlling Lord and a proper soul-possessing Cheetah fight over the "ownership" of some red shirt. Alas, no.
What an absolute WASTE of two A-grade narrative heavyweights! But then, that's the problem.
You simply could NOT use characters like Lord & Cheetah appropriately in a movie targeted towards a family audience, and it's obvious that "make this family friendly" was plastered all over the script in red sharpie.
Nothing's likely to change for the third WW installment, where, in keeping with the cinematic PG-downgrade of supervillains, Circe is portrayed as a lonely kid's party magician who gets angry when her balloons get popped, so she turns everyone into pet unicorns.

Gal Gadot returns as Diana Prince in “Wonder Woman 1984” which has seen its release date shift a few times due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The film has started to open overseas and will arrive in the U.S. on Christmas day with a limited debut on HBO Max as well.
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
The superhero genre has been growing exponentially during the last decade, so it's bizarre to go through an entire year with only Birds of Prey and The New Mutants instead of literally dozens of films from both Marvel and DC. Thankfully, Warner Bros. decided to release Wonder Woman 1984 before the year's end, but not without a catch. Most people will only have the possibility of watching one of the few blockbusters of 2020 through HBO Max, a streaming service only available in a couple of countries, while some incredibly lucky moviegoers might have the chance of seeing this visually epic film in theaters, depending on the country's pandemic rules.
Fortunately, I'm one of those lucky people who got the opportunity to end 2020 on a positively immersive note by watching Patty Jenkins' latest flick in an almost empty IMAX theater (paradise). If you've been following me for some time, you know I'm a firm believer and defender of the so-called "theater experience", and I can't hide the fact that I felt extremely emotional going into one of the best, biggest theaters in Portugal to witness one of my Most Anticipated Movies of 2020. Until 2017, DCEU struggled to deliver a massively loved installment, and Wonder Woman came to the rescue. It was one of my favorite films of the respective year, so I was obviously excited for its sequel, even more having in mind the circumstances we're all living in.
In my opinion, this sequel stands close to its predecessor. With a lengthy runtime known for being associated with absolutely epic movies, I was confident that WW84 could deliver a solid film with great villains for a change. Well, Kristen Wigg and Pedro Pascal are definitely two of the indisputable standouts. Patty Jenkins, Geoff Johns, and David Callaham made the right decision in dedicating a significant portion of the screenplay to Barbara Minerva and Max Lord. Their arcs are far from being groundbreaking, but they're a thousand times more effective than the "CG punch bag" narrative.
Barbara follows the "lonely, insignificant, no one cares about me" archetype, and Wiig does a surprisingly remarkable job in portraying this character, but the script is what really makes her shine. At first, her comedic mannerisms left me a bit dubious about the eventual character's likeness. However, as time flies by, it's almost inevitable to feel sorry for Barbara, making her future motivations understandable and perfectly natural. On the other hand, Max Lord is apparently exploding with conviction, but his life is not as amazing as everyone might think. This time, it's Pedro Pascal who ends up elevating the character, delivering a brilliant performance with just the right amount of over-the-top expressions.
Even though these two are magnificent, Gal Gadot continues to prove that she's one of the best casting choices of the millennium, interpreting Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman. I seriously cannot imagine another actress wearing that costume, throwing that Lasso of Truth, incorporating the character's essence as seamless as Gadot. In this movie, she was able to perform highly emotional scenes, nailing every single one. Her chemistry with Chris Pine (Steve Trevor) is palpable on the other side of the world, and their interactions go through every zone of the emotion spectrum. Regarding Steve, I'm not going to spoil how he comes back or anything concerning his arc, but I can safely write that his presence in the film is both necessary and logical.
The biggest compliment I'll offer this sequel concerns its screenplay and direction. Finally, I can confidently write that the DCEU is capable of producing a well-structured, well-developed story with well-written characters. It doesn't have as much action as the original, but I still didn't feel the 151 minutes. WW84 flows incredibly well due to Jenkins' ability to fill up the runtime (almost) only with important scenes. There's a slight "over-persistence" in the attempt at sending a certain message (I'll get there), but story-wise, I sincerely wouldn't take a second out. Even the comic relief moments, particularly with Pine (who plays some sort of parallelism with the first movie's Diana), are welcome and timely.
The action scenes might be low on quantity, but the few that the audience gets are long, complex, and technically challenging to pull off. The opening sequence alone almost made me tear up due to its epicness. Hans Zimmer's powerful score, Richard Pearson's clean editing, and Matthew Jensen's camera work all work together to present a lengthy, grand, wide view of an Olympics-style obstacle course with young Diana. Throughout the entire film, the action is colorful, vibrant, fun, and entertaining… except for the (supposedly) climactic clash.
Well, to be fair, there are two climaxes during the last thirty minutes since WW84 owns two antagonists to play with. One of them is closed in perfect fashion, with the emotional stakes at their highest. Great job there, no complaints whatsoever. However, the main fight sequence inexplicably contrasts with the rest of the movie's action. The vibrant colors disappear and are replaced by a dull grey, which makes one of the characters involved (who shares the same color tone) hard to notice, transforming an epic final battle into an underwhelming, barely comprehensible collection of awkward cuts, punches, and screams. Gadot's golden suit is way less exciting (and poorly lit) than her original costume, and Barbara's arc ends without real closure.
In addition to this, Jenkins insists too much on passing to the audience that greed brings horrible consequences. "Be careful what you wish for", "money and power can't buy happiness", "be thankful for what you have", and messages along these lines are repeated continuously (implicitly and explicitly). I admit that it might be a nitpick of mine and that not many people will feel like I did, but I couldn't help but feel that some moments sounded and/or seemed a bit preachy and way too repetitive. Also, it's a bit weird how the official premise mentions Wiig as Cheetah, but this word is not mentioned once in the entire film… Nevertheless, don't be mistaken: I'm thrilled that WW84 is the last flick I watch at a theater this year!
All in all, Wonder Woman 1984 proves that DC continues on the track of success by delivering a well-structured, well-developed DCEU installment without an absurd amount of overwhelming CGI and/or forgettable villains. Patty Jenkins, Geoff Johns, and David Callaham's impressively layered screenplay makes the lengthy runtime feel adequate not only by offering epic, exciting, technically superb action set pieces, but also due to the remarkably well-written heroes and antagonists. Gal Gadot and Chris Pine are outstanding together, but Kristen Wiig and Pedro Pascal steal the show as the newcomers. With two wonderful "villains", WW84 boasts a solid, elaborate narrative that I was lucky to witness on the big screen. Unfortunately, the climactic battle is disappointingly underwhelming and colorless, Barbara's arc ends abruptly without true closure, and Jenkins insists too much on the thematic message of the story. These issues may affect more viewers or not, but one thing's for sure: it's one of the most entertaining movies I've seen all year, worthy of being seen on a massive theater.
Rating: A-

