Read Mixed User Reviews for Glass

6

SSRJan 19, 2019

Not as good as Unbreakable, and a notch lower than Split, and although it still has some interesting moments and some great performances they are letdown by an overwrought story.

9 of 13 users found this helpful94

All this user's reviews

6

moviemitch96Jan 18, 2019

So I was really looking forward to this once it was revealed that the films 'Unbreakable' and 'Split' were tied together and that Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson's characters from 'Unbreakable'would be meeting James McAvoy's from 'Split'.So I was really looking forward to this once it was revealed that the films 'Unbreakable' and 'Split' were tied together and that Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson's characters from 'Unbreakable'would be meeting James McAvoy's from 'Split'. For those unfamiliar with the stories to both those films, in 'Unbreakable', Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson play individuals with unique traits and abilities. Having gone his whole life surviving several severe accidents and realizing he just might be immortal, David Dunn (Willis) uses his superhuman strength and psychic abilities for good and helping others, while a fragile and crippled man named Elijah Price (Jackson) acts as a resentful villain to Willis's hero. In 'Split', McAvoy plays Kevin Wendell Crumb, a man who not only kidnaps young women, but also happens to have multiple personality disorder, one of these personalities being a large, dangerous, and aggressive one known as 'The Beast.' This film unites these three characters together and ultimately pits them against one another. While this premise had been in the making for years and sounded so cool as an idea and the way it was teased at the end of 'Split', I have to say that I was quite underwhelmed with the execution of said idea in this film. I really felt like it had great potential, but this film really took forever to get moving at a decent pace and mostly felt like build-up and set-up, with the final half hour being the only somewhat exciting portion of the film. It just seemed to take a while to find its footing and wasn't sure what it wanted to be. Another thriller? Another action film? A drama? It certainly felt like a drama to me, as it took forever to get into the action and thriller elements that made 'Unbreakable' and 'Split' pretty solid films. I will say that as expected, the acting from all was outstanding, with McAvoy once again juggling and shifting back and forth between so many different personalities and expressions seamlessly, and Willis and Jackson both having some great and worthwhile moments of their own as well. Overall, the acting was definitely a highlight, and on paper, the premise sounded so perfect and cool, but the film's uncertainty with its pacing and exactly what genre it wanted to be or stick with made it fall short of my hopes and expectations unfortunately. But if for anything, see it for the nostalgia from Willis and Jackson, as well as for McAvoy's brilliant performance (or should I say performances thanks to his multiple personalities.) Seriously, he's easily steals the show, just as he did in 'Split'! Oh and of course, since it is M. Night Shyamalan directing again, you're right to expect some sort of twist at the end.… Expand

5 of 8 users found this helpful53

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryJan 25, 2019

M. Night Shyamalan reunites the stars of his 3 biggest films (Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson and James McAvoy) into a sort of trilogy finale to Unbreakable and Split. Willis is not reviving his role from Sixth Sense, he's playing anotherM. Night Shyamalan reunites the stars of his 3 biggest films (Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson and James McAvoy) into a sort of trilogy finale to Unbreakable and Split. Willis is not reviving his role from Sixth Sense, he's playing another character with superhuman powers. This trio is brought together in a psychiatric hospital, where Sarah Paulson's talky character tries to convince them that they're just deluded. While the premise starts with some promise, the rambling pace and sometimes confusing writing keep it from paying off. There is a conclusion (that may even augur a new world of superheros), but it's more frustrating than satisfying. A few moments of intensity don't make for a taut thriller.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

6

kiwijinxterJan 24, 2019

I tried hard to go into this movie without any expectations. I mostly succeeded although I had read some reviews ("normal people" user reviews - not the useless professional critics' reviews). Some user reviews gave me the impression thatI tried hard to go into this movie without any expectations. I mostly succeeded although I had read some reviews ("normal people" user reviews - not the useless professional critics' reviews). Some user reviews gave me the impression that there was a fantastic major twist at the end that's bigger than Sixth Sense. Yes, there was a twist at the end but not quite at Sixth Sense levels. Still it was a nice twist.

Overall the movie had great veteran actors in the 3 main "superhero" parts who all gave very good performances for their parts - James McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson. You'd expect that, and you got that. Their performances held the movie up. The movie itself - without giving anything away - wasn't as "twisty" as I expected but it does keep you on edge due to the tenseness of all the characters, particularly McAvoy's "Split" character. In the end I did get the similar feeling I got when I watched Unbreakable. (I haven't watched Split yet). It was OK satisfying but not over the top. I think the problem M. Night Shyamalan is that Sixth Sense was so extraordinary that it is very hard for him to top that. Overall, it's a reasonably satisfying movie, but I felt that I wanted more fleshed out. Personally, I give it a 6/10… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

6

Meth-dudeJan 23, 2019

While it's not awful, it's no masterpiece either. The acting is generally good, although watching McAvoy's character constantly changing personalities was cringe inducing, the cinematography looks good, and the ending was fun. Unfortunately,While it's not awful, it's no masterpiece either. The acting is generally good, although watching McAvoy's character constantly changing personalities was cringe inducing, the cinematography looks good, and the ending was fun. Unfortunately, the movie is quite boring and the plot twist at the end was predictable. It's not a bad movie, it's just very average.… Expand

4 of 7 users found this helpful43

All this user's reviews

5

AcaciaJan 22, 2019

I have seen all of M. Night’s movies, good and bad. For me, this one falls somewhere in the middle. I did not enjoy this movie and had a pretty hard time figuring out what was going on. I thought it was very confounding and often just kindI have seen all of M. Night’s movies, good and bad. For me, this one falls somewhere in the middle. I did not enjoy this movie and had a pretty hard time figuring out what was going on. I thought it was very confounding and often just kind of stupid. For those of you who really liked it, I am happy for you, because I really wanted to like it too. Unfortunately, I just came away feeling very disappointed. So much of it didn’t make any sense to me.… Expand

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

4

Rebecca31Jan 25, 2019

Just take a moment to think about the fact that M. Night Shyamalan set up a more successful film Universe than the dead on arrival Dark Universe. I'm sure none of you actually wrote to M. Night requesting a sequel to Split/Unbreakable but ifJust take a moment to think about the fact that M. Night Shyamalan set up a more successful film Universe than the dead on arrival Dark Universe. I'm sure none of you actually wrote to M. Night requesting a sequel to Split/Unbreakable but if films aren't part of some franchise anymore will anyone even bother seeing them? So here we are anyway. The third film in the M. Night Universe, well that is until he decides The Sixth Sense fits into this mess somehow. M. Night is no fool, most of his films (not you Lady in the Water) make a huge amount of money no matter what you think of them. In today's climate superhero movies and horrors are nearly always a sure thing when it comes to financial success so why not combine the genres and see what you get, so we've gotten Glass. A film somewhere in the area of better than The Happening but not as good as Split. But what does it matter what I think of it, or what anyone thinks of it? Glass has only been in cinemas a week and it has already made five times its production budget and you just know this isn't the last we've seen of the M. Night Cinematic Universe. For those of you who do want to know what I thought of it, please continue to read because in case you couldn't tell I didn't like it.

