Movie Review: “Glass” (PG-13)
With “Glass,” M. Night Shyamalan closes out a trilogy he began with “Unbreakable” back in 2000 and continued with 2017’s unexpected (if a tad loose) follow-up, “Split.” In typical Shyamalan fashion, this intimate subversion of superhero tropes asks viewers to expect the unexpected. This is to say that while “Glass” does feel like a natural progression of its predecessors, thematically speaking, it certainly goes in a fair share of left-of-center directions, trading in the massive and bombastic bravado of current superhero movies for a more psychological approach. The end result is a mixed bag that, while imperfect, isn’t the bad movie some folks are suggesting it is. But then, your overall enjoyment of it will probably be dependent on whether you’re a glass-half-full or a glass-half-empty person.
As “Glass” opens, “Unbreakable’s” David Dunn (Bruce Willis) continues to fulfill his destiny as a real-life superhero through the aid of his adoring son, Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark). Dunn’s latest mission? Find Crumb (James McAvoy), a misunderstood villain from “Split” who is suffering from multiple personality disorder, and bring his alter, The Beast, to justice by way of any means necessary.
Trouble arises when an early first-act showdown between Dunn (aka, The Overseer) and The Beast is cut short by psychiatrist Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) and her team of professionals. Shortly thereafter, the setting in “Glass” relocates to an asylum where Staple reveals herself to be a doctor in a very special field. As it happens, she specializes in working with patients who believe they are superheros. And as fate would have it, catatonic criminal mastermind Elijah Price (aka, Mr. Glass) also happens to reside in the very same hospital. Eventually, The Overseer, Crumb, and Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson) are brought together for a handful of sessions that finds Staple explaining to them that they are not superhuman at all but rather, suffering from a rare delusion of grandeur. Of course, this theory stands against everything Mr. Glass has been trying to prove for the better part of two decades. The question is, who’s right? The seemingly all-knowing psychiatrist or the broken down, brittle-boned patient? That answer comes to light in a wildly uneven final act.
Shyamalan (who offers up an amusing cameo that suggests even folks with a shady past are capable of change) has reassembled the major players from “Unbreakable” and “Split” sans Robin Wright, who at the very least is acknowledged in this picture. Willis is strongest in the earlier portions of the film, but he’s virtually sidelined once the action shifts to the hospital. Jackson is back as Mr. Glass, and even though the film takes its name from his mastermind, he spends a great deal of the movie in a catatonic state. Rest assured, though, that once he snaps out of that state, he’s the Samuel L. Jackson we’ve all come to know and love. Of the trio of leads, it’s an electric McAvoy who truly owns “Glass” as victim-turned-villain Crumb. He’s a charismatic force to be reckoned with and even more effective here than he was in “Split.”
Rounding out the cast are Clark as Dunn’s loving son Joseph, Anya-Taylor Joy as Crumb’s kindred spirit Casey, Charlayne Woodard as Price’s more-than-understanding mother, and trilogy newbie Paulson as Dr. Staple. Paulson proves to be a solid addition, but truth be told, her Ellie Staple would have been far more effective here had she made an appearance in an earlier installment of this series. At the very least, that would have helped from a character development standpoint.
As for Shyamalan, he was ahead of the curve back in 2000 as “Unbreakable” was certainly ahead of its time. It was commenting on a genre that hadn’t really come into its own yet. And in fact, “Unbreakable” was so bold in its superhero-in-the-real-world approach that the studio didn’t even reveal the film’s true nature in the ad campaign.
Here in 2019, we clearly live in an entirely different climate where a new superhero property hits the big screen on what feels like every other weekend. True to form, though, Shyamalan swings for the fences and stays in his lane with “Glass.” As was the case with its predecessors, this movie is talky and psychological in approach. Translation: If you’re looking for big showdowns and a barrage of visual effects, this superhero flick probably isn’t for you. To that end, again, “Glass” feels like a natural progression.
