MovieChat Forums > ExTechOp
ExTechOp (947)
Posts
Why "Overseer"?
Did Nebula know?
final scene
“I love Led Zeppelin!”
Gymnopedie no. 1 as closing credits for PBS show
Missing music cue
"I wish we was packed"
So film vampires ... [spoilers]
Any thoughts on Cap's de-cap-itation?
With great power comes great responsibility
View all posts >
Replies
He's the main reason I rewatch this movie
Such an entertaining slimeball
johnrai's right on all counts ... BUT ... I think Graf is like the other characters, too crooked and dumb to care, and too caught up with how clever they THINK they are.
Graf likely figures he can work the leads with impunity - why would Premier Properties risk alienating the leads by asking who else has called them?
And even if he DOES turn out to have been the recipient of the stolen leads, he can pretend he didn't know they were stolen. Once he's "worked the leads," he'll already have the sales and commissions it'll be too late to take them back at Premier.
Once the information's out, it's like spilt milk.
Anyways, that's how I figure Graf would look at it.
(that's even assuming Moss was selling to Graf at all - maybe he cooked the whole scheme up to work the leads himself. Why work for Graf when you can BE Graf?)
they wouldn't see stars as light trails because their perception moves as quickly as their planet spins
they would, however, believe that the universe is static or very nearly so
Heck, maybe they'd even use a geocentric model for the universe - if, for the whole of their history, they haven't completed a single revolution around their sun, they might as well treat the cosmos as a giant cluster of stars rotating around their world
I haven't seen it, but I read the wiki summary
I agree they should've used his condition as a red herring - or SOME thing, because otherwise Banning's absolutely above reproach
Reminds me of the fourth Die Hard movie - if I'm recalling correctly, Cliff Curtis's character knew from the get-go that McClane was one of the good guys, even if he was working on his own
Then there's "China Moon," where <spoiler>Ed Harris, the best homicide detective, is targeted for frame-up specifically because he'd solve the crime if they framed anyone else. </spoiler>
Just an update - re-watched it a few times since then and have really grown to like it
The middle section only drags because it's not clear what's actually going on: Staple's trying to break them psychologically while Glass is trying to set up his "origin story."
It's definitely a weakness in storytelling, but it's not clear to me it could've gone any other way. Shyamalan wanted us to wonder where he was going with all this.
That last bit I got from his interview w/ McAvoy - he wanted "Glass" to resist genre-pigeonholing. Problem is, as the follow-up to "Unbreakable," it's going to be seen as a superhero film regardless of what Shyamalan wants.
I think superheroes are special but common enough that the clover conspiracy exists to erase them
The ending exists to show that people finally know the truth, because Glass finally beat them
In-universe, I can accept that the clover conspiracy people do a lot of things for symbolic, traditional reasons. Staple says they've been at it for 10,000 years (probably an exaggeration)
I mentioned in another thread that I think the clover represents "normal" people vs. four-leaf clovers who'd represent the "supers."
That's why I agree the OP "nailed it" with their restaurant meeting protocol - they have a need to validate themselves and their mission by gathering in public with their "fellow normals." So it's not so much "they live among us," as the clover people ARE us (and the supers are not).
But they're proven wrong in the end - the public DOES want to know the truth as the final scene shows. As Elijah's mother says, "we are let in on the universe"
<blockquote>I don't understand how M. Night keeps going back-and-forth between excellent films and terrible films. It just doesn't make sense</blockquote>
It kind of makes sense given his background - he worked his way into the system as a writer with a particular talent for "script doctoring."
So he'll keep getting producer money because (a) he's had a few hits and they give a lot of credence to money-making and (b) he knows how "the system" he works.
All of which means, to me, that his movies' quality depends entirely on their inspiration. When he gets or is given a good idea, he'll make a good movie. He fails when the idea is bad ("The Happening") or is driven by a vanity ("After Earth").
He's a good storyteller, not a good story-inventor, is my view.
By the way, I didn't like "Glass" first time. I eventually got around to rewatching "Unbreakable" and "Split," though, and upon rewatching it I REALLY love "Glass." It works well as the end of a trilogy about Glass vs. the Clover Conspiracy.
It was a three-leaf clover, i.e., the common, ordinary, "normal" clover.
My guess is the group views "supers" as "four-leaf clovers," i.e., magical beings out of myth who shouldn't exist. The three-leaf clover would represent the normalcy that the group tries to maintain.
And I figure it's black b/c green clovers are used by Aryan prison gangs
Oh wait, I just realized how it might go down.
Blake sees Spannel's in a hurry, so he backs off selling altogether. Instead, he waits for Spannel to notice Blake's BMW, then touts its virtues and ultimately lets Spannel himself test drive it over the PTA.
Spannel gets convinced - he'll get to pull up to the PTA in a new BMW and impress the wife
Then, on the drive home, Blake remains silent in the back until Mr. or Mrs. Spannel finally can't stand it, and they ask him what he's selling.
Yeah ... I know, too much time on my hands.
View all replies >