It isn't as easy as saying 'Wonder Woman 1984' is a good or bad movie. The pieces are there, and there are moments I adore, but it does come across as a bit of a mess, even though the action sequences are breathtaking. If you're a fan of the original film, you'll be more willing to take the ride, but for those more indifferent, it may be a bit of a blander sit. If you can and are planning to watch it, the theatrical experience is the way to go - there is nothing like seeing these stunning sets, fun action scenes and hearing Zimmer's jaw-dropping score like on the big screen.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-wonder-woman-1984-a-new-era-of-wonder-occasionally

Glass (2019) is an interesting conclusion to M. Night Shyamalan’s unconventional superhero trilogy, but I’ll admit, it didn’t quite hit the same sweet spot as Unbreakable or Split. While it ties the threads of these worlds together, the magic felt a little dimmer this time around. That said, there are some genuinely impressive moments that make it worth the watch.
James McAvoy is the real MVP here. Once again, his performance as Kevin Wendell Crumb (and his many personalities) is mind-blowing. You can tell he’s putting his all into each character shift, especially when The Beast takes over. And Anya Taylor-Joy? She brought a depth and warmth to Casey Cooke that made her scenes stand out. Honestly, I was always drawn in when she was on screen. She gave the movie a kind of emotional grounding that it really needed.
The story tries to pull off something bold by questioning the idea of superheroes altogether, with Sarah Paulson’s Dr. Ellie Staple pushing the idea of whether their abilities are real or not. It’s a neat concept, but the execution felt a little clunky. The pacing dragged in parts, and some of the twists didn’t pack the punch I hoped for. After Split, where Shyamalan kept me on the edge of my seat, I expected a bit more intensity and polish.
Cinematically, though, it’s still solid. Shyamalan has an eye for atmosphere, and the way he uses confined spaces to create tension is clever. The score worked well too, understated but effective.
Glass might not be a masterpiece, but it still delivers enough to be part of the conversation. Plus, seeing these characters together is reason enough to give it a shot.

I love these characters. I love the cast. I did not love the ending but... Eh, can't have everything. James McAvoy is so damn awesome with the multiple personalities his character has. And to me, this is one of Samuel L Jackson's best roles. Bruce Willis always delivers his bad ass persona in a way relateable by all who watch his films.