David Dunn (Bruce Willis) is back from Unbreakable and has adopted his vigilante persona as "The Overseer" a raincoat wearing stalkery superhero who beats up bad guys. He turns his attention to Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) who is still at large and currently mutilating girls around the town. We also have the return of Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) cause reasons. Meanwhile Doctor Sarah Paulson apparently specialises in this area of mental illness because why not, sure it's the M. Night Universe and anything is possible. Look closely and you might even see a little cameo from M. Night himself. I don't mind a directors cameo but seriously don't give yourself lines you're not an actor. Leave that to the actual actors. Although the only one doing any real acting in this is McAvoy. He's outdone himself yet again and if you thought Split was impressive then watch him transform into all twenty-four personalities before your eyes. Willis on the other hand doesn't look like he cares at all about this film, it's a look of "give me my damn pay cheque and get on with it." I'm beginning to wonder if we just took him out of the film altogether would it even make a difference. Glass will force you to question the possibility of real life superheroes or is it all just happening in their heads, either way don't worry because the movie will stop and explain everything to you every few minutes, and I do mean every few minutes. Split was guilty of this unnecessary plotsplaining only it's somehow worse in Glass. The story felt like it was trying to be more impressive than it was, and although it did try to bring the superhero genre in a new direction I found myself getting repeatedly bored and the only thing that was keeping my attention was McAvoy's performance. As with Split, he is carrying the film and he is honestly the only reason you should give Glass the time of day. Not recommended unless you really have nothing better to do with your time.… Expand

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

6

onyxhFeb 2, 2019

Many audiences believe that the film did not meet their expectations due to its "disappointing" ending, and many of them are idiots who do not understand the theme of M. Night Shyamalan's trilogy. It is suppose to give superheroes a moreMany audiences believe that the film did not meet their expectations due to its "disappointing" ending, and many of them are idiots who do not understand the theme of M. Night Shyamalan's trilogy. It is suppose to give superheroes a more realistic perspective if they were ever a possible existence in our world. Glass provided us with an anticlimatic ending because it stayed true to its theme. Audiences were expecting a linear story where a final showdown in some sort of grand stadium occurs with the hero winning and going home. This would probably be what would've happened if this was any other superhero movie like X-men. However, realistically, the super-humans probably would've just fought in a more common area in the society they lived in, and they probably would've been condemned quickly by authorities. There are many subtle messages and hidden clues laid out all over the film. If move critics watched the movie a couple more times they would likely see it in a different light, but they usually only care about racing to be the first people writing a review on the movie. They are making the same mistake they did 19 years ago when Unbreakable first came out...… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

artardmosheaFeb 25, 2019

I think this movie would be impossible to enjoy without seeing both Unbreakable and Split, even taking that into account I think this movie was the weakest of the three and suffers greatly for needing to take so much time building the bridgeI think this movie would be impossible to enjoy without seeing both Unbreakable and Split, even taking that into account I think this movie was the weakest of the three and suffers greatly for needing to take so much time building the bridge to the first two without retelling the story and not spending enough time creating it's own story.

So what you are left with has very little weight to it and comes off as a goofy sub-superhero movie with no flash of a big blockbuster and no story that you would hope for.

McAvoy does all the heavy lifting, Jackson was good, Willis wasn't given much to do.

The ending was jarring and unsatisfying.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

Compi24Jan 19, 2019

Fans of either "Unbreakable" or "Split" beware, "Glass's" blatant disregard for its central trio of characters may just infuriate, disappoint, or otherwise disturb you. The movie's first three-quarters had me so rapt, riveted, and drawn in,Fans of either "Unbreakable" or "Split" beware, "Glass's" blatant disregard for its central trio of characters may just infuriate, disappoint, or otherwise disturb you. The movie's first three-quarters had me so rapt, riveted, and drawn in, but it's the ending that ultimately left me feeling like Samuel L. Jackson's "Elijah Price" at the beginning of this trilogy's first installment -- alone, small, and misunderstood. I thought I was on the same page with Shyamalan when it came to the rules of this world, the import of these characters, and the direction at hand. I suppose I was wrong, and I'm crestfallen as a result. Ugh.… Expand

7 of 15 users found this helpful78

All this user's reviews

5

ScienceAdvisorJan 22, 2019

The last third of the movie is exposition city, describing what is going on instead of doing it. The degredation of the writing is shockingly poor with plot holes and contrivance that leaves the buildup as disposable. The Shyamalanic twistThe last third of the movie is exposition city, describing what is going on instead of doing it. The degredation of the writing is shockingly poor with plot holes and contrivance that leaves the buildup as disposable. The Shyamalanic twist is disappointing to say the least, and the big reveal ranges from yawn-inspiring to soul-shattering. The dropped continuity of two murderers (the largest mass murderer in history and the other a cannibal of young girls) suddenly being treated their powers are a positive, is downright demented and betrays the previous two movies in yet another attempted retcon by Hollywood. The final objective point is that for a movie called Glass, it would have been nice if he was in the first two-thirds of the film. When he finally does arrive it does pickup, but by that point the writing has degraded to the point where even McAvoy and Jackson can save it. The combat is decent in the first third, and lackluster and disappointing for the rest of the movie.

I guess all the people handing out 10s while suggesting the reviewers are wrong were not really paying attention to the series, and are treating Glass as a stand-alone movie, when it is the third part of a trilogy. As a single movie it would be better by one point, but as the climax to a nearly 20 year series it just falls flat. You would have to be not only easy to please, but have a comprehensive disorder to truly enjoy Glass. Either that or use some form of temporary method of achiving that state. If you have seen the previous two movies (Unbreakable and Shattered) you will have to see it for yourself, but set your expectations very low as it all falls apart in the end. Great performances from McAvoy and Jackson as well as the build up, but sadly the delivery is unsatisfying. Stand alone movie 6/10, as the end to the trilogy 5/10
Breakdown by thirds (out of 10): 8, 5, 3… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

4

tropicAcesJan 18, 2019

I loved “Unbreakable” and “Split” was pretty good (until its climax), but this film...just...ugh. It’s slow with no purpose and just kind of Shyamalan’s itself in the climax. Not totally awful just a disappointment given the talent and allI loved “Unbreakable” and “Split” was pretty good (until its climax), but this film...just...ugh. It’s slow with no purpose and just kind of Shyamalan’s itself in the climax. Not totally awful just a disappointment given the talent and all the toys it had at its disposal.… Expand

5 of 12 users found this helpful57

All this user's reviews

5

Bolt86Jan 18, 2019

Watched Glass on 01/18/2018. I have mixed feelings about the movie. While I thought many parts of the movie were interesting and worked well, the conclusion was just very underwhelming. Admittedly, I left the theater somewhat disappointedWatched Glass on 01/18/2018. I have mixed feelings about the movie. While I thought many parts of the movie were interesting and worked well, the conclusion was just very underwhelming. Admittedly, I left the theater somewhat disappointed that I had sat through two hours only to be given such an anticlimactic ending. I don't think Glass was a great movie, nor do I think it was terrible. It lies somewhere in the middle for me.… Expand

5 of 12 users found this helpful57

All this user's reviews

4

BodOpsJan 19, 2019

'Glass' review (no spoilers):

This doesn't do the previous films justice. From my perspective, 'Unbreakable' was a gem. M Night Shyamalan's uncanny ability to handle trauma and melancholy made it unique. The ‘hero’ aspect was secondary to'Glass' review (no spoilers):

This doesn't do the previous films justice.

