Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  Prisoners  >  Reviews  >  Concrete Playground

Glasson’s “Prisoners” Is a Review in Name Only

In response to Tom Glasson’s 418‑word review of Prisoners on Concrete Playground 

http://www.concreteplayground.com.au/event/156616/prisoners.htm

By ,

Tom Glasson’s “Prisoners” only succeeds in spoiling a good portion of the film, and being rather unremarkable everywhere else.

This review is called a preview on its website, but since it reads like the former it will be treated as such. Most of the plot is revealed in the first 3 paragraphs of this extended synopsis. The fact that not much reviewing goes on makes the whole experience that much more useless than it already is. Glasson’s flareless writing is the antithesis of bare minimum filler that only serves to pad stats.  

The critic’s argument while interesting isn’t given any time to develop into something thoughtful. The writer devotes all of a paragraph to fleshing out his incomplete argument, further illustrating the half baked nature of the pseudo-critique.

The spoilers aren’t avoided in this write-up and are probably the most salient feature of the whole thing. From the first to the third paragraph Glasson offers nothing but plot details.

There are no redeeming qualities whatsoever, not even those who are curators in awful things should read this. There is no joy to be found hear to quote the would-be critic. Throughout Glasson’s Prisoners one gets the sense that Glasson seemed to want to write something that people would actively seek to forget, with his witless appraisals, overtly spoilerific revelations, and his under-cooked arguments; one can only hope that in this case he succeeds with flying colors.    

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation