Film Junk Podcast Episode #693: Glass

podcast693

0:00 – Intro
15:00 – Review: Glass
46:20 – Other Stuff We Watched: Cutting Class, Green Book, Fyre, Fyre Fraud, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
1:13:38 – This Week on DVD and Blu-ray
1:16:05 – Outro
1:19:20 – Spoiler Discussion: Glass

» Download the MP3 (52 MB)
» View the show notes
» Rate us on iTunes!

Subscribe to the podcast feed:
RSS iTunes

Donate via Paypal:




Recurring Donation $2/Month:




Around the Web:



  • schizopolis

    Here’s a suggestion for the Veto scenario. If someone wants to veto next week’s BIG theatrical release, make a gambling game out of it. Roll a die. Put a together list of 5 previously agreed upon films that you’re all willing to watch and list them 2 to 6 and roll for it. But, if you roll #1, you’re all fucked and have to review the big theatrical release. Each of you gets 2 Vetoes per year and you can sacrifice one 6 out of 5 rating for an extra veto.

  • stevens1

    I think we need to set up a spoiler discussion here for the film I think.

  • Lior

    Yeah, I agree with Frank that “making” someone watch a Criterion movie because they vetoed a general release movie is just plain odd. Criterion is just a label, you should think about its line of films as simply some of the greatest or influential or important ever made, and if that’s not enough to sit down and watch them (perhaps it’s daunting, I know I need to make time and get into a specific mood to watch something like Andrei Rublev) then that’s fine. But “forcing” someone to watch a movie as “punishment” for not watching a different movie… :-) I dunno, I think the best way to catch up on these types of films, if it’s not happening naturally, is to simply make a segment in the show called “catch-up” or “blind spot” or “list of shame” or “collection backlog” where you watch films that have been gathering dust in your collection. Yes, it’s a type of forcing as well, but this is a film show so it’s more organic this way and it’s not tied to a veto game. I predict the veto thing is going to be pretty rare anyway. Usually the group agrees on what’s interesting for everyone.

    I feel like Film Junk is sometimes getting too entangled in its own mini-games and rules and minutiae, and I can understand why, it’s like catnip for the listeners, but really when it comes down to it, you really don’t wanna watch a film, then don’t watch it. It’s not like in “what we watched” everybody seen everything the others are talking about. They just sit and listen.

    Sorry if I’m ruining someone’s fun with this, feel free to ignore me. :-) I just like to simplify.

  • Sam

    I think there appears to be a reverse Criterionitis going on in some ways. I think people elevate to some level even beyond what fans of the label consider it. There’s so much in the collection that is far from daunting and would be almost anybody’s blind spot list whether it was part of the collection or not. Plenty of “mainstream” type stuff in there to anyone that is more than just modern blockbuster fan.

  • newtaurus

    In terms of the movie, a couple thoughts:

    -The scene where Elijah breaks his arms in the carnival ride is definitely a deleted scene from Unbreakable, which could mean the bedroom scene with a young Joseph is also a deleted scene. I’m sure they’re on YouTube somewhere.

    -When people complain that this isn’t a comic book film, what they’re really saying is it’s not an MCU film. Congratulations to Disney for successfully dumbing down the conversation.

  • Lori Cerny

    I am lov-ing the Glass discussion. So many great ideas.

  • newtaurus

    Friar Tuck and the playsets were rehashes of the Gamorrean Guard and Ewok sets respectively, but the other figures were essentially rehashes of the DC Super Powers line. The most obvious is both Robin of Locksley figures have a “G” on their belt line.

  • devolutionary

    Finally looking forward to the Chanruary (Nee: Chanuary) Premium. It’s too bad you couldn’t wait a few extra months as Criterion plans to release Police Story 1 & 2 in late April, but this has already been delayed enough. Plus “Chapril” or “Chay” doesn’t have the same ring to it. I guess April is the 4th month so “4-Chan Premium”?
    https://www.criterion.com/boxsets/1554-police-story-police-story-2

    Let’s see Frank downplay the Criterion narrative now. ;)

  • devolutionary

    Yeah, like Police Story 1/2 on April 30th. ;)

  • Sam

    Yup. Even something like Mikey & Nicky is a great movie that should have pretty wide appeal as well.

    I just think some people, Frank being one of them, place some aura on Criterion that even heavy collectors of the label dont put on it. Like they rarely ever announce anything I’ve never heard of and a lot of times I have already seen and am a fan of the movie. So I’d have to go back retroactively taint those movies with Criterionitis.

    Sure, there are the Tarkovsky, the Bergman, the Fellini, the Bresson, etc… Movies that can seem daunting but even among the foreign films, there’s plenty accessible stuff there. Like I could see Frank being into Jean-Pierre Melville stuff, but he just may never give himself the chance to see those m

  • newtaurus

    “Does M. Night actually read comics?”

    Superman did not fly until the early-to-mid 1940’s.

    No offense, but you guys (and your guests) have routinely proven you don’t know jack s*** about comic books, so maybe you should give Shyamalan a pass on this one.