From my perspective, 'Unbreakable' was a gem.

M Night Shyamalan's uncanny ability to handle trauma and melancholy made it unique. The ‘hero’ aspect was secondary to the exploration of fragile family relationships. You cared about David because of his personal grief, his hopes of patching things up with his wife and son, and his growing sense of fear and bewilderment.

With 'Split', you came for James McAvoy's head-spinning performance, but you stayed for Anna Taylor-Joy's compelling and heart-breaking backstory (and hopefully the epic end-credits reveal too). Shyamalan has many detractors - but when he's on form, he conjures character depth effortlessly.

You lie in wait of the gut-punch monochrome reveals, but his artful exploration of deep (and often, uncomfortable) emotions is what carries his stories through.

‘Glass’ does, at times, carry weight. In fact, the first 30 minutes are brilliant – and even when it falls away after that, there *are* parts that drag you back into the slipstream of the intended experience.

However, those false dawns emphasise how bafflingly convoluted and hollow the ending is – and thus, how much of a disservice it does to the story as a whole.

After the credits rolled, the first words that came to mind were ‘massive production problems’.

Lo and behold, the day after the Premiere, Samuel L Jackson admitted:

“There was a different ending when we first started this that kind of needed to be changed because of the way society is and what's going on in the world and what it would have looked like.”

Cancel culture 1. Artistic vision 0.

Summary: One of the most confusing and disappointing experiences I’ve ever had in a cinema. And that includes the time I caught my foot in a drinks-holder and accidentally threw a super-size sprite in a child’s face.… Expand

5 of 12 users found this helpful57

All this user's reviews

4

KeithDowJan 18, 2019

The scope and ambition of 'Glass' is to be commended, but too many drawn out monologues and obvious plot twist setups shatter the films full potential.

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews

5

Sam11Jan 19, 2019

The only thing that keeps this movie from being awful is James McAvoys absolutely stunning performance. Unfortunately he alone cannot save this movie. As a conclusion to it's amazing prequels it ultimately disappoints with an ending that willThe only thing that keeps this movie from being awful is James McAvoys absolutely stunning performance. Unfortunately he alone cannot save this movie. As a conclusion to it's amazing prequels it ultimately disappoints with an ending that will most likely sour your experience with these 3 movies.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews

4

SquaredRenJan 20, 2019

I give all the credit to James McAvoy, he did an awesome performance every time he was on screen. Now, for the film itself the 1st act was carried by James and Bruce. 2nd act was so slow I almost felt asleep, and the 3rd act was a huge letI give all the credit to James McAvoy, he did an awesome performance every time he was on screen. Now, for the film itself the 1st act was carried by James and Bruce. 2nd act was so slow I almost felt asleep, and the 3rd act was a huge let down. Bruce got forgotten once the 1st act ended, the only good parts was when James was on screen, and the "twist" at the end was like..."are you serious?".

This is just not a good movie, lots of fans are trying to justify it but NO!. Wait for it to come on Netflix, don't spend a dime on this one.… Expand

4 of 11 users found this helpful47

All this user's reviews

5

Vitor007Jan 28, 2019

The conclusion of a universe "unpublished" of cinemas is not a disaster, but it cannot be good. The end of a trilogy that originates from the classic "Unbreakable", makes us anxious in "Split", falls into "Glass ". With a naïve script, theThe conclusion of a universe "unpublished" of cinemas is not a disaster, but it cannot be good. The end of a trilogy that originates from the classic "Unbreakable", makes us anxious in "Split", falls into "Glass ". With a naïve script, the film tries to emscore new connections only in its conclusion, to try to revive the public, after hours whose no surprising event occurs to revive its script. The interpretation of the characters, although they fall from income, remain well synchronized. I'm not saying I can do better than that, but we all know it could have been better. 5.7/10… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

AndremaxFeb 4, 2019

Glass is a rollercoaster between genuine acting and grotesque moments of fail that doesn't even passes by less attentive eyes.

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

4

Jk9785Jan 23, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Shyamalan's most disappointing film since Airbender, considering everyone knew After Earth was gonna suck. This film has no meaning, and telling one why would require spoilers. So from here on out, SPOILER ALERT is in effect. The first third of this film is some of Shyamalan's best work, with some suitably creepy scenes involving Kevin (James McAvoy) and his multiple personalities. Enter David Dunn (Bruce Willis) who releases the girls that Kevin was holding captive, and then fights "The Horde". Long story short, Shyamalan kills all the main characters off in the most anticlimactic way possible. Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson) dies of internal bleeding, Kevin gets shot and dies, and David Dunn, considering his weakness is water, drowns while Dr. Staple watches. And of course, everything is connected with the train crash that David Dunn survived, while Kevin's father was killed. This movie is disappointing, and it is only the first act that keeps this from being one of M. Night Shyamalan's worst films.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

5

clarkaddisonJan 30, 2019

A disappointing third movie in a trilogy. With two many loose ends and a long ridiculous ending, this movie just disappoints. Without some great music and acting this movie would be even worse off.

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

4

ColginatorFeb 10, 2019

To give a quick overview of how I feel about Shaymylan's work, I believe he has made only two good films. One of those films is Unbreakable, a great take on comic book mythos telling an interesting story about an ordinary man trying to comeTo give a quick overview of how I feel about Shaymylan's work, I believe he has made only two good films. One of those films is Unbreakable, a great take on comic book mythos telling an interesting story about an ordinary man trying to come to terms with the fact that he may have extraordinary abilities.

Unfortunately Shyamalan's films after that ranged between being OK to being so bad that they end up feeling like an SNL parody sketch of what a bad film would look like. But then 16 years later, Shyamalan came out with Split which revealed in the end credits that it was a secret sequel to Unbreakable and that his next film would be a crossover where the unbreakable man meets the unstoppable force.