Wow! It was just...wow!
M. Night Shyamalan finally made a worthwhile film, especially in a trilogy.

It's a very good movie

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
You all know how anxious I was about this movie. I’m a huge fan of Shyamalan, and I know how hard it is to try to defend a director who made The Last Airbender. Every time I offer undeniable proof of masterful filmmaking, I get overwhelmed with questions about his absurd twists and his cringe-worthy dialogues. Shyamalan is a bit like Kevin, he also has different personalities, depending on the films he releases. On one side, he is a phenomenal filmmaker who knows his craft better than anyone and who once was nicknamed “the second Spielberg”. A screenwriter who delivers mind-blowing plot twists and extremely captivating dialogue scenes. On the other side, there’s a guy who ruins entire movies with frustrating twists that no one asked for and with arguably horrible decisions regarding his characters. So, to each side does Shyamalan tends to in Glass?
The first act is seamless. I love how David is introduced 19 years later and how his life is now. Kevin continues to abduct impure teenage girls, and after a few minutes in, we get the first confrontation between our hero and villain. I wasn't expecting an action-heavy film, and I'm glad it isn't because it would ruin the tone of the other movies. This was never intended to be a massive finale with epic CGI fights, like a Marvel or DC installment. If you're one of those people who expected Glass to be an Infinity War-ish film, I don't even know why are you reading this because you have no idea what this trilogy is about.
Sarah Paulson portrays Dr. Ellie Staple, and she is responsible for treating people who think they are superheroes. So, the second act revolves around a fascinatingly engaging yet overlong narrative which leaves the main characters (and the audience) doubting if everything they did was a product of their supposedly damaged minds. There is so much to love and hate throughout this act. The interactions between these characters are as captivating as they could be, and I couldn't take my eyes off screen. Then, there's James McAvoy ... I have no words to describe how astonishing his performance is. Portraying one character is hard. Portraying almost 20 characters is just outrageous! However, McAvoy nails each personality delivering himself to his roles in such an unbelievable way. Sometimes I chuckled because I couldn't understand how it was possible an actor being able to do what he did, several times, in one-take sequences.
Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson return to portray David and Mr. Glass, respectively. The former is solid, and the respect he has for his character is evident. However, David is sort of left aside in this movie, but I'll get there. SLJ, even with less screentime than the other two, has more to do, regarding moving the plot forward. He gives an extraordinary performance, as expected from such a capable actor. During this act, these four characters offer a lot of memorable scenes, but the narrative is filled with exposition, and it overextends its stay. Shyamalan wanted to show everyone that he knows what he is writing about and a lot of times he used his characters to explicitly say, well, everything the audience needed to know, without any need to.
The third act is where everyone is going to either love or hate the film. In this genre, we all know that the "middle ground" is non-existent. Either you're part of the group who loves it and you will defend it at all costs, or you're part of the group who hates everything about it just due to its final moments. There is more than one Shyamalan twist during this final act. Truth is, I left a bit disappointed. It doesn't matter what your expectations are, it doesn't matter your preferences, at least one of the twists is always going to upset you. What disappoints me the most is that I don't really love any of them. Unbreakable has a final plot twist that completely changes its whole story, and it comes out of nowhere. It's literally mind-blowing! Split has the 17-year twist of it being part of the former's universe, which made several audiences in festivals give it a stand ovation. Glass has ... a bunch of twists. Period. There are no OH-MY-GOD-like reactions. There are no jaws dropped.
Instead, we are left with an arguably questionable decision. A couple of the twists are fine. I would even call them "good twists". However, the one that changes everything feels incredibly forced and most of all, it falls short for such a highly-anticipated trilogy's last installment. I can't help but wonder "is this really the best path you could have chosen Shyamalan? Of all the endings you imagined, this is the one you think is the best to finish a 19-year-in-the-making superhero trilogy?" Regarding the screenplay and the characters, I have the issue above and one associated with David Dunn. If Split didn't have that final twist, it would be a good thriller. Way above average, but not astounding. The link to Unbreakable's universe is what makes it a standout movie of 2017. So, I was expecting a lot of David, and I only got a small fraction of him.
I'll put this way:
- if you're expecting an Unbreakable sequel, you'll probably leave disappointed;
- if you're expecting Split 2, you'll love McAvoy's take on almost 20 distinct personalities, and that alone is worth the price of admission;
- if you're expecting a formulaic superhero epic finale, filled with massive CGI fights and tremendous visual effects, all wrapped around colossal set pieces, then you are not worthy of even watching Glass, because this means you don't have a clue what this trilogy is about.
This is NOT a conventional comic-book trilogy. If you don't know this by now and you're still waiting for that last climax, you're only setting yourself up for disappointment, when no one asked you to anticipate such unrealistic stuff. Never criticize a film for not selling you something it was never even marketed to do (it's like expecting a horror movie to have a romantic happy ending). That said, I left disappointed with its conclusion, but there's still so much to love and praise. Seeing how David accepted who he was and the life journey he took, experiencing Kevin's pain and how each personality was born, understanding what Elijah's purpose is and being blown away by his mastermind plans ... These are characters so well-developed and so well-established that I can forgive some missteps here and there.
Before diving into the technical aspects, Anya Taylor-Joy, Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn) and Charlayne Woodard (Elijah's mother) deserve appreciation for their performances, even if they don't have that much impact in the overall story. Anya has more to do as Casey since her character's bond with Kevin is an explored subplot. Regarding the last two, they only serve as exposition devices which connects to one of my problems with the second act, by not helping the plot move forward in the smoothest way possible.
Concerning M. Night Shyamalan filmmaking skills, I barely have anything negative to say. The only minor issue I have is the excessive use of POV in the action scenes (a camera attached to the actor's body which provides a close-up of his face while fighting). Nevertheless, this film is yet another proof of how skillful this guy is behind the camera. There are so many memorable moments where the technique at display is worthy of awards. We will have to wait a few months to find such marvelous cinematography as in this film. Shyamalan and Mike Gioulakis (DP, director of photography) use our characters' respective colors (yellow for Kevin, green for David and purple for Mr. Glass) as the background palette of each scene in glorious fashion. The gradual change in color tells the audience so much about what our characters are going through, elevating one of the best dialogue sequences in the entire movie (the pink room).
The editing is sublime, and I love how Shyamalan uses close-ups to show how remarkable his cast is. McAvoy's performance is one of the best this year is going to give us, but part of it is even better due to the camera work. The unfocused background stunt work in a character's close-up is the art of filmmaking at his very best, and Shyamalan knows how to film it beautifully. The score is not as memorable as Unbreakable's, but the sound design is on point. Even with a low budget (compared to the other superhero movies), Shyamalan is able to produce a technical showdown of all his attributes as a sensational filmmaker. And this, my fellow readers, I will defend until the end of his career.
All in all, Glass doesn't live up to my extremely high expectations, but it does more than enough for me to enjoy it. I can't help but feel disappointed with the way everything ends and the path that Shyamalan chose, but there's still so much to love. James McAvoy offers you a performance worthy of any price of admission. Watching him portray over 15 characters is something you won't experience maybe ever again. Going through the layers of suspense, disbelief and mystery that the screenplay is structured by is itself an adventure filled with twists and turns which grabbed my attention until the very end.
An almost flawless first act delves into an overextended second act where the story lacks consistency and even logic, at times. However, the performances and the main thread of the film keeps everyone enthralled until the polarizing third and final act, where the significant plot twists occur. How can a movie be so fascinating and frustrating at the same time? Shyamalan, ladies and gentlemen. This masterful filmmaker lends all his skills to the film, and technically it’s close to perfection. Disappointing? Yes. Frustrating? Yes. Does it ruin the franchise? No, not even close. This isn’t The Matrix Revolutions, but it’s not Return of the King, as well. It’s a good ending to a superhero trilogy that might not be the best of all-time, but it’s up there, and it’s definitely unique, imaginative and the closest to what our real world would be like if superheroes were a real thing.
If you’re a comic-book fan, this trilogy is mandatory. If you love Marvel or DC, don’t you dare use the word “grounded” without watching this saga first. Shyamalan, see you around!
Rating: B+