  • Jay Cheel

    I believe I might have prescribed Frank Army of Shadows a while back. From what I recall, he seemed mostly unimpressed and had some issue with the French resistance as a whole, but I can’t recall what it was.

    And I agree. A large chunk of the Criterion Collection is pretty accessible.

  • Sean

    Just to clarify I wasn’t suggesting Criterion movies as a “punishment”. The thought process was more like if you’re going to claim you don’t want to waste time on a shitty movie in theatres, you can’t just go off and watch something equally shitty with your free time. You have to bring something to the table that has a level of quality and importance that might spark some interesting discussion. And yes, there was an ulterior motive in that I also have a lot of Criterion movies I want to watch personally. But the reason I don’t get to them is not because I think they are boring and don’t want to, it’s mainly because I tend to watch a lot of newer stuff or things that I think are relevant to each episode and just never seem to get to them.

  • Sean

    From what I understand Superman did not fly initially but could still leap buildings with a single bound. That still sounds like a pretty unsubtle superpower to me.

    And yeah, I don’t read many comics but I still feel like I read more comics than M. Night based on what I saw in this movie.

  • Sloth

    You Guys Suck! GLASS ROCKS!!!!

  • devolutionary

    One of the “veto” Criterion comedies could be something like James Brooks’ “Broadcast News” or maybe silent-slapstick like Chaplin’s “Modern Times”, or Lloyd’s “The Freshman”.

  • Sam

    Also gives time to purchase the Eureka Bluray of Wheels on Meals which is coming out in March., even though that’s not being covered.

    I own the sweet Eureka set of Police Story 1& 2 already, might have to double dip for the Criterion, wasnt expecting that to come out.

  • Sam

    Yes. Or actually even some Lubitsch I could see Frank liking. To Be or Not to Be? Just a funny, ballsy comedy.

    Or even some Preston Sturges like Sullivan’s Travels or maybe It Happened One Night. Not sure if those are up his alley, but definitely accessible.

  • tyler mikol

    My gunt tells me that any criterion comedy that Franks watches will never receive 5 stars. It doesn’t matter if he loves it with all his heart and it makes him laugh a ton, it’s still a Criterion and for some reason it’s a sin in his eyes to LOVE a Criterion. He’ll give out 4.5s all day but as soon as that C pops on the screen, the film loses a half star that is unrecoverable.

  • Nic

    I also though that maybe a term for the opposite affliction to “Criterionitis” might be necessary here. Frank is clearly allergic to Criterion and won’t want to watch films like Mickey and Nickey just because a certain Blu Ray label released it. He just has to carry some disease, I simply can’t understand why else someone would willingly watch a shitty middle of the road comedy with Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly rather than a unique and very funny film with Cass and Falk.

  • stevens1

    Jay was right about the pointlessness of having the room sealed off for David, and the lights for Kevin.

    Although, the plot cornered itself into having to include those barriers. Paulson’s character was only given 3 days to convince people who had lived with these ‘conditions’ for years. If she had more time, it would make sense that the protective barriers would be there initially, as it would take time to break down the psychology of such deep rooted ‘conditions’. When they first arrive at the home, they would still believe they had those powers and could potentially cause havoc without anything to stop them. Over time, the steel doors and flashing lights could be removed as the patients start to believe what they are being told.

    But why was she only given 3 days to work on these guys? They’re obviously a powerful organisation, so why not take them away to a secret facility to break them down over weeks, or months? The film still could’ve covered that by showing a passage of time had passed, illustrating how the three guys are slowly being broken down bit-by-bit, instead of trying to cram it all unrealistically into 3 days.

    If anything, Shyamalan should’ve made this a quadrilogy. Glass should’ve centred more around Elijah, before moving into fourth film that brought the four together. There’s too much to cover in this one film and it feels like a rush job to capitalise on the success of Split.

  • devolutionary

    I know it’s considered tele-visual, but did you ever check out the John Irvin TV-directed UK Robin Hood? Released just before Costner’s. It’s a solid, lower-budget, more faithful adaptation. Curious what you would think of it. Features a young Uma Thurman as a feistier Maid Marian.

  • Indianamcclain

    Glass used deleted scenes from Unbreakable. They didn’t use CGI.

  • Sean

    That’s pretty cool. Did not know that before we did the review. I guess it makes sense with the budget he had, there is probably no way they could have pulled off decent de-aging CGI.The scenes did seem to be purposely obscuring faces with shadows in some cases though, which is why I thought that might be what they were doing.

  • Newtman98

    Uh, no offense but Superman didn’t fly until 1964, after Pete Shingle started to do the artwork for the comic. He notoriously wasn’t good at perspective and couldn’t get the floor to look right and just decided to make him fly instead.