And it certainly starts off like that, with David (once again played by Bruce Willis) hunting down Kevin (James McAvoy) to end a killing spree he has been on since the end of split. However after a brief confrontation, a psychiatrist played by Sarah Paulson arrives with armed guards and puts them in a psychiatric facility where Jackson's Elijah has been since the end of Unbreakable and she tells them that they are all suffering from psychological delusions that they are super powered beings.

Unfortunately after this a lot of the rest of the film rarely has the main trio of actors being in the same room as each other. This is likely due to budgetary constraints or scheduling issues as even in scene's where they are supposed to be in the same room, it's shot in a way that makes it clear that they came in to film in separate days.

The lack of time together causes two big problems for the film. Firstly the leads don't get enough screen time to build up a good arc in the film, with Willis absent through most of the build up to the climax and Jackson not becoming involved until over half way in to the film. And I know that Jackson has a busy schedule appearing in every film ever made, but you'd really think the title character would get a bit more screen time.

Second, part of the reason why people were interested in the crossover is to see these characters interact. What David's relationship with Elijah would be like knowing he was responsible for killing every person on the train. Or how he interacts with McAvoy's 20 plus personalities. But we don't get that because there is not enough time for the actors to bounce off one another and develop their personalities or relationships.

Instead of spending time having these characters interact, most of the film is spent with Sarah Paulson's character trying to convince the trio that they aren't super powered. But we've already spent the past two films exploring whether they are really super-powered beings and have already had their powers confirmed. We've seen McAvoy literally physically transform in to the beast and Willis perform impossible feats of strength, so spending so much time getting the characters to question this feels wasted when it could have been spent exploring new ideas.

Having said all that there are some films that work well in the film. Once again McAvoy pulls off a great performance as the 20+ personalities that make up Kevin. Seeing him switch between these personalities mid shot is really impressive and shows off how well he can develop each of the characters personalities and traits. Plus for the low budget that the film had the few actions sequences that they have are shot in an interesting way. Shaymalan uses quite a few perspective shots and close ups which give the sequences quite a claustrophobic feel.

It also does have several trademark Shyamalan twists. These will probably be the thing that divide the audience the most in this film. Personally I think one of the twists works at deconstructing the comic book mythos, whilst the other twists just don't make practical sense and should have had the characters figure out the twists far earlier in to the film.

Unfortunately this is a weak end to Shamylan's trilogy of superhero films. There's so much wasted potential from this film with Shaymalan rarely giving his characters the time to develop or bounce of one another. Or better yet, after spending the past two films with the characters coming to grips with their own extraordinary powers, wouldn't it have been interesting to see more of how the world reacts to these powers? The film actually hints that it might explore this idea at a few points in the film, but it never really goes anywhere with them.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

JoeCoolApr 14, 2019

Some really great acting by McAvoy, Jackson and Willis, but the doctor pretty much ruined all chances of this being a great movie and that's a darn shame. It could have been a much better movie with a more believable Elie Staple. She comesSome really great acting by McAvoy, Jackson and Willis, but the doctor pretty much ruined all chances of this being a great movie and that's a darn shame. It could have been a much better movie with a more believable Elie Staple. She comes across as being somehow off in her role. Her performance just isn't on par with that of the other actors.
I didn't see Split (yet), but as a standalone movie the story seems somewhat strange. Maybe as a series it makes more sense, but for me it was rather unsatisfying. Giving it a 6 for McAvoy's performance which is simply outstanding.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

NightReviewsFeb 12, 2019

The time is 2019, and as an audience member and lover of film and cinema in a contemporary world, one has to understand and come to terms with the fact that superhero films are here, and seem to be here to stay for an unforeseen future. WhileThe time is 2019, and as an audience member and lover of film and cinema in a contemporary world, one has to understand and come to terms with the fact that superhero films are here, and seem to be here to stay for an unforeseen future. While many claim to be tired and exasperated with the not so recent trend of the superhero genre, it seems that the numbers don’t really reflect the attitudes. While sighs are heard every time a new trailer for a Marvel or DC Universe film is revealed from a majority, the box office for these films just keep getting bigger and bigger with each new character, entry, sequel or prequel.
Yet, while Marvel and DC aren’t the only ones pumping out superhero films, and well before the Marvel Cinematic Universe became nomenclature for many, it seems that M. Night Shaymalan was well ahead of the curb when it came to creating his own universe of superheroes and villains, we just were not aware of it at the time.

While Split revealed a very exciting fact in the closing credits scene, it seems that the secret is out on Glass, Shaymalan’s newest film. Less of an emotional twist ending and more of a narrative one, Split revealed that the film existed in the same universe as Shaymalan’s highly applauded and loved origin superhero film Unbreakable.

Yet, while many believed that Shaymalan’s golden days were behind him as a director, Split seemed to have revived the once untouchable then plagued director back into the spotlight. After the massive success of Split and the idea to connect his two creations into one universe and have them collide in Glass, was a risk the studio was willing to make, especially given the director’s modest budgeting range. While Unbreakable was made on an unusually large $75 million dollar budget back in 2000 (which was unheard of then, but thanks to the immense success of The Sixth Sense, studios were hopeful), the film only brought in only $250 million worldwide, which only paled in comparison to the director’s hit The Sixth Sense, a film that brought in almost $700 million on a miniature $40 million budget. Yet, after a string of massive critical failures, including Lady In The Water, The Happening, The Last Airbender and After Earth, with only one of those films being a box office slump in Lady In The Water, Shaymalan went from critical darling and wonder-kid, to a running gag within the film industry. Yet, after almost a decade of making terrible films, Shaymalan resilience brought him a return to form, thanks to his comeback film and going back to his horror roots with the low-budget indie film The Visit, thus resurrecting the once ostracized filmmaker.

With new life and his origin intentions of creating a trilogy based superhero universe well before Marvel and Kevin Feige was even in the picture, Shaymalan began extending his superhero world with Split, unknown to audiences at the time. With a budget of only $9 million dollars, Shaymalan focused less on spectacle and created a superhero universe grounded in character study and depth; focusing more on ‘what’ makes a superhero/villain as opposed to the challenges they face once they are fully evolved. For Glass, another modest budget of $20 million shows just how little faith the Hollywood studios have in the once dominating director, especially when that amount of money barely pays for a headlining actor or a marketing budget. Yet, nineteen years later, here we are with Glass, the finale of what’s being called the East Rail 177 trilogy.

Dissecting Glass for too long, one may very well make the whole film shatter; but as fragile and tempered the film really is, the ambition behind an almost two decade long dream, is quite remarkable, especially during a time where superhero films are pumped out faster than human life is. One of the many satisfying factors of Glass is Shaymalan’s ability to round-up characters from the first two films, and each character never skipping a beat in Glass; the performances are easily the best parts of the film.

Picking up right where Split left off, David Dunn (Bruce Willis) and his sidekick son and tech savvy partner, providing Dunn with his eyes and ears, Joseph Dunn (Spencer Treat Clark, the original son in Unbreakable which was great to see) use the internet, social media and surveillance technology as tools towards capturing the troubled Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy). After successfully tracking down Crumb before he takes the lives of another innocent group of teenage girls, Dunn and Crumb engage in a very muted and underwhelming face-off, until they are both captured by the authorities, accompanied by “comic-book therapist” Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson). Brought to a psychiatric ward where Dr.Staple is keen on giving realization that both men are in fact not superhuman, they both soon realize that Elijah Price aka Mister Glass (Samuel L. Jackson) is in the same hospital following his terrifying acts in Unbreakable.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

mijxeroApr 16, 2019

I was very excited for this movie and oh boy, did it take a giant dump on the previous movies. It was painfully boring at the beginning with a few drawn out scenes explaining how they were just regular people despite their obvious abilities.I was very excited for this movie and oh boy, did it take a giant dump on the previous movies. It was painfully boring at the beginning with a few drawn out scenes explaining how they were just regular people despite their obvious abilities. Then the movie had a bit of action, followed by the dumpening, where they just ruined everything. Imagine Yoda being suffocated with a plastic bag, that is how this movie felt.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

vlxeditsMar 11, 2019

First 50 minutes are in the same place with no excitement to catch my eyes from closing.

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

6

HotelCentralApr 27, 2019

I'm not sure how this could happen without one of us being drunk or stoned but I appear to be more or less in agreement with the "average" of reviews on MetaCritic.

Glass is basically a blah. It's fairly entertaining because the cast seemsI'm not sure how this could happen without one of us being drunk or stoned but I appear to be more or less in agreement with the "average" of reviews on MetaCritic.

Glass is basically a blah. It's fairly entertaining because the cast seems to promise so much with virtually every scene, but Sarah Paulson gets stuck with the "superpowers are just a delusion" plotline (yawn) and ultimately the film goes nowhere. Yes, there's a fight that goes on and on a while, but the finale leaves one wondering if the people responsible for making the movie just ran out of ideas.

OK, if you're really really fascinated by people comparing events in "real life" to things in "comic books", and a lot of talk about plot devices, then you might be totally delighted.

Here's the thing: there's a new giant-sized skyscraper that's opening up. This gets built up along the way so you can be sure the final climactic finale is going to intrude on the skyscraper's opening ceremony. But then the finale happens in a parking lot. Very anticlimactic and probably a lot cheaper to film. And it's indicative of my reaction to the film as a whole.

Like the old Joni Mitchel song says, "...you don't know what you've got til it's gone, They paved paradise And put up a parking lot..."… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

PipeCMar 28, 2019

M. Night Shyamalan hovering between hero and villain in the final chapter of his mini-universe of extraordinary beings.

Let me be clear: Shyamalan's one of my favorite directors working right now and I will fight tooth and nail to stand upM. Night Shyamalan hovering between hero and villain in the final chapter of his mini-universe of extraordinary beings.

Let me be clear: Shyamalan's one of my favorite directors working right now and I will fight tooth and nail to stand up for him. My duty as a reviewer, however, must always overcome any subjective approach, any dishonest desire. But, why do I say all this? While it's true that the last act of this third installment is insanely brilliant, off-kilter, twisted, as everything surrounding the filmmaker, and cinematically fabulous, act one and two are practically a mess, a deadening pileup of weird decisions that instead of infusing new perspectives into the nowadays suffocating superhero genre, indirectly undermines the exciting plot threads and the style/artistic exercises of the two previous prequels. We're talking about Shyamalan, a name attached to both bewilderment and surprise; for better or worse, "Glass," a film I followed carefully throughout the production, is not the first disappointment of the year, but it does be the most bittersweet yet entertaining ride a movie buff will have in the first two months of this new year. There are serious issues all around the first and second act, among them the tragic absence of something the director has stood out for from the beginning. In the first acts of his best pics, the story drags a sense of restlessness, an enervating discomfort that illuminates the way for the big finale. In the second acts, tension and uncertainty reach unimaginable heights, forcing audiences to keep their breath all along the controversial climax. It's inconceivable then that the first half of "Glass" is a havoc of flat scenes, lacking charm and tact, soul and suspense, in very large part by defective editing.

It must be said that young Charles Xavier hands down saves the entire second act to be an outright disaster. The intervention I refer to takes place halfway the feature film between Kevin Wendell Crumb and Dr. Ellie Staple in the one-color psychiatric ward, and is a masterfully performed, planned and filmed, is terrifying, ironic and impressive in unison. James McAvoy steals the entire movie and takes, again, all the interpretative praises. Patricia, Dennis, Hedwig and some of the other cool personalities are back, who, thanks to the laborious performance of the "Atonement" actor, are fully credible, plausible despite his imposing physical. The actor jumping from one character to another knocks us all out, we're in front of a different person in every change. "Split" is still the one that treasures his tour-de-force, but McAvoy is phenomenal here leading it with a performance worthy of cult status.

I guarantee you, you're not ready for the grand finale. Talking about plot twists and the last thirty minutes, personally, is pretty much the same thing. It's fascinating how it realistically blends comic book structures into storytelling, moving along within the canons of the all-time comic book proceedings. But this is Shyamalan, so you better look closer. The long-awaited showdown and its corresponding adjunct are as good as they can possibly be, bathed with powerful realism and pessimism that some fans — because this is a movie for fans — will have to think twice to swallow what just happened on screen. Likewise, its low key set-pieces, the trio of performances and the stealthy but aggressive writing moves make up a glorious, intelligent and above all human ending. "Glass" by M. Night Shyamalan is by no means one of the filmmaker's top works. You have to see at least "Unbreakable" — which it's most related to — to understand everything this last installment, which should serve as an integral, standalone film such as "Split", tries to unpack. The film has no identity because of the strange ingredients it mixes up to prove it's unlike the other superhero flicks out there; it's neither a thriller, a fantasy/drama nor a suspense pic, it's all of them at once, a terrible phenomenon coming from a lazy, flat and cinematic energy-free first act. Aesthetically, it doesn't stand out; yes, it's not a big-budget production, but Chris Trujillo's production design and Mike Gioulakis' peculiar cinematography doesn't fit in with each other or the most groundbreaking genre incursions. On the upside, the movie's saved by James McAvoy, who's superb as Kevin and all his personalities once again, a slightly exciting score by West Dylan Thordson — who blatantly borrows "Split" compositions, — a commendable, delicate resolution by Shyamalan and a third act so well executed that it'll surely leave you speechless, something that, in one way or another, the filmmaker keeps doing masterfully.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

5

abm0Feb 14, 2019

I'll give it a passing grade because it kept me intrigued almost up to the end, even though the final disappointment dragged it down to a 4/10 for me, honestly. The action was lackluster even compared to Unbreakable, every fight scene lookedI'll give it a passing grade because it kept me intrigued almost up to the end, even though the final disappointment dragged it down to a 4/10 for me, honestly. The action was lackluster even compared to Unbreakable, every fight scene looked like the characters were convinced in their own heads they could make it impressive yet just couldn't translate that thought into action no matter how hard they tried. Beyond that, almost all "meta human" material revolved around James McAvoy's ability to change personalities at the flip of a switch, something that got old very quickly. The "payoff" was not all that original, and so unimpressively presented that I think I might've been less disappointed if they had finished it on that other possible conclusion they kept hinting at in the first half (still would've been a disappointment but maybe a bit more tolerable).

