Glass

So here's the thing with this film. I was not on the hype train for this film like everyone else was. About the time this movie came out, I knew the twist in Split, I knew that the two movies were connected but I wanted to wait until I saw Split in order to see this film. So while everyone was getting pumped to see Glass, I was still waiting to find a cheap rental of Split. I was really behind the curve.

I also am finding that a lot of people loved Split because of the twist at the end, because it tied into Unbreakable, and maybe its because I knew that twist going in, but I enjoyed Split for totally different reasons. I mentioned in my Split review that I didn't need these movies to be connected. I was excited to see how they are all connected, and you will see in this review that I think it was cool to see them all on screen, especially this many years after Unbreakable, but overall, I didn't need this movie. It was just a bonus film instead of a culminating film. Maybe that influenced my viewing experience, maybe it didn't.

I should also note that I have not seen Unbreakable in a hot second. While I like Unbreakable, I don't think it really stuck with me. There are elements about Glass that make me want to go back and reexamine Unbreakable but overall, I'm watching this as a more of a sequel to Split then a sequel to Unbreakable. And maybe that's influenced my viewing experience, maybe it didn't.

Glass is the third film in the Unbreakable trilogy. It brings together the characters of Unbreakable and Split together as these characters are rounded up and put into a mental institutions (on really shaky legal grounds btw) run by Sarah Paulson's character.

These characters include David Dunn (played by Bruce Willis), Kevin/The Hoarde from Split (played by James McEvoy), and Elijah Price, or Mr. Glass (played by Samuel L Jackson).

The main conflict of this movie, besides these characters who do not want to be in this institution, is that Sarah Paulson's character is a psychiatrist specifically studying the phenomena of individuals believing they are superheroes. And right at the top, this is the best aspect of the film.

This topic was slightly touched on in Split, but I liked where they took it in the first and second act of this film. The second act is more of a character study with Sarah Paulson examining David Dunn, Kevin, and Elijah and figuring out how they tick and casting doubt on the idea that they are superheroes and not just individuals with unique, but totally normal character traits.

I think overall, the first two thirds of this movie are really great. And in reality, I don't hate the third act. Unfortunately, it just doesn't resonate with me and therefore gives the illusion that the movie didn't resonate with me that much.

As far as character performances go, overall, everybody sends in a pretty good performance and honestly that's a little surprising considering there are a lot of factors that would work against that happening.

First you have Bruce Willis as David Dunn. Willis has not sent in a great performance in his recent

films and you can see, at least an inkling that he is a really good actor in this film. Is it an Oscar worthy performance? No. But you can tell he actually gave a little bit of a shit this time around.

Furthermore, I really like seeing David Dunn after all this time. I like the relationship with his son (which is was great seeing Spencer Treat Clark grown up). I liked how his role as a vigilante has changed and how he's been looking for The Hoarde as a superhero in this world would do.

There was always as simplistic nature to Shymalan's superhero world and he does a really good job getting that feeling again, at least in the first act.

I don't really feel like I have to talk much more about James McEvoy because he brings what he did so perfectly in Split back into Glass and almost ups his game so well that you feel the different personalities he is portraying literally at the flick of a switch.

Part of the institution's counter measures to the Hoardes abilities is to flash a light at him and force a non-aggressive personality. So while in Split the personalities changed either off screen or over time most of the time, in this movie you see those split (pun intended) changes and it just adds to the credibility McEvoy has as an actor in my book. I've heard people say that he was snubbed an Oscar nom for his performance in Split and I have to agree. I don't think he stands a chance at a nom for Glass, but he does deserve some recognition for this role.

And then there's Mr. Glass.

This film helped me understand Mr. Glass a little bit more than I did in Unbreakable because he is a super genius. I don't know if I just didn't pick that up in Unbreakable, but it not only makes the suspense of this character interesting in this film, but it clarifies some questions I think I had in Unbreakable and again, makes me want to reexamine that film.

I don't think we give Samuel L Jackson enough credit because he is a really good actor. He is a character actor for sure and he is known more for his characters than his acting, but I do think that both this film and Unbreakable show that he's a good actor underneath the wacky characters. Because while Mr. Glass is a wacky character, it's probably one of his more serious roles.

So putting Jackson's performance aside, I do think that Mr. Glass is underutilized in this film. It eventually comes down to the super genius and The Beast teaming up against the hero and while that sounds interesting, the end result and culmination is somewhat lackluster. It's not horrible, it just underlines the lack of pay off of this entire movie in the third act.

Honestly, I saw Glass on the long plane ride back from Spain. Enjoyed it, but watched some other movies and kind of forgot what happened and I think it would have resonated more if the ending had been a little more solid. And that's an occupational risk of basing your career on your twists Shyamalan.

I'm going to leave it a little vague in case you haven't seen the film yet and don't want it spoiled, but I do feel like in the quest to up the stakes, Shymalan loses the ingredients that made Unbreakable and Split interesting films. These movies aren't grandiose superhero films, they're smaller character studies. Is the ending/entire film bad because of the ending? No. Like I said, I watched the film and enjoyed it. I'll give Shymalan some credit that he did bring the trilogy to a landing, but I won't say he stuck it.

It sounds like I'm being picky, but I think the lackluster ending is more attributed to the story choices he makes at the end, rather than the execution of the ending. I won't go into those to avoid spoilers, but I will give the movie its due credit. It is a concise conclusion. I wouldn't call it solid, but it is concise. What can I say, endings are hard.