It is hard to believe it has been 19 years since “Unbreakable” arrived in cinemas as the film seemed to setup a sequel but it did not look like it would come to fruition. That all changed in 2016 when “Split” arrived and shocked audiences with a late reveal that showed a connection to the film. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan has wasted no time in bringing the new film to fans with the arrival of “GLASS”. The film picks up soon after the events of “Split” as The Horde embodied by 23 personalities in the form of Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) continues to kidnap young girls to serve to his highly dangerous 24th personality The Beast.
Security expert David Dunn (Bruce Willis) along with the help of his son attempts to locate the Horde as a new group of girls has gone missing. In time David locates The Beast and the two clash; but end up captured by authorities and sent to a facility for evaluation.
Their captive Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) believes their special abilities are in their minds and that they really do not have the special abilities they believe they do. Each of them have a special cell designed to restrain them as David is under threat of being doused with water while Kevin has a series of strobes which will halt him and trigger a new personality.
Added to the mix is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), who has been at the facility under heavy sedation after the events of “Unbreakable”.
As the therapy unfolds it becomes clear that an elaborate game of cat and mouse is underway between Price and her charges as each seems to have their own agenda. This all builds to a very unusual final act which left me pondering if I enjoyed the final result or was disappointed with it.
The film seems to slowly be building to a big finale but yet it is far more restrained than one would expect. The film has a constant theme of Super Heroes and their traditional stories and roles as well as that of their Super Villains.
One expects a massive Battle Royale complete with elaborate FX but the film takes a more restrained approach and in doing so may disappoint some fans while pleasing others. The film naturally has its twist moments and while I will not spoil it, I can say I predicted it before I even saw the film. When I saw “Split” I actually told my wife my theory and low and behold it was true. I also predicted the twists for many of Shyamalan’s previous films so I had hoped for a bit more in this regard. The film does offer up some interesting options for another sequel or Spin-Off and the cast was very good especially McAvoy who adds to his menagerie of characters by showing audiences a few more of the ones previously undisclosed.
The film is at times very enjoyable and at times a bit frustrating as it seems to deviate from themes and elements that were setup earlier. That being said it does very much appear that this could indeed be just the start of something much bigger in the series.
3.5 stars out of 5