If you liked Unbreakable, don't worry about Glass, you can skip it and you'll be fine. It doesn't add anything to it, possibly quite the contrary. If you haven't seen any of the 3 movies, just watch Unbreakable, and if you're bored one day give Split a shot, it's not that bad and doesn't intersect with Unbreakable much at all. But skip Glass, it's not a movie anyone needed. Much less any continuation they left it open to.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

joeyabukiApr 13, 2019

Not a bad movie... but not a good movie either. I think the better word that defines this movie is DISAPPOINTING. M. Night Shyamalan ruins his own universe/world with this one. Shots are well achieved, clean and pure, colours are also veryNot a bad movie... but not a good movie either. I think the better word that defines this movie is DISAPPOINTING. M. Night Shyamalan ruins his own universe/world with this one. Shots are well achieved, clean and pure, colours are also very well used. OST non-existent. Nothing happens in all the movie (although that's not bad), it's really slow, it cooks slowly and it's the best part (unless we are thinking that), but suddenly everything goes to hell in the final act when it started to go up level, A PIECE OF **** suddenly a sect appears that wants to destroy superhumans, it doesn't matter if you're good or bad (every good part is in the **** trailers and clips). The only thing that raises the film is James McAvoy's performance. Don't go to watch this, don't waste your money and time. In the end i wanted to end this torture, there were people who were yawning.

P.S.: In the last 3 mins. Shyamalan tries to fix it with one of his famous plot twist but it was too late already.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

TrevorsViewJan 31, 2019

Let’s reflect on comic book history, and also compare it to why M. Night Shyamalan’s cap to the Unbreakable trilogy continues his negative artistic streak. In 1897, The Yellow Kid in McFadden’s Flats became the first comic, somethingLet’s reflect on comic book history, and also compare it to why M. Night Shyamalan’s cap to the Unbreakable trilogy continues his negative artistic streak. In 1897, The Yellow Kid in McFadden’s Flats became the first comic, something perfectly straightforward in its simplicity, unlike Glass, which relies on superfluous flashbacks instead of conflict between the three patients who lead the story. The film also diminishes anyone with Brown skin to the background in ever-so-subtle hints of unintentional racism, which feels too much like 1937, when comics evolved into monthly “funnies.” What Shyamalan comments on about the history of superheroes forgets to put Superman’s influence on the subtext, or any true knowledge about the platinum age of comic books. Not just that, he doesn’t even bother to speak up on the reality of superheroes leading psychiatric patients into a dictatorship.

The disloyalty goes on to the comics’ golden age as well, that time when Batman, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Flash, Green Lantern, and others came around. Each of these heroes are still instantly recognizable now because they’re all more sympathetic than the returning Samuel L. Jackson role, Elijah. Here is shown a flashback of his mom watching him get hurt on a carnival ride as a child, yet any internal pain of his remains intangible. Even if he along with the two other freaks are believed to be superheroes, actual comic books have better-analyzed heroic theories. At this rate, I’d rather see Samuel L. Jackson hop off the wheelchair to start preaching Ezekiel 25:17 again, and not have to keep wearing that obvious wig for a now-dated story arc.

Onto the silver age, comic books began to be seen as corruptive to the youth, thus the Comics Code Authority began, which caused an eventual bright, campy tone to take over; think Adam West’s Batman as a strong example. Shyamalan actually handles that well without feeling out of place alongside the established golden age grit. Remember how Batman & Robin was almost all Dutch angles? A similar style is used here to suggest how Elijah reads his interactions, or how a hysterical perspective of “the Beast’s” victims is seen upside down when he crawls on the ceiling. To switch back on cheesiness without the unintentional (or failed) humor, dangerously deep focus on closeup shots block out distractions, working off a pink hallway designed by Chris Trujillo (Stranger Things) to mimic a supervillain’s lair. It’s like every frame here is a legit comic book panel!

It compensates for the way Sarah Paulson (12 Years a Slave, Carol) keeps an insincere face throughout her entire performance, even more so for Anya Taylor-Joy’s (Thoroughbreds, The Witch) absent sense of rhythm in her expressionless eyes that look like Natalie Portman sobbing, “Anakin, you’re breaking my heart.” Yet the almost completely untalented cast ironically works to the advantage of James McAvoy when his killer portrayal shatters barriers immediately upon introduction.

An odd sense of fulfillment breaks through as the three leads fit nowhere, much like how the bronze age lead to comics taking on a realistic tone. Plenty of disturbing images shed mortality to familiar comic book images, particularly a line of high school cheerleaders chained up, all of which are enhanced by the musical score’s stressed strings—a ticking bomb that signals time to break for impact.

Then finally comes the dark age of comics, when antiheroes, particularly Watchmen and Deadpool, got their origins. Shyamalan’s three antiheroes could make a valid case for criminal actions… if consistency exists anywhere. Probably the most noticeable logical inconsistency is how bright lights change James’ character personalities, but it really gets out of hand throughout the ridiculous third act. It attempts to comment on the climaxes of other comic book movies, except this happens after the entire feature proves unable to decide which scenes are fiction or fact.

Thus, the audience appeal winds up weak, mainly to the fault of M. Night Shyamalan’s screenplay preaching the old comic book idea that love heals (ugh). He cannot authenticate the full potential of such a gross idea in any way, and even takes the wrong turns to explore it; one of those approaches includes a legitimate case of Stockholm syndrome!

So today, with all our comics becoming strong cinematic/television properties, it tells our minds to honor having super abilities greater than our own God-given abilities. It tells us that anyone considered a freak is a psycho with a mind set to rule the world. Shyamalan’s commentary is dead-wrong.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

5

JLuis_001Feb 18, 2019

Before Split we didn't need a sequel for Unbreakable. I'm telling the truth and considering that it was the last great Shyamalan film, it was evident that it could end up damaging his legacy.

Split wasn't really bad, at all, although it wasBefore Split we didn't need a sequel for Unbreakable. I'm telling the truth and considering that it was the last great Shyamalan film, it was evident that it could end up damaging his legacy.

Split wasn't really bad, at all, although it was hardly a memorable film and set a good base for a very interesting confrontation in the closing chapter and with Glass, Shyamalan could have done something impressive but he couldn't.
It seems he was afraid of his own ambition. He tried to overanalyze something that it shouldn't and he also locks up his characters when he should have freed them and unfortunately constructs a conclusion as laughable as uninspired.