Overall, Glass is the Return of the Jedi of the Unbreakable Trilogy. There are great performances from all the staple actors as well as Sarah Paulson. The first and second act do capture the elements of the previous films of a smaller, cerebral character piece for these really interesting characters. The third act, while a decent climax, does make some story decisions that I don't think were the best and overall leaves me with an overall "meh" feeling. While credit does need to be given to the good parts, there is something to be said on how a movie sticks the landing and it is the ending that prevents this movie from being really memorable in my opinion.

I feel like I am probably going to re-watch all these films and do an overall Unbreakable Trilogy rap up at some point in the future. I think of Shymalan's films, these rank near the top (even Glass). And I kind of want to unpack why that is the case. Shymalan is a unique filmmaker because while he is reviled for movies like The Happening and Avatar, he has produced some really great films. I still think he's a bit overrated, especially when you start talking about Signs, The Village, but there are some films that I genuinely like and its an interesting topic to delve into.

But those are my thoughts on Glass. What did you think of it? How does it fair with the rest of the Unbreakable trilogy? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your requests on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Lego Movie 2: The Second Part

So after the immensely unsettling and intense ride that Hotel Mumbai was, I needed a pallet cleanser... bad! Lego Movie 2 seemed like the obvious choice because good lord what a contrast. 

The Lego Movie itself was a bit of a surprise. Nobody thought that a movie essentially with the sole purpose of promoting a toy would make so much money and would be so appealing to both kids and adults. I think it was the first Lego Movie and 21 Jumpstreet that really introduced the world to Lord and Miller and with how entertaining the Lego Batman spinoff movie was, I think this movie had a lot of expectations to it.

The Lego Movie 2 is essentially a direct sequel to the first film, almost starting exactly where the last

film left off. In the real world, the father of this kid playing with Legos where this entire world is formed from tells him that since he lets his son play with his Lego city, he has to let his sister do it and there is a bit of a sister invasion that happens in this boys world (In case you forgot, the dad is played by Will Ferrell and the kid is played by Jadon Sand).

But the real story happens within that world as it goes from a sprawling metropolis to a post-apocalyptic brooding world. All the characters from the first film, Lucy, Batman, UniKitty, Metalbeard, and Benny, the space ship Lego Man (voiced by Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Allison Brie, Nick Offerman, and Charlie Day respectively), have become grizzled war torn versions of themselves. Everyone that is except the main character Emmit (voiced again by Chris Pratt).

Emmit continues to just be a happy go lucky guy hoping he can just live happily with his friends. This makes him a bit of a lovable outcast as everyone likes him, but nobody believes he's a leader or even really useful.

But then when Emmit's friends are abducted by an invading force that, most people will deduce is the sister playing with both Legos as well as younger versions like Duplos, Emmit must go on a journey to the Systar System (get it, like Sister system!) to save his friends. With the help of a dashing hero named Rex Dangervest (also voiced by Pratt), Emmitt must stop the plot of Queen Watevra Wa'Nabi (Get it! Like Whatever I wanna be?!?) (voiced by Tiffany Haddish) from destroying their Lego world from a particularly familiar apocalypse.

So I'm a little torn with this movie because on one hand, the writing is both very clever and heart warming again. While Lord and Miller didn't direct this time, they wrote the screenplay and it still has that dual feeling to it where there's an animated story that the Lego characters are going on, but it uniquely coincides with the story going on in the real world.

Some of it is subtle, for example, the kid is older and that accounts for the darker grittier interests in his Lego Adventures. Some of it is less subtle like in the way the world the Legos live in is named. It takes similar steps the first film did in giving silly pronunciations to something like Crazy Glue in order to make it fit in their fantastical world as if it was coming from the mind of a kid.

However, there is an odd feeling with this film as opposed to the first one and I'd say even the Batman spinoff. The first one was for sure a movie for kids, but I think the humor felt newer and a little more inclusive of adults than the sequel does. The sequel feels a lot more like a kids movie than the first one did and I apologize but I can't really put my finger on why. It might be because it is incorporating the imagination and mind of the little sister at this point, and while it has clever moments, it just feels more regressive than the first film did.

I also find it curious that the movie suddenly decided that it needed to be a semi-musical for very little reason.

The first film had the song "Everything is Awesome". It's a fun song. It's a tune kids will enjoy but adults can kind of laugh at. The new "Everything is Awesome" becomes the "Catchy Song" and while its a fun song and really well utilized in terms of the story, it loses some of its impact when you figure out that they have a couple of other songs they're trying to make the new "Everything is Awesome", or just have for the sake of having this be a more musical based movie, which just seems like an odd choice for me.

For example, I'm not totally sure why, but Tiffany Haddish got two songs in the middle of the movie when adding quippy dialogue on how she says she's a good guy but double speaks to make it seem like she's not.

Maybe Haddish had some kind of contract that said she got an extra song, but it just didn't really do anything for me and not only did a not connect with that character as much as I did with the characters from the first movie, those characters I connected with before get relegated to a very small role in order to introduce more characters. Metal Beard, UniKitty, Benny, and even Batman to a certain extent really get reduced roles and those were kind of the heart and soul comedy of the first movie.

That might be the best explanation to why this movie didn't do it as much for me as the first one did. I still think its clever, the cast is still really good, and I by no means am done with Lego Movies. Its pretty millennial of me to be complaining about a kids movie not really speaking to me as a man in my mid 20s. I just wish there was a little bit more of a balance like there was in the first movie.

I still chuckled quite a bit during this movie, but I'm glad that I didn't have to spend money to see it. If you watch it, I think you're going to enjoy yourself, just make sure you keep your expectations reasonable.