Lives up to the billing.
'Lady Bird' is great viewing. The teen drama bits are solidly portrayed, though it is the family stuff that I think really powers the film to upper echelons. Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf are terrific, Ronan obviously most so but Metcalf merits praise too; particularly at the end. Tracy Letts is a positive as well.
Other good cast members include Timothée Chalamet, Beanie Feldstein, Stephen McKinley Henderson (his branch of the plot kinda vanishes, mind) and Lois Smith. Kathryn Newton is apparently in there, didn't even recognise her! In fact, there wasn't anyone onscreen that I didn't like, so that's always a sign for a movie of quality.
Happy that this is indeed an excellent film, one I've seen popping up regularly across Letterboxd in recent years. About time I watched it, just the 2.8 million users on that platform who have done so already...

**_Saoirse Ronan coming-of-age at a Catholic school in Sacramento_**
During her senior year in 2002-2003, a girl from “the wrong side of the tracks” (Saoirse) takes on the struggles of a challenging mother, friendships, romance and a school play, as well as the pursuit of “culture” and a college education in the East.
"Lady Bird" (2017) was somewhat based on the writer/director’s experiences growing up in Sacramento. She went on to fame with her 2023 hit “Barbie.” This is the first movie I’ve seen of hers and she’s a proficient writer & filmmaker, but her style turns me off somehow. It’s not just the few digs at wise Conservativism, but the overall writing and filmmaking, which failed to draw me into the characters and their experiences.
Her style just isn’t my thang, speaking as someone who appreciates compelling coming-of-age flicks, including artistic ones, like “Clueless,” “The Man in the Moon,” “Dead Poets Society,” “Little Darlings,” “The Virgin Suicides,” “Footloose,” “The Way Way Back” and “Fast Times at Ridgemont High.” Even spare-change Indies, like “Love Everlasting” and “Colossal Youth,” are all-around superior entertainments.
The similar “Welcome Home, Roxy Carmichael” had its issues, but it’s a masterpiece compared to this. I’m not saying “Lady Bird” doesn’t have its artistic appeal but, by the last act, I can honestly say I hated it. Odeya Rush as Jenna is one of the few highlights, along with Timothée Chalamet as the cool dude.
The film runs 1 hours, 34 minutes, and was shot in Sacramento, areas of SoCal and Manhattan.
GRADE: D+

Saoirse Ronan is "Christine McPherson" (aka "LadyBird"). In the final year of her high school life, she has to deal with all of the conflicting influences as her adulthood - and future - looms. She has a strong relationship with her father; a more torrid one with her mother - and generally resents what she perceives to be her family's rather hand-to-mouth existence in Sacramento. It's a tale of her emotional development, her boyfriends (Lucas Hedges and Timothée Chalamet) and of her journey to adulthood that is at times poignant, at times self-indulgent but unfortunately, for me anyway, pretty disengaging. Her character is selfish and thoughtless - although not unsophisticated. Like many a story of our adolescence, it is fascinating for those it effects but is little more than dreary hormonal stuff for observers. This is the latter, I'm afraid, with plenty of well trodden clichés to make 94 minutes seem quite a lot longer... Not for me, I'm afraid.