  • newtaurus

    https://io9.gizmodo.com/one-of-supermans-powers-has-reverted-to-its-original-fo-1701586888

    https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/92821/when-did-superman-stop-leaping-and-start-flying

    https://www.cbr.com/comic-legends-when-did-superman-first-fly/

    https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/30980-action-comics-123-question-really-the-1st-time-superman-flies/

    https://www.lootcrate.com/community/daily-crate/evolution-supermans-powers/

    These aren’t the best sources, but there’s nothing to indicate that he started flying in the 1960’s. He was flying in other media in the 40’s, it seems unlikely they would wait 20 years to incorporate that into the comics.

    But I’m not as big of a comic historian as I would like to be. The comment I made was more pot/kettle in nature. For a host or guest of the Film Junk podcast to question someone else’s comic knowledge is laughable at best.

  • newtaurus

    Waitasec, Frank went into the comic store owners diatribe about the evolution of super powers, one of them gong from leaping to flying. You said “Is that true?” followed by the Shyamalan comment. Now I assumed you were referring to the factually true statement that Superman first leaped before flying, not the subtleness of the super power. If I’m wrong then accept my apology.

    And I never said you DIDN’T know more than Shyamalan (not sure if I agree or disagree), but it doesn’t make what you said any less silly. Every time the subject of comics comes up no one has a clue about it (save Greg and from an artistic standpoint Dax). And that’s fine, every nerd with a microphone has a comic-related podcast, there’s no need for you to do the same.

  • Sean

    No, you’re right. In the moment I was questioning those specific facts and it was really only after getting confirmation that they are true that I started thinking, even without the power of flight, it doesn’t totally support his argument. But in my head I had images of Superman flying in the old Fleischer cartoons which is what made me question it. My initial research indicates that those cartoons are actually where they first introduced the idea of Superman flying. Did not know that.

  • Tum Tum Tyranus

    In regards to the Glass review, specifically the spoiler section, to Frank, I say bravo! The plot hangups that were brought up on the show, for the most part, you naturally refuted by piecing together all the Shyamalan threading, and way way way more importantly you explained the core essentials of the film and what it was trying to get across.

    From Avatar to now, to see that progression, that’s pretty damn cool.

  • parapa

    I will say, from what I’ve read about what Serenity is actually secretly about, I think Sean and Frank have to see this thing

  • gibson8

    100% agree Lior.

    It’s not like in “what we watched” everybody seen everything the others are talking about. They just sit and listen.

    I don’t understand how no-one else calls them out on this. It just appears like the rest are just paying lip service to the segment but it has taken years for the continual lack of engagement in ‘what we watched’ to really become a pain.

    I appreciate that Sean will have some rationale regarding this but it would fuck me off if every week I was taking time to appraise and describe films I had seen whilst the people sitting beside me basically just waited for me to finish.

    I appreciate that the majority want the ‘mini-games and rules and minutiae’ but it means that you these segments when everything grinds to a halt just seem bizarre.

    This sort of awkwardness just serves to highlight that all is not well in the land of Filmjunk.

  • gibson8

    That is the same as not wanting to Sean.

    More minutiae and games lol.

  • Matt Thephotoman

    Watched ‘Fyre’ on shitflix after hearing you guys talk about it, really enjoyed it, thanks for sharing. I shall look forward to Christian bale starring as Billy in a kinda Bahamas set Wolf of wall street.
    Started watching the new Ted Bundy true crime show, its worth a watch, basically narrated by the man himself which at least gives it something a little different, quite creepy.
    Got me thinking you guys should do a straight to video serial killer movie premium before the new ted bundy /zac efron movie comes out, could include:
    ‘To catch a killer’
    ‘Bundy’
    ‘Dahmer’
    and
    ‘Take me home: The john Denver story’

    Great show as always, thanks for taking the time to make it. And jay I’ve still got my money on ‘Gastroparesis’ being the root of your evil buddy.

  • Lior

    Yeah, it looked like deleted scenes! Is that a first in any movie?

  • Lior

    Hey gibson8, thanks for your reply, and you raise some valid points, but I wanted to clarify that my comment regarding “what we watched” was not intended to be negative. I simply gave an example of a section on the show where movies are discussed without necessarily all the hosts having watched them.

    I don’t know what the others are doing while someone else is talking about a movie they haven’t seen. They could be listening intently or playing Candy Crush on their phone (do people still play Candy Crush?). Only thing that is relevant is if the person talking has something interesting to say and engages the listener.

    Cheers. :-)

  • Indianamcclain

    Not in that way. I do remember BTTF PT. 2 having alternate angles of Crispin Glover that, and the next Star Wars film is supposed to use deleted scenes of Leia from Force Awakens.

  • Lior

    Right, I think the closest thing that comes to it is BTTF 2. Good call!
    Funny thing is, some of these scenes, the one with young Elija at the fair, for example, appear on the Unbreakable bluray, so when I saw it I thought they’re simply flashbacking to the original movie because I saw that scene before. Only later did I realize this was not actually part of the theatrical version.

  • Reed Farrington

    “What We Watched” gives Jay time for a bathroom break. He has no interest in what the rest of us are watching, especially what I watch.

    Frankly, I get bored with the overlong synopses.