But those are my thoughts on the Lego Movie 2. What did you think? How does it compare to the first one and the Lego Batman movie? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Hotel Mumbai

So if there is a theme between the two 9 hour plane rides I took besides finally delving into the Split/Glass movies, it's that I decided to watch a very unsettling movie when I probably should be evening out my sleep schedule. However, if I had to choose if this or Us was more unsettling, this movie wins by a long shot.

Hotel Mumbai is the biographic telling of a horrendous terrorist attack that occurred in Mumbai India in 2008 at the Taj Hotel and other locations that led to 174 people killed and over 300 people wounded.

The premise for these attack is that a group of terrorists come to Mumbai and set off an orchestrated attack on multiple locations throughout the city of Mumbai. While other places are attacked and that is depicted in the film, the majority of the action happens at the Taj Hotel where all the main characters are either staying or working. The cast is relatively large and I can't say that there is one main MAIN character, but the closest thing to that would be Dev Patel's character, a server at the restaurant in the hotel.

The beginning of the movie sets off on a high pitched unsettling tone because it does not take long for the attacks to begin. These terrorists move to different locations, firing at people indiscriminately, causing really intense chaos and carnage.

Eventually, survivors of previous attacks make their way to the Taj Hotel as well as the terrorists and the carnage continues there. Patel is one of multiple characters who's sole purpose in this movie is to survive.

The reason I am singling out Patel's character is that the real soul of this movie comes from the actions taken by the staff of the Taj Hotel to help the guests and who made up half of the casualties during the entire attack. Patel is one of many people who were pretty heroic in helping others survive for as long as they could, whether that meant hiding, barricading themselves, or running. I will talk about the nature of this film in general and how it sets itself apart from others like it in a super unsettling way, but there is an inspiring heroism you see from the entire cast.

Other characters include a wealthy couple (played by Armie Hammer and Nazanin Boniadi, a mysterious Russian guest (played by Jason Isaacs), as well as the other staff of the hotel. And yes, these characters do have names but that is honestly not the point of this movie. I doubt any of these characters are one to one representations of real people and the emphasis of the movie is more on the tragedy and real-life horror of this situation rather than individual characters.

The super fascinating thing about this movie is that while a big part of the movie is the personal heroism of the people at the hotel, especially the service staff, this is not a scenario of regular people standing up to the men with the guns. Anybody who tries to fight these terrorists in an American vigilante style gets blown away very quickly. This is not like the passengers of Flight 93 where they overpower the terrorists, or like the guys on that French train that overpowered the gunmen. This is first and foremost a story of horrific survival. And that is very unsettling. It's even more unsettling in today's current events. I'm going to try and avoid getting to political, but the terrorists in this movie, Muslim or not, had far more rounds and weaponry than any one that would have been a convenient "good man with a gun". There is a small part of the movie that shows how a "good man with a gun" would fair against someone with the ability to shoot multiple rounds without having to reload. The only people who are able to put up a fight at the end are the special forces that finally arrive.

I know its a movie, set in India, dealing with Islamic terrorism, but again, it's unsettling because nobody should have access to that much firepower except the people who know how to use it and you feel the visceral deaths due to those weapons.

To the films credit, it made me feel a lot. It made me feel horror, dread, sadness, anger, and overall just kind of sick to my stomach. The way they portray the shooters is also really fascinating and at the end when these guys get gunned down, it is both immensely satisfying but also just kind of sickening because so much of their goal is carried out by that point. So in case I haven't made it clear before hand, Viewer Discretion is immensely advised on this film, it is a tough one to sit through.

Another note, this is not a short movie. It clocks in at 2 hours and that 2 hours and they do not waste any time with some really intense visuals. Innocent people are being killed, there are a lot of suspenseful moments, and honestly, this felt more like a horror film than any of the films I've watched in the past few weeks because I was very uncomfortably on the edge of my seat this entire movie.

I think the acting also makes this movie very unsettling because it is very good and realistic. Everyone is scared, but they have their own reasons to survive. Hammer and Bonaidi's characters have a child in the hotel they are separated from at the time of the attack so that is driving force, Patel has his own family. The hotel staff have this immense loyalty to their guests that is inspiring and tragic.

Again, it makes it tough to watch when this movie makes it very clear that nobody is safe in this film. At the beginning, I was thinking that a lot of the introduced characters were going to make it, but this movie does not hold back on brutally doing away with its characters.

I think my feelings towards this movie are still pretty fresh and raw so its hard to point out anything (good or bad) more. Overall, it's an experience and not one I am really interested in going through again. It is a stressful movie. I think by the end its a good thing because the movie does attempt to pull some of that stress off your shoulders with a release and ending that had me in tears. But overall, I'd say this is a movie you need to be pretty selective about. If you're looking for a well acted, well written suspense thriller, be warned that as much as they try to relieve it in the end, this is not a satisfying movie. It's gritty, it's visceral, and you probably will not have a good time watching it, especially in today's current climate. But I found the movie to be relevant on many different levels and definitely took a different take on this kind of tragedy movie.

While I have a hard time recommending this movie, I do have to applaud it for applying a sense of reality to this real life event. I mentioned it before, but I think the real achievement of this movie was how it portrayed the spirit of humanity in the face of a dominating threat. Again, there is no heroic action figure in this movie. The good guys only win because they held out long enough.

Overall, its a recommend but with a huge HUGE asterisks of, know what you're getting into with this film.

But those are my thoughts on Hotel Mumbai. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Us

So a little bit of background about my viewing experience of this movie before getting into the review. I was on an 8 hour flight to Spain. In my mind, it was 1 in the morning and I had just finished an already spooky-ish film in Split. I thought to myself that I was in the mood for another scary film and while I was interested in seeing this movie, it wasn't one I was ready to really spend money on seeing, so I decided to watch this film sleep deprived on a dark plane... the result was not a good choice overall. After I finished the movie I got at best 2 hours of really messed up dreams. So don't do that if you're going overseas for vacation. Or do if you're fine with messed up dreams and being jet lagged.