Bonus points for its three main actors. McAvoy incredible, he effortlessly steals the scenes to Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis.

Glass is unfortunately one of those cases in which the expectations end up killing the product delivered and it's a pity because I really wanted this to be a great film… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

WhateverHoweverFeb 9, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Why didn't Dr. Staple kill them all right after she caught them, instead of putting them in the mental hospital? If she didn't want the world to know about Human superpower.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

halo124Aug 24, 2019

the movie has great pacing, acting and great use of colour but the ending is the one thing in the entire movie which annoyed me so much you have to see the movie to believe it and i dont want to spoil it.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

GrantD243Jan 22, 2019

Glass takes a bit of a different approach to the story than I expected. I appreciate how it all comes together in the end with Mr. Glass, but a lot of what happens before that (including "the twist") left me scratching my head. I also foundGlass takes a bit of a different approach to the story than I expected. I appreciate how it all comes together in the end with Mr. Glass, but a lot of what happens before that (including "the twist") left me scratching my head. I also found David Dunn's arc to be incredibly disappointing. It's a mixed bag, but I am glad that M. Night Shyamalan was able to end this trilogy how he wanted.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

BatareykinApr 18, 2019

Good thriller turned into a bad comics-farce. Although the play of the actor James MacAvoy is superb.

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

ahmedaiman1999Jun 24, 2019

This is a sequel I didn't know I didn't need. It's borderline lame!

(4/10)

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

qbaseApr 7, 2019

Τo «Glass» στερείται της αγωνίας, των ανατρεπτικών ιδεών και της υποβλητικής κινηματoγραφικής αφήγησης των δύo πρώτων ταινιών της τριλογίας. Επιπλέον δεν oλοκληρώνεται, δυστυχώς, η εξαιρετικά ενδιαφέρoυσα απόπειρα του Σιάμαλαν για μιαΤo «Glass» στερείται της αγωνίας, των ανατρεπτικών ιδεών και της υποβλητικής κινηματoγραφικής αφήγησης των δύo πρώτων ταινιών της τριλογίας. Επιπλέον δεν oλοκληρώνεται, δυστυχώς, η εξαιρετικά ενδιαφέρoυσα απόπειρα του Σιάμαλαν για μια πρωτότυπη και ανορθόδoξη ανάγνωση του μύθου των υπερηρώων, στην oποία o παράγoντας του αβάσταχτου πόνου είναι καθoριστικός για την επιλογή του καλού ή του κακού στρατoπέδου...… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

movieseeerJan 27, 2019

GLASS #9

I wasn’t particularly thrilled by M. Night Shyamalan’s split personality film before this one called, indeed, Split. But here is its sequel Glass, which finds the 3 ‘bad guys’ of the core of these films, Unbreakable, Night’s bestGLASS #9

I wasn’t particularly thrilled by M. Night Shyamalan’s split personality film before this one called, indeed, Split. But here is its sequel Glass, which finds the 3 ‘bad guys’ of the core of these films, Unbreakable, Night’s best film to date, in a Psyche facility as prisoners. There is The Beast, the split personality character from Split who calls himself the Horde. Glass himself a mostly comatose character throughout the film who is the mastermind behind the train wreck in Unbreakable and of course Bruce Willis reprising his Unbreakable self from the same named film.

All three share a wing at this insane asylum but I was glad that the film had some action before the shrinks got ahold of the story. Nothing scintillating but at least there’s something to go on. After the opening the three have long and useless chats with the resident psychoanalyst, Dr. Ellie Staple. Most of the supposed ‘events’ in the film concern The Beast where actor, James McAvoy can try on a few lisps and mannerisms, that do feel contrived and mostly Hollywood in tone and circumference. The movie really is missing action as the main story is if these three are ‘Special’ with a capital S, are they Superheroes, like Superman or as the analyst demands, are they ordinary men with delusions. Not a bad supposition but here in Glass there is in the end a somewhat secret society that thinks these ‘insane’ should be suppressed. One does wonder what for, as these ‘freaks’ really aren’t likely to get any traction in larger society. 5.5 Out Of 10

Glass reaches it’s harebrained conclusion but takes some time in getting there, by then there doesn’t seem to be all that much going on. The ‘nuts’ are all dead, and the ‘clowns’ the general public are all put back to sleep. The last scenes of this are oddly ineffective but Shyamalan’s dreadful fear of anything happening at all dangerous etc., is thankfully for him, put down. #CLAYSMOVIEREVIEWS #movie #movies #film #films
#cinema #instamovie #instamovies
#moviefan #moviereview #review
#critic #filmcritic #critical #moviecritic
#rated #cinema #reviews #moviereviews #GLASS #MNIGHTSHYAMALAN… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

oakley07Jan 28, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Ohhhh dear... I waited 18 years for this... Left the theater feeling like I was going to cry. 18 years to see David Dunn again as his amazing superhero self. Waited and waited! Could never understand what was taking so long. Then, nearly jumped out of my seat at the end of Split when, there he was, so nonchalantly sitting in a diner. Finally, my favourite hero was back. At the beginning of Glass, I was thrilled to see a cast of familiar faces. First 20 minutes seemed ok... bit odd that David's big comeback consisted of him beating the crap out of two delinquent youth, but hey, he was back. The scene in the factory was great, but it all happened along a super hyper timeline. From then on the disappointment in my heart grew. I walked out believing that Shyamalan must have just wanted the whole trilogy to be over, like he'd been pressured into doing Glass, and his heart really wasn't into it. So much potential... came off seeming... tired- just like David Dunn. All that aside James Macavoy rocked his 'characters'. Sam-U-L was great, but poor Bruce ... he simply wasn't given enough time in the light... And that, my friends is a travesty.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