Per the usual, Shyamalan loves to subvert our expectations. In fact, he’s so hellbent on doing just that in “Glass” that he makes some decisions that will certainly rub some folks the wrong way in the same sort of fashion that Rian Johnson rubbed fans the wrong way with the much debated-about “The Last Jedi.” Of course, the key difference is that “The Last Jedi” is part of the mass phenomenon that is “Star Wars” while “Glass” closes out a three-picture arc that started with a film that most folks didn’t even bat an eye at back in 2000.
Still, there are plenty of fans of this series out there, and I count myself as one of them. And in fact, “Unbreakable” is my favorite Shyamalan film. As someone who was greatly looking forward to this movie, let it be noted that while there’s plenty to like in “Glass” — cCompelling ideas, the color schemes, the cinematography, West Dylan Thordson’s outstanding score (which takes moments to pay loving homage to James Newton Howard’s unforgettable work on “Unbreakable”), etc. — there’s also plenty of stuff that’s head-scratch worthy and even anger inducing. And it goes beyond spontaneous moments of camp and stilted dialogue.
The first act of the picture is a blast, particularly the reintroduction of familiar faces. It’s a joy seeing Dunn work with his son to make the word a better place. With its hospital setting, humor, and philosophical approach, the second act of the picture plays like “One Flew Over the Hero’s Nest” as Dr. Ellie Staple attempts to tell Dunn, Crumb, and Price how things really are. It’s the third act of the picture —- when the film sets out to tie everything together through inevitable conflict, unexpected connections, and prerequisite revelations — that “Glass” really stumbles.
There’s been a lot talk about the anticlimactic and dour nature of the ending of this picture. There’s also been a lot of talk about the fact that “Glass” doesn’t make good on its promise of a massive showdown in the city, a plot point that hurt the likes of “Superman Returns.” Unlike Bryan Singer’s film, though, there really was no promise. It’s all part of Shyamalan’s master plan, and I had no problem with the low-stakes aspect of the picture. And in fact, given that this is a Shyamalan movie, I wouldn’t have expected an epic showdown in million years, because that’s not this storyteller’s style. What’s really bothersome here is how much “Glass” goes off the rails on its way to abruptly crossing the finish line. As a result, even the prerequisite twists fall flat.
Speaking of which, the twist has become an essential in most of Shyamalan’s work, and in “Glass,” we get not one, not two, but three of them in the final act! The first of these twists makes sense and organically fits with the narrative. The second of these twists is predicated on an interesting idea, but it’s underdeveloped and almost feels shoehorned in. Furthermore, it is this second twist that leads to a couple of moments in “Glass” that are sure to piss fans off something fierce. I’m all for expecting the unexpected, but these moments, which I refuse to give away here, feel cheap and unsatisfying. As for the final twist, it’s amusing given the circumstances surrounding it, but it makes other characters look unrealistically stupid and leads to a final moment in the picture that isn’t nearly as profound or as moving as it thinks it is.
All art is subjective, and I’ve talked about the final act and the aforementioned trio of twists at length with a fellow fan of the series. It’s interesting to note that our opinions differ to a fairly large degree. I walked away from “Glass” feeling unfulfilled by its conclusion while he felt the exact opposite.
Whatever your feelings on that particular subject, “Glass” is far from a bad movie. In fact, up until the conclusion, I was in. I was having a good time. It was a blast catching up with these characters again, and I enjoyed the subtext at the heart of the movie. As was the case with both “Unbreakable” and “Split,” “Glass” suggests that we should all live up to our potential, even when we’re being beaten down and constantly being told we’re not good enough. Yes, the final act of the picture contradicts that statement to a certain extent, but despite Shyamalan not sticking the landing, “Glass” is still a relatively enjoyable ride overall.
Articles related to “Movie Review: ‘Glass’ is a hit-and-miss capper to a trilogy most fans never thought they’d get”
Movie Review: “Escape Room” clearly has “franchise” on its mind
Movie Review: “Bird Box” is stronger as an intense look at motherhood than a horror thriller
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://suindependent.com/movie-review-glass/&media=https://suindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Glass-image.jpg&description=Movie Review: "Glass" suggests that we should all live up to our potential, even when we're beaten down and constantly told we're not good enough.){kind=link}