Us is the second feature film of Jordan Peele. I think another good note is that if you're looking for a similar feeling with Us that you got with Get Out, you're either going to be surprised or disappointed. For me, the unique feeling of Us from Get Out shows that Jordan Peele is still on a pretty good track director-wise. While I didn't like Us as much as Get Out, it felt different and it's pretty great when a director is able to create a new experience while maintain his signature style.

Us follow the story of an upper middle class black family going on vacation in California. The main protagonist is named Adelaide (played by Lupita Nyong'o). Her and her family, Gabe her husband (played by Winston Duke) and her two kids Zora and Jason (played by Shahadi Wright Joseph and Evan Alex) are vacationing with an upper class white family parented by Josh and Kitty (played by Tim Heidecker and Elisabeth Moss).

I wanna be pretty careful with the spoilers because this film does have a pretty intriguing twist and I don't want to give anything away. Essentially a segment of Adelaide's childhood is shown at the beginning relating to the place that they're going and while the first 15 minutes or so of the movie isn't really that scary or anything, you do get a really great set up with the introductions of the characters and their interesting backstory.

The meat of the story though occurs the first evening of their trip when they are visited by another family who look exactly like them wearing red suits and carrying scissors. And yes, it is freaky as hell.

There is a deeper story behind this family and the reason why they look exactly like the Thomas's. I won't spoil that in this review because not only is this movie still relatively new, it is worth discovering if you haven't seen it for yourself.

The family must survive the night with this creepy doppelganger family's mysterious plan and the only thing I would say that could be breaching on spoilers is that they're not the only family that this is happening to.

Again, this movie is a little bit of a trip when it is 2AM in your mind and you're on a dark plane trying to get some sleep.

Everyone does a really interesting and unique take on their doppelganger as well as their character's reaction to this creepy doppelganger. However, the standouts are the matriarchal characters of Lupita N'yongo and in the supporting category, Elisabeth Moss.

It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point that N'yongo brings a top notch performance. Looking at her filmography, it actually kind of amazes me that she really has only had 6 live action roles (and the biggest missed opportunity in a motion capture role in the new Star Wars films, THANKS JJ!) and yet her brand is just so strong. 6 films is not a huge filmography on top of the fact that she is a relatively young actress still and yet she has an amazing reputation. My mind is actually kind of blown writing this and thinking about how she's exploded into a household name in a very short period of time.

In this film that brand is still on point. Adelaide facing off against her evil doppelganger (whose "tethered" name is Red) is intense, somewhat funny at times, and ultimately a really interesting dynamic.

Again, everyone does a really good job in both the acting and the creepiness factor, but I did want to make note of Elisabeth Moss.

I know Elisabeth Moss best from Mad Men. I know she's probably more popular now for The Handmaid's Tale, but up until this movie, I've really only seen her as Peggy Olson.

So for her to be, in my opinion the most unsettling part of the movie (and keep in mind I watched this sleep deprived at what felt like 2 in the morning in the dark), it kind of blew my mind. Her normal character is interesting in a strange way that an alcoholic bitchy white lady can be. But things really get interesting when she and her family is affected by the appearance of the doppelgangers and the scene above is just a great performance by Moss.

At the end of the day, thing things wrong with this film are of a dual nature. The first is, home invasion style of horror is not really my cup of tea. While this is probably the exception to the rule, eventually the chase gets a tad repetitive and it gets reduced to a simple chase over constructive storytelling. Again, Us provides an exception to that rule, but by its nature it wasn't really a story I wasn't as interested in the first place and while I ended up enjoying it, it's probably not something I'd be racing to go back and see. So at the end of the day, it just comes down to personal preference. The story is interesting and unique and I count it as an absolute win for Jordan Peele, its just not what I prefer.

The second type of criticism comes from just a few minor issues I have with the film. There is a relationship between the doppelgangers and the real people that does not get used nearly enough. Again, I'm keeping it vague, but sometimes that relationship makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. That's a more nitpicky critique that doesn't make a huge issue to the movie, but its worth mentioning.

The bigger issue I had were the few moments where the humor undermined the story or the suspenseful moment. While I don't like jump scares, I am figuring out that I like horror atmosphere and Jordan Peele does have the tendency to insert humor at some inopportune times.

To stay positive, I love that Jordan Peele has that comedic background and you can see that influence in his film. I'm not saying take it out. I just think the humor at times had the same disrupting quality that it can have in the Marvel Cinematic Universe where a serious moment is happening and suddenly a joke is inserted, dispelling any serious moment very abruptly. Used correctly, humor can relieve the tension, but it can also disrupt it and I feel like that has to be utilized carefully.

But at the end of the day, he's the director with two really good movies under his belt and he can do whatever he wants.

I might do a spoiler chat about Us, but at the same time, it's been a few weeks. The twist is pretty good and I would love to discuss it at some point, but I don't know if it warrants an entirely new post. My bigger point is that you should check out Us if you're a fan of Jordan Peele's directing, if you're a fan of Lupita N'yongo, or if you're just interested at delving into Horror a little more. While Get Out is far less of a horror film and more of a psychological thriller the way Split is, Us is firmly closer to the horror genre and could provide a good stepping off point for people like me trying to get more into horror films.

