Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sleep by day…”.
Ben Affleck’s new movie could best be described as “sprawling”. In both directing and writing the screenplay (based on a novel by Dennis Lehane), Affleck has aimed for a “Godfather” style gangster epic and missed: not missed by a country mile, but missed nonetheless.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Third Floor (Angel Hill, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
The feels with this book! This book scared me, and I loved it! It was the blurb that made me want to read this book. Even reading the blurb now sends chills down my neck. This is the kind of horror I wish more authors would write.
The title is perfect for the book. Most of the ghostly goings on happen on the third floor. While it's not an overly creepy title, it still works.
I don't really like the cover. Yes, it is the house the story is about, but it doesn't give off any spooky vibes. I, personally, would've liked to see some creepy stuff on the cover like ghosts, but to each their own I guess.
The world building was eerie and perfect for a horror novel. I got chills so many times while reading this book. Moore did an excellent job as portraying just how scary Angel Hill is as well as the spooky house the Kitches live in. (Oh, and if you're a fan of Silent Hill, I just want to say that Angel Hill reminded me a bit of Silent Hill). I read this book at night, so every noise and shadow scared me thanks to this book. (I did like being scared though).
The pacing was fantastic!! I was hooked from the first page. In fact, I was actually hooked from the first sentence. I love the way the story unfolded and flowed easily from one paragraph to the next.
The story line was great! While the whole plot of a house being haunted isn't new at all, Moore did a fantastic job of making it feel like it was a whole new concept. There was a skeptic and a believer in the same household, and while it was frustrating that Jack didn't believe Liz, I was interested in finding out what it'd take to make Jack believe. There was a minor plot twist that I wouldn't have predicted either. For those of you who don't like cliff hanger endings, then this a book for you. No cliff hanger endings are found in The Third Floor.
I thought all the characters, even minor ones, were very well written. I sympathized with Liz because she had to experience all the ghostly activity first hand. I felt scared for her, and I was also worried that something bad would happen to her in that house. I found myself wanting to protect Liz. I didn't really like Jack to much, not because he was a poorly written character which he's quite the opposite. I just didn't like how he, to me, tried to make Liz feel like she was crazy. He'd get angry with her about things that she didn't do. It was like he didn't trust her at all. I understand that he's a big time skeptic, but I thought, maybe, he could've been a little bit nicer to her and more willing to listen. I loved little Joey. He came across as such a sweet child. He was also experiencing supernatural events firsthand and even more so than Liz. I just wanted to go over to that house, get Joey, and never bring him back until Jack realized what was going on.
The dialogue in this book was never awkward or disjointed. The character interactions felt realistic and never forced. There were a few grammar mistakes that I came across in the book, but nothing major that would take away from how fantastic the book is. There is violence and swearing in the book as well as a few sexual references (though not many).
Overall, The Third Floor is an incredibly spooky read which I think most horror fans will love. It has a fantastic plot, great world building, and likable characters. This is a story that you may want to leave the lights on when you read it though.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 17+ who are into spooky ghost stories and those who like being scared.
<b>I'd give The Third Floor by C. Dennis Moore a 4.75 out of 5.</b>
(I borrowed this book for free from the Amazon's Kindle Owners' Lending Library. I was not required to write a review).
The feels with this book! This book scared me, and I loved it! It was the blurb that made me want to read this book. Even reading the blurb now sends chills down my neck. This is the kind of horror I wish more authors would write.
The title is perfect for the book. Most of the ghostly goings on happen on the third floor. While it's not an overly creepy title, it still works.
I don't really like the cover. Yes, it is the house the story is about, but it doesn't give off any spooky vibes. I, personally, would've liked to see some creepy stuff on the cover like ghosts, but to each their own I guess.
The world building was eerie and perfect for a horror novel. I got chills so many times while reading this book. Moore did an excellent job as portraying just how scary Angel Hill is as well as the spooky house the Kitches live in. (Oh, and if you're a fan of Silent Hill, I just want to say that Angel Hill reminded me a bit of Silent Hill). I read this book at night, so every noise and shadow scared me thanks to this book. (I did like being scared though).
The pacing was fantastic!! I was hooked from the first page. In fact, I was actually hooked from the first sentence. I love the way the story unfolded and flowed easily from one paragraph to the next.
The story line was great! While the whole plot of a house being haunted isn't new at all, Moore did a fantastic job of making it feel like it was a whole new concept. There was a skeptic and a believer in the same household, and while it was frustrating that Jack didn't believe Liz, I was interested in finding out what it'd take to make Jack believe. There was a minor plot twist that I wouldn't have predicted either. For those of you who don't like cliff hanger endings, then this a book for you. No cliff hanger endings are found in The Third Floor.
I thought all the characters, even minor ones, were very well written. I sympathized with Liz because she had to experience all the ghostly activity first hand. I felt scared for her, and I was also worried that something bad would happen to her in that house. I found myself wanting to protect Liz. I didn't really like Jack to much, not because he was a poorly written character which he's quite the opposite. I just didn't like how he, to me, tried to make Liz feel like she was crazy. He'd get angry with her about things that she didn't do. It was like he didn't trust her at all. I understand that he's a big time skeptic, but I thought, maybe, he could've been a little bit nicer to her and more willing to listen. I loved little Joey. He came across as such a sweet child. He was also experiencing supernatural events firsthand and even more so than Liz. I just wanted to go over to that house, get Joey, and never bring him back until Jack realized what was going on.
The dialogue in this book was never awkward or disjointed. The character interactions felt realistic and never forced. There were a few grammar mistakes that I came across in the book, but nothing major that would take away from how fantastic the book is. There is violence and swearing in the book as well as a few sexual references (though not many).
Overall, The Third Floor is an incredibly spooky read which I think most horror fans will love. It has a fantastic plot, great world building, and likable characters. This is a story that you may want to leave the lights on when you read it though.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 17+ who are into spooky ghost stories and those who like being scared.
<b>I'd give The Third Floor by C. Dennis Moore a 4.75 out of 5.</b>
(I borrowed this book for free from the Amazon's Kindle Owners' Lending Library. I was not required to write a review).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019 (Updated Feb 1, 2019)
First 2 acts are interesting (1 more)
MacAvoy is great
A Textbook Example On How Not To End A Trilogy
Contains spoilers, click to show
Glass is the 3rd movie in M. Night Shyamalan's pseudo superhero trilogy following Unbreakable and Split. Unfortunately it is probably the worst movie out of the three and doesn't live up to the twenty years of build-up it has had going into it. Full spoilers will be present through this review as it's kind of hard to discuss the film without spoiling anything.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.