MoviezNPAug 14, 2019

I am extremely happy that the Eastrail trilogy exists, but I extremely sad about how it chose to go off. I will recommend it, but man, I feel so mixed about it. .
.
Good : Shyamalan gives us a potentially great movie with some unforgivableI am extremely happy that the Eastrail trilogy exists, but I extremely sad about how it chose to go off. I will recommend it, but man, I feel so mixed about it. .
.
Good : Shyamalan gives us a potentially great movie with some unforgivable flaws. The setting and the concept looks really incredible. Bruce Willis looked really good after a very long time. He cared for his role and was great as David Dunn. Naturally, James McAvoy gives an incredible performance as Kevin and the other personalities. Samuel Jackson kills it as Mr. Glass yet again. He is not in a role that we usually see him in, and he hasn't lost the touch in perhaps the most "against type" role he has ever done. The first act and how all the three lead characters are brought together is quite good. There are emotional scenes and deaths. All of them hit the perfect note for me. I was almost crying in those scenes. There were some characters I never wanted to see dying, but they do. I would've never minded if they were unrealistically resurrected, but they aren't. It's not a spoiler at all. It made me realize how well Shyamalan wrote and directed those characters and how amazing the respective performances were, and how much I liked each of them. Also, I loved how Shyamalan used some of the deleted scenes from Unbreakable in this movie. .
.
Mixed : We got to see a lot of Kevin's identities than in Split, but I think the less was more in this case. McAvoy did a great job, but many parts felt as a forced spot for some random character to pop out. Anya Taylor-Joy gives a great performance, but we don't buy what she does due to a poorer writing and underdeveloped emotional weights. She does her job very well to elevate the material, and I loved what she did. But in the end, it wasn't so believable. Honestly, I don't think she was needed in the film. And finally I admire Shyamalan's guts to send off the main characters in the way he did. But, the way they went off didn't do a proper justice to them. The same thing could've been done in a much better way. .
.
Bad : The most frustrating part would be the arc given to David Dunn. It was the most poorly done part of the movie. In particular, the way they sent him off was the most frustrating part of the movie. I can accept the way how the others were sent off, but not him. He deserved a lot better than this. It felt as if Shyamalan wanted to do it properly, but couldn't because of the budget or studio interference. And the last two twists. The first one was something I have seen in some horror films, and I have started to feel that such an interpretation is the most blant thing to do. The second twist involves Mr. Glass. The twist gives a feel good moment, but since it involves Mr. Glass, the f**king terrorist who killed a lot of people, it didn't feel right in the direction they went. Lastly, there are some plot hole type of stuff there. The way they decided to control Kevin's personalities could've been avoided if he would cover his eyes. The way they use water as a "kryptonite" for Dunn was stupid and totally different from the one done in Unbreakable. Mr. Glass' plan seem to work perfectly, but it feels as if he knew how every single thing would turn out in the end, which is impossible. Also, there are some comic book panels which show the exact stuff that happen in Split, and makes a little to no sense. There are shots which tend to establish a link between Casey and Dunn, but I don't know how that worked. .
.
Conclusion : Only I know how much I wanted to give it an absolute 10/10 and an A+. Sadly, I cannot do it. I read somewhere that it was supposed to be a 3.5 hour long movie. I am really eager to watch the Director's cut. It doesn't feel like the exact movie Shyamalan planned to do. It feels like a really great movie trimmed down. Not choppy editing. I feel as if the ideas that were in this movie were not completely explored. As a Shyamalan movie, it is in my top 5. It's way better than some s**t he gave us, earlier this decade. But still, Sixth Sense and Unbreakable remain the ultimate greats he has given. .
.
Rating. .
.
Score : 6.7/10
Grade : B+
.
(Only I know how bad I am feeling to assign these ratings to this movie)… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

alvindinoMar 11, 2019

This film provides an alternative from the point of view of psychology on superhero stories, the majority of which are only embedded in the form of supersticious science. The plot and twist is awesome too. It's just that there are a number ofThis film provides an alternative from the point of view of psychology on superhero stories, the majority of which are only embedded in the form of supersticious science. The plot and twist is awesome too. It's just that there are a number of minor issues: light and water detectors that are very cheap and inexplicable, then silly deaths in water puddles.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

6

lcamoviereviewsApr 19, 2019

Where to start. Well. Let me begin by saying I enjoyed "Split". James McAvoy has a excellent performance in that and he again steals the show in this film even among top tier talent. I have never seen "Unbreakable" and after seeing this film,Where to start. Well. Let me begin by saying I enjoyed "Split". James McAvoy has a excellent performance in that and he again steals the show in this film even among top tier talent. I have never seen "Unbreakable" and after seeing this film, I don't have much motivation to see it now. The ending and third act of this film greatly affect that. The film does indeed start with promise. We get reintroduced to Bruce Willis's character from "Unbreakable", in my case, a new introduction. I liked this but there was still a lot of mystery to his vigilante acts and it ties nicely into his hunt for McAvoy's beast. We get some moments of humor in there to which again is a fine touch from M. Night's films. There is not many M. Night films that I have been a big fan of. "Lady in the Water" was a complete dud as was "The Village". Then there is "Signs" which is just OK. I am more partial to his TV work with "Wayward Pines" but even that when way off the deep end in season 2 and lost me greatly. Seems like it did with a lot of people as the show was then canceled. The first 30 minutes or so of this film is entertaining and interesting with Willis hunting down McAvoy leading to them being captured by Dr. Ellie Staple, played by the always great Sarah Paulson. She is another one that steals this movie. This film is very much the McAvoy and Paulson show. I thought the capture sequence was a bit odd and didn't quite feel right but I won't complain about this. The sequences in the intution are well acted and really bring the performances for the entire cast. Anya Taylor-Joy was a welcome return from "Split" and I thought here scenes with McAvoy were heartwarming and touching. If there is one thing that I can take away from this film, it's their scenes. I really enjoyed them and really felt their moments until the end. Here is where I have some issues. Number 1, Sam Jackson is very underused in this film. I have to question why this film is named after him. He doesn't have much to do nor does he have a great deal of screen time. I understand that the motivation in the end is his but this film does not deserve the title. This is still very much McAvoy's film and The Horde is the driving force of this film. More of a "Split" sequel I'd say. Bruce Willis is just alright here as well. I expected so much more considering the screen time he gets in the beginning but he sort of just fades into the black as the film goes on and his end is very disappointing. But then again, so is the while final act. Without going into too much spoiler territory, I can just say that the final act makes "Unbreakable" and "Split" almost feel redundant. Poor story choices and big picture explanations are just confusing and I felt myself shaking my head through the last 10 minutes. This as a whole hurts the film entirely. I wanted to like it, I really did. I just left the theater feeling disappointed and asking why did M. Night make these story decisions. Grade: C-… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

RobertFloydMay 27, 2019

Glass had allot of hype surrounding it especially for me. Unbreakable is one of my favourite movies and I thought split was not Emnites return to form but pretty good. The twist was okay, but I thought that glass kinda stunk because its soGlass had allot of hype surrounding it especially for me. Unbreakable is one of my favourite movies and I thought split was not Emnites return to form but pretty good. The twist was okay, but I thought that glass kinda stunk because its so convoluted with crap that it made the movie to confusing and the ending sucked. People would not think that it would just be cool and superheroes are real, they would question it. Emnite had pure talent bu now it's gone.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

5

SryRealJun 2, 2019

Disappointing finale to an underrated series. Plot travels nowhere, deflating ending, pointless lacklustre film.

MNight does a fine job directing, but not enough to save film

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

MrJPrimeMay 21, 2022

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What a piece of garbage. You spend decades building these characters to kill them in the most pathetic ways possible. Four for good acting and Umm again the characters were fun. Soo much wasted potential.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

TyranianSep 17, 2019

Has a vaguely intriguing story and decent acting but has too many plotholes and dumbities.