But what did you think of Us? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Split

This and the next movie are examples of why I'm slowly but surely getting into horror movies. Both Split and Us are films that when they came out were marketed as straight up horror films. And while I will talk about how Us haunted my jet lagged dreams on my way to Spain, Split is really not that scary of a movie at all, and rather emphasizes an eerie atmosphere and good writing. Which is odd because this is coming from the same guy who only 6 years prior made one of the worst movie ever made (See Avatar The Last Airbender), M Night Shyamalan. Boy does that guy like to play jump rope with his good and horrible movies.

Split has a pretty simple premise. Three teenage girls are abducted by a strange man (played by James McEvoy) as they leave a birthday party. The beginning of the movie just seems like a Room-like horror Scenario where the victims are tormented by their captor in an underground cellar looking room.

However, the plot turns when the girls realize that the man holding them captive has multiple personalities and those personalities are individually cognizant. The main character, a misfit teenager named Casey (played by Anya Taylor-Joy) starts conversing with some of the personalities and the movie becomes about them trying to outsmart and play the personalities against each other in an attempt to escape.

All the while, we learn more and more about this man, Kevin and the mysteries he and his other personalities hold.

And this movie is very, VERY good.

It is intense and yet it doesn't rely on jump scares. It is well written, and it isn't very predictable. It is a very small (and apparently a very small budget) film with characters you really start to care about throughout the film. Even McEvoy's character is a complex character that you have a mixture of emotions about.

I heard that the performance here was really good but I kind of had to see it to believe it. He has this immense range of characters that is all packaged into one and yet they never feel out of place. No matter how wacky the character is, McEvoy changes his posture, voice, facial ticks, all of the above to bring a unique blend of characters to one person. And its a somewhat tragic character from a certain point of view.

And so it makes sense that M Night Shyamalan would want to expand this character and give him more of an opportunity to shine, especially with the open ended ending this movie has.

And its not much of a spoiler anymore as Glass has come out, but Split is stealthily connected to one of M Night Shymalan's previous films, Unbreakable, with a cameo of Bruce Willis's character at the end.

I'm going to try and see Glass soon because now I'm interested. On one hand, I'm kind of ambivalent to the idea of these movies being connected. Overall, I loved Split but I was pretty mixed on Unbreakable. There is a logical connection there, but it also didn't need to happen.

Split could have had its own sequel dealing with the fallout of the events of the first movie or expanding the way in which McEvoy's character survives with that many personalities in his head. I don't think it needed to connect to another superhero universe to cram two properties together.

I don't mean to shit too much on Glass quite yet because I don't know if it's good or not, but I do think it underlines the way that this movie has more potential on its own then it has as a franchise.

Split does horror right because instead of it just being about jump scares or offing characters we don't care about, it manages to make us care about the main protagonist in Casey, but also the villain. It creates intrigue and leaves you wanting more. There needed to be a continuation of this story no matter what and if that means it has to happen in a Glass franchise, I guess I'm okay with that. I will let you know when I see Glass and I can give you my thoughts on that.

But overall, Split is just a fantastic movie. I don't think its an perfect movie but it does show that within the nonsense that is M Night Shyamalan, there is the capability to make a really good movie. And I think at the end of the day, its his budget. Shymalan needs to be constrained in order to make his best work. His best movies, this and the Sixth Sense were smaller films with little to no special effects and they were smaller stories about people, not about his ideas or his twists. I think the reason I and other people can't really find too many meaningful flaws in this movie is that its almost hard to believe its coming from the same man who did such horrible films as The Last Airbender and The Happening.

If you haven't checked out Split, do yourself a favor and check it out. It does not matter if the "twist" was spoiled for you (maybe even by me in this review), it is so much more than a Glass prequel film. Even people who do not like horror films, this is more of a psychological thriller and is well worth your time.

But those are my thoughts on Split. What do you think? Do you think this needed to be apart of the "Glass franchise"? Have you seen Glass? Without spoilers, what am I getting myself into? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposisum as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Spider-man: Far From Home (Spoilers)

So while I was a little peeved with all the spoiler talk after Stranger Things aired this past week, I was calmed down by the fact that people got their crap together and didn't spoil anything for Far From Home, even though it took me more than the allotted weekend to see it. Again, I'm kind of pissed about Stranger Things, but I'm less pissed because I was pleasantly surprised by the end of Far From Home.

And I'm just gonna skip to the best spoiler of the movie hands down: J.K. Simmons is J. Jonah Jameson in the MCU!

There are a lot of spoilers I can and will talk about with this movie, but this made me literally cheer in the theater. 

Casting Simmons again as Jameson was always talked about but there was nothing really pointing towards it ever happening. There's something odd about having any actor reprise a role as a character but in a different cannon. But J.K. Simmons plays the role so well that it's just perfect and I know I'm not the only one who loved that addition.

I'll talk more about the ending in a second but more importantly I need to talk about Mysterio.

On one hand, it's pretty obvious that Mysterio was the bad guy in this film. I think it was clever in their marketing because if it had just been Mysterio coming in and saying he was a new superhero, people would have been able to call BS right away. But he brings up the multiverse, and this is right after Into The Spider-verse which also talked about the multiverse so even though I knew that Mysterio was a villain, even I was questioning, is he bad in this film or are they setting up the multiverse in the MCU?

And then if you don't know who Mysterio is, you can perhaps fall into the idea that perhaps he is good and perhaps be surprised halfway through when its revealed he's not, or be amazed by the multiverse approach.

But regardless on whether or not you called it, I still think Quentin Beck's reveal and backstory is really interesting because it calls back to Civil War and the augmented reality that apparently Quentin Beck created.

And I really liked that element of it. There are a couple of exposition dumps in this movie that actually really work and you understand why Quenten Beck is the way he is, along with the other disgruntled employees from Stark Industries who serve as the bad guys in this film.

It is fascinating how both villains from the MCU Spider-man films have been disgruntled Stark employees. While Gyllenhall is the main bad guy, it's really interesting that Mysterio is more of a group project with Beck at the head like a psycho director. I like this because it makes the characters more relatable because they're working class guys who get screwed over by the cavalier Playboy Billionaire Genius that was Tony Stark.

The problem with this is that we're getting to the point where the movies are starting to really promote the idea that power is corrupting, except if its in the hands of the right people. It's kind of an elitist message if you think about it too much. Sure Quenten Beck is an unhinged lunatic (which Jake Gyllenhall surprising plays brilliantly more and more), but it's been a theme in Avengers films that I kind of hope Marvel explores more in upcoming films instead of just always saying the Avengers are right.

Screen Junkies did a really good video on the potential rift that could happen between the X-men and the Avengers when Marvel decides to finally integrate the X-men into the MCU. The link is available here. It alludes to the fact that almost all the MCU films have centered on the idea of limiting the amount of power that is out there, except for the power the Avengers have because it's in the hands of the right people. While the X-men are more of a symbol of non-violent (or violent) protest to the status quo, the very status quo the Avengers would probably be defending.

While I'm not sure if they're actually going to address those themes, especially when the X-men come in. I think this movie has the potential to revisit some of the questions of past movies, namely the use of Avengers technology, especially now that Tony Stark is dead. Quentin Beck's followers, former Stark employees have a pretty valid point when they get pissed that a kid gets access to insane weapons technology like Edith (Tony's sunglasses) and they don't.

It feels weird for me to want them to revisit ideas brought up in Iron Man 2 (an objectively horrible movie), but it could be an interesting return for Justin Hammer (played by Sam Rockwell) to make that moral dilemma more accessible in a post Endgame world. What happens to Tony Stark's tech and weapons? Do they go to a 16 year old kid? Forget Quenten Beck, I'm sure there are a ton of people, probably in the government, not okay with that kind of monarchic nepotism.

But going back to Mysterio, I think he's probably gonna go down as one of more unique and intriguing villains, and I really hope the end credit scene where a doctored video, putting the blame of the final attack on London on Spider-man, indicates that Mysterio is still alive, because they really did him well.

It's revealed that Mysterio has been using augmented reality and computer generated effects to give off the impression that he is this new superhero, all in the goal to dupe Peter into giving him access to Edith, but also to give the power back to the every man and make himself the new Iron Man.

The really interesting part is that even if you know Mysterio's background, seeing his tricks and use of drones in reality is really really fun. The first few battles show him fighting as if he is an actual superhero. But then when its revealed, its like they pull the curtain aside and you see the behind the scenes effects and its just him in a mocap suit. It's brilliant.

But furthermore, the "dream" sequence where he augments Peter' reality is just the most quintessential Mysterio scene that it's going to be pretty hard for anything (especially a Scarecrow scene from Batman scene) to top it. It's taking a villain that uses his wits and illusions to fight Spider-man and that's not seen very often. Almost any other Marvel superhero might be smart but can back it up with some fist-y cuffs. But Mysterio isn't like that. He'd lose in a fight one on one. So he uses his illusions to fight Spider-man and its done brilliantly.

This all culminates in the mid credit scene. MJ knows that Peter is Spider-man, which I thought was an okay choice for this world and they're doing some cute swinging.

When suddenly there's a doctored clip that implicates Spider-man as the perpetrator of the drone attack in London and Mysterio reveals Peter's identity.

And of course you have the J. Jonah Jameson cameo, but there's a bittersweet part about this reveal.

Kevin Fiege said, after this movie came out, that the MCU will take Spider-man's story to a place its never really gone on film and I can see that. Dead or Not (hopefully not dead) Beck has essentially screwed over Peter and changed the course of any Spider-man movie we'll see from this universe ever again.

On one hand, I'm very cool with this. We complain constantly how everything is remade or rebooted and we don't get original content anymore, well this is a totally new take on Spider-man. While his identity has been revealed in the past, there's never been a live action film that centers on an exposed Spider-man. I thought they were gonna leave it at Mysterio implicating Spider-man as the cause for the drone attack, giving him that label as a menace to New York and the world. But they go a step further and reveal his identity.

Spider-man has been a menace before, but not Peter Parker. And that's the bitter sweet element of that J. Jonah Jameson cameo.

We will never see the traditional Spider-man story lines of Peter working at the Daily Bugle. Jameson has always said that Spider-man is a menace, now he's gonna call Peter Parker a menace and wouldn't hire him in a million years. That's why I think the cameo is just that. We're probably not gonna see Jameson have a huge part in a movie because A) J.K. Simmons is far more popular than that role, but B) that dynamic of Peter hiding his identity while taking pictures of Spider-man is impossible now.

It's a strange balance of wanting original ideas, but wanting to see the classic comic moments on the big screen and Marvel is taking Spider-man in quite a different direction.

This was an issue with Homecoming.

These movies don't feel like they're chronicling the adventures of your friendly neighborhood Spider-man, they're the adventures of Spider-man The Avenger, Iron Man's protegee. And while that's not all bad, it loses that lovable every man feeling I got when I was playing the PS4 game. Tom Holland's Peter Parker is never going to have the opportunity to have that work life balance we saw in previous iterations of the character because he's now Tony Stark level famous (or infamous). And Peter's secret identity always set him apart.

Is it 100% gone? No. But here's a good example. At the beginning of the film, Aunt May is running a fundraiser for a homeless shelter she works at. This is clearly a reference to FEAST, a homeless shelter that Aunt May worked at in the comics and in the PS4 game. In a clever integration of the events of Endgame, Aunt May says that her work with the shelter is mainly due to the fact that when she fell prey to the snap and then returned 5 years later, her house had since been purchased by someone else, a fate that happened to a lot of people.

On one hand, this is a pretty clever integration of the world that this character is now apart of and explains the effect that Thano's snap had on the MCU world as we know it. Let me be clear, I liked this addition.

But on the other hand, this and other elements of Spider-man are so dependent on the events of the MCU that it doesn't really allow us to see these people as anything more than an attachment rather than their own character. Spider-man's identity is revealed, not based on his own choices, not because of a villain that is directly connected to him, but because Peter Parker is now the one cleaning up the darker parts of Tony Stark's legacy.

Is it all bad? No. I still really like Tom Holland's portrayal of the character because he's really damn charming and while he's super attractive, it's clear he doesn't know it. I talked about Peter's fallibility and how he's a kid dealing with immense responsibility. The action is still pretty quintessential Spider-man and he still feels different enough. There's still individual Spider-man elements in there.

But I think Spider-man losing his secret identity, even though secret identities really haven't been a thing in the MCU, is a pretty big deviation from the character. It's not about a kid who got bit by a spider and has to learn that with great power comes great responsibility, its about Tony Stark's protegee. There is literally a scene where Happy (side note: is dating Aunt May and I kind of dug it) looks over at Peter and we're supposed to infer that he's seeing a younger version of his best friend Tony.

A part of me just wished that we could have gotten a little bit more traditional New York, friendly neighborhood Spider-man, rather than the adventures of Young Tony Stark.

And I think this leads kind of well into the next important topic, and that's the future of Spider-man in the MCU.

I've heard a couple of things about Sony saying they need Far From Home to reach a certain box office number or they're taking back the rights or something. I try to avoid the business news like that because it cheapens the way the story is driven.

But Sony is in a weird place right now.

They had an absolute hit with Into the Spider-Verse. The dumpster fire that was Venom actually made them money. The need for Spider-man to attach himself to the MCU is gone and while I'm not totally clear on the contracts, I have to imagine Sony is considering if they need Daddy Marvel to bail them out anymore.

Before this movie, I didn't want Spider-man to leave the MCU because I just trust Marvel more. And I still do, but with Into the Spider-verse being a hit and Spider-man's identity being compromised in this universe, maybe it is time for that multiverse switch.

I'm still in the camp that I want to see where they go as this was a big cliff hanger. But if Sony ends up taking Spider-man back (probably rebooting him again because why wouldn't we have a 4th Spider-man 2 in 10 years) and doing something closer to the PS4 game, I actually wouldn't be super sad.

This is all very premature because I'm pretty sure there's a third movie planned set in the MCU and the discussion could be very different 2 or 3 years from now. But the idea of Sony taking back Spider-man oddly became more appealing after that mid credit scene and I think it has the potential to be a pretty big misstep for Marvel.

But what do I know?

Oh last thing: Nick Fury and Maria Hill were Skrulls in this movie... It didn't mean anything because they allude to the fact that Nick Fury is still very much alive and just hanging out on vacation in space. I guess it helps the fact that Nick Fury is kind of a moron in this film but overall, it was just a thing they added to give fan service. Not gonna lie, I might end up really being disappointed with how they use the Skrulls. But we'll see.

But was there any spoiler information I didn't talk about? What did you think? Is there a future for Spider-man in the MCU? Was the mid credit scene the worst or best thing that has ever happened to Spider-man? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie reviews and news coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Spider-man: Far From Home

I think the conversation around this movie is going to be kind of interesting. Civil War and Spider-man: Homecoming were really good introductions to Spider-man joining the MCU universe and I think the thing that they're capitalizing on is a new phenomena that Spider-man is now apart of a larger MCU universe and that opens up a lot of stories you can go with that.

But on the other hand, Far From Home kind of cements the fact that Spider-man, as he stands right now, isn't your friendly neighborhood Spider-man. He's your friend Avenger. While I don't think it ruins the movie, I just think there's a pretty interesting cultural conversation on the direction of the Spider-man franchise moving forward, especially after this film.

Side note: The plot of this movie is pretty contingent on the audience having seen Avengers: Endgame. I figure everyone has seen  Endgame at this point who cares, but in case you haven't, some stuff might get spoiled, but its stuff that was in the trailers so I can't be the only one who is spoiling this.

Far From Home is a really great post Endgame story as it follows Peter Park (played again by Tom Holland) as he returns home after the Snap (or the Blip?) and he's getting back into the swing of high school, while also dealing with the loss of his mentor Tony Stark.

Peter is feeling overwhelmed by the experience he just had as well as people wondering if he's taking over as the new Iron Man in this post Avengers world where Iron Man, Captain America, and Black Widow (and Vision but who really cares) are gone. So he is looking forward to his class vacation to Europe where he believes he can get close to MJ (played by Zendaya) who he has developed feelings for.

The movie starts off as another high school "coming of age" story where Peter wants to focus on his friends and his high school experience. And right at the point where it's about to get boring, superhero duties come to get him as Nick Fury (played again by Samuel L. Jackson) disrupts Peter's vacation to tell him that there is a new threat that they need his help fighting.

This threat takes the form of giant monsters called Elementals that fight with the power of the elements. And Nick Fury and Spider-man are informed of their threat from a new superhero claiming to be from another dimension by the name of Quentin Beck or Mysterio (played by Jake Gyllenhal).

I think that's a good summary of things because I want to keep the spoilers out of it. I think the marketing for this movie was pretty well done because if you're a Spider-man fan, you might question the nature of Mysterio in this movie. And even if you think you know where this movie is going, there are still twists and turns that makes it pretty damn enjoyable. And if you aren't as familiar, I'll challenge you to go in without doing any research because the movie is just fun and Spider-man and Mysterio's relationship is pretty damn fun overall.

I think everyone did a pretty good job in this film that it was just a fun, unique Spider-man adventure.

Tom Holland returns as Spider-man and I want to caveat this next section by saying, I really like Tom Holland as Peter Parker.

He's smart, he's nerdy, and he's every bit lovable that he was in the previous movies he's been in. My one beef with him is that Tom Holland is falling into the same trap that Andrew Garfield was in in that Peter Parker is just too hot. Seriously, there are far too many scenes where you can see that Tom Holland has worked out immensely for this role, he's got this hair that is amazing, and he is just charming. So much that it's kind of hard to believe that this is the nerdy Peter Parker we know from the comics. I know that they kind of addressed this in Homecoming, how he's in a really smart school and there's a new definition of bullying and nerdism in 2019, but it's still kind of weird.

I'll talk a little bit more in the spoilers review but the truth is, his appearance doesn't take away from the fact that he's still a really great Spider-man. I care about this kid and while he's not the straight up nerd we've come to expect from other Spider-man properties, he's relatable. I'm 27 years old and I identify with this kid as a very fallible superhero balancing life and this life. And that's the big Spider-man theme that they absolutely nailed in this movie, that tug and pull leading to Spider-man being a pretty every man hero.

Jake Gyllenhall is another great standout in the movie. Him and Tom Holland have some great moments in the film and the whole concept of Mysterio is really, REALLY well done in this movie.

I liked how the movie played with the potential multiverse elements of this film and what people's reactions are in the real world to a new superhero like Mysterio. This movie really felt like a post-Endgame film because, like the scene from the trailers, you start to feel the impact that movie had on the structure of the Avengers. Iron Man, Captain America, and Black Widow (pretty key members of the original team we know and love) are gone. Hulk was never an Avenger that came to save the day like Spider-man. Thor's off world a lot of the time, Captain Marvel is off world, Dr. Strange doesn't have that save the world feeling to him. And then as you think about it more, you wonder who else is left? For as many heroes that show up at the end of Endgame, how many are the type that Nick Fury could call upon to solve an issue like Spider-man can? Who is he gonna call? Ant-man?

I thought that was a really interesting concept and it brought a lot to this movie.

The high school environment is pretty fun for the majority of the movie. It brings a lot of the comedy in the film. I do feel like the comedy was really heavy handed in this film and fell back to some of the same Marvel conventions of inserting comedic moments in what should be serious moments, which is always a negative for me.

But I really like Peter's classmates again and they do bring some fun drama for Peter to navigate around, especially including some funny applications of his Spider-man powers in the middle of it without letting anybody see.

I liked Zendaya as a variant of Mary Jane in this movie more than Homecoming. I mentioned in my Spoilers review of Homecoming that my issue with MJ was more on the fact that character-wise, this isn't Mary Jane. My issue was not that Mary Jane was played by a black actor, but that Marvel didn't really own the fact that they're doing something different with the character. MJ is a totally different tenor of a character than Mary Jane was in the comics and Homecoming had this bad Easter Egg way of implementing that change. Far From Home approaches the character better. They more own the fact that this is a new take on the Mary Jane character and they're doing something different and I applaud Marvel for taking that ownership more because I thought MJ was better in this film. Now I think they could do more, and she's still an inconsequential part of Peter Parker's character, but there's inklings that they're getting on a better track, especially near the end. Again, not great, but better. Also, I find Zendaya charming, and I think they give her more to do in this film.

The last thing I want to talk about is something that I think we sometimes take for granted with films like this, and that's the action.

It's a given that Marvel movies are going to have good action, it's kind of a staple of Superhero movies now. But something I think I really appreciated about this movie was the unique and creative ways they utilized Spider-man particular powers.

I had a lot of moments in this film where I was just smiling because of the action and visuals used that reminded me of the comics/other Spider-man properties.

A great example is the Spider-man game on the PS4. The really fun thing about that game is that the combos and actions make you feel like these are unique powers in contrast to someone who is super strong. I think a great thing about this movie (and I don't remember if they did it in Homecoming) was just feeling the weight of the action. Spider-man sets himself apart because he's a high school kid with not much of a clue of what he's doing who is given incredible powers, but incredible responsibility. The action is set up in a way where he knows what he's doing, but you feel the tension still and he's just mortal enough to have a sense of dread. On top of the fact that I was feeling personally connected to the struggle Peter faces in this movie, I really enjoyed the implementation of Spider-man in this sequel.

It's a little bit weird that this is the 3rd Spider-man 2 we've had in close to twenty years. I have only seen this one once, but right now I place it as the middle Spider-man 2. Not as good as the Raimi sequel, but still better than Amazing Spider-man 2.

I feel like the full impact of this movie can't be explained without going into spoilers so this is kind of a two parter with the rest to be explained in the spoiler review.

But for those who haven't seen it yet. Far From Home is a fun film. I think they did a good job and took some risks with this one. Some of them worked, some of them didn't, and some of them still need to develop as the new MCU/Sony deal continues (question mark?). If you're a fan of the MCU, this will be another one you'll want to check out for sure. If you're a hardcore Spider-man fan, there will definitely be things in this movie that you'll like, but there might be some things that might throw you off a little bit. It's definitely a different take on Spider-man and I'm interested to see if they stick the landing of this alternate take.

But those are my thoughts on Spider-man: Far From Home. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!