The finale of Shyamalan's trilogy. A trilogy that, in fact, could become its own, albeit small, but so unlike other, superhero universe. And it is obvious that the director tried to make the third part of the crossover, bringing the paths of the heroes of previous films. It turned out, to put it mildly, how strange.
If “Invulnerable” did not impress me very much, then “Split” I was madly pleased. First of all, the matchless game of James McAvoy, who plays a man with several personalities. It is worth admitting that in “Glass” his game is the same decoration. And, by and large, the only decoration.
It is difficult to do without spoilers, so I will try briefly. Imagine that three people with superpowers end up in a psychiatric clinic. They have accounts with each other, and accounts with those who keep them here. Well, it would seem as interesting to spin a story about how each of them tries to break out of these walls, in parallel setting up an opponent. But, no. Alas, Shyamalan somehow comes up with a rather flat story, which, alas, is only filled with plot twists, but does not shine with them at all. They guess, super-entangled story does not feel, and the endings, which, by the way, quite a lot, and when you think that everything is over, there is a continuation, spoiled by some pathetic speeches, tears and a message about the great. The second half of the film disappointed me. That is, the groundwork for the film is good, but the development of the plot leads to a rather uninteresting and some kind of stupid ending.
In Invulnerable, Shyamalan tried to rethink the genre of superheroics and give its individual characters a completely human look, giving some of them quite prosaic and quite life stories about the fact that real heroes do not wear gaggy tights and costumes, wanting to hide their mental and physical characteristics from the surrounding masses. When the director took up the production of Split, it sounded echoes of reflections on the true essence of insanity, as well as its insidious background, ascent and duality, which greatly affects the perception of the whole world, in which ordinary people try not to notice its excesses.
“Glass” is the quintessence of the clash between good and evil, when all the main persons will be placed in a very cramped and confined space, whose sterile and impersonal walls will reveal to the public a new kind of creatures determined to loudly declare themselves. These are not supermen in the flesh, when you need to save civilization from invasion from space or the plots of dangerous villains, as in the final part of the trilogy of Shyamalan it is not about this. The authors in the film weave intrigue and talk around the deceptive essence of antiheroes, which are the characters of Bruce Willis, Samuel Jackson and James McAvoy.
Shyamalana cares about the world of comics not as such, but as a separate worldview, when symbols, images and messages are encrypted into screaming headlines, catchy pictures and individual replicas of certain creatures on the pages of magazines whose actions and actions greatly affect real people. “Glass” is not a stupid movie about the confrontation, at all, it is worth digging deeper and more carefully, since the director would not be himself if he did not leave us a lot of riddles, puzzles and tasks hidden under the simple cover of the plot. He says that in our world there is no obvious good or evil, but only their half-tone.
We ourselves give the characters those feelings, states and emotions that are characteristic of ourselves. In this film, the viewer is awarded the most important place – an observer, a kind of arbitrator, who has the right to decide what the verdict, epilogue or meaning is presented by the creator in the final. Stupid fight or still painstaking, intricate intrigue, asking the public the question of how it is adapted to the appearance in its ranks of others? Shyamalan delicately treats the characters, filling them with confrontation, light and doubts only so that they do not look the same, giving rise to a whole tangle of likes and dislikes on the screens.
In fact, Shyamalan has one important conclusion in Glass, which is that our society is very afraid of such upheavals. If Bruce Willis’ hero were to try out gangsters in our world, many would stop taking to the streets for fear of their lives. It's only in the movies that we sympathize with antiheroes who have decided to put an end to lawlessness, but it's actually quite dangerous for the citizens themselves. The same is true of the Beast, and of Mr. Glass, whose habits are even more terrible and terrible, for their madness has many faces, in whose features one can guess a hidden hatred for those who do not accept them. There is something to think about here.
Shyamalan deliberately leads us into the subconscious of the heroes, trying to explain to the audience the fact that they are only prototypes of all those humiliated, insulted and suffering, about whom the Beast is talking. It is very stupid to watch “Glass” and think that this is another blockbuster, where Bruce Willis once again saves trapped poor fellow from the atrocities of a crazy maniac or cunning manipulator. If you approach this film from this point of view, you can forever fall into a false misconception. Each of the characters has its own meaning, even the doctor in the person of Sarah Paulson. She has an equally interesting role, whose idea will be revealed only at the end.
“Glass” is filmed in various semitones, staying then in a chamber state, then on the contrary, throwing its viewer on the lawns flooded with running water before entering the hospital. Shyamalan shakes us by the skin and literally reminds us that thunder is about to break out, because for this he has been hatching his trilogy for so long. Yes, in his hands is far from pye-boys, but it is this holy trinity that compactly fits into his scenario, where inflated to the maximum we will talk about recalcitrance, rejection and sometimes biased attitude of society towards its individual representatives. And that sometimes it tends to do anything to avoid taking the garbage out of the house.
Yes, “Glass” sometimes looks confused, grotesque and melancholy, but this is the presentation of the author. He has no doubt that people need heroes, but there are sometimes precedents when the latter, after all their exploits, become outcasts. About the villains, everything is much more clear, they will forever remain in the eyes of man dangerous creatures that must be destroyed. Few people will climb into their souls and try to understand their actions, because in relation to scoundrels, it is most difficult to experience something bright in the soul. This is the way it was long before us, and it will be after us. Isn't that what Mr. Glass was saying when he pointed to this complex paradigm?
Of course, Shyamalan raises many questions and themes in the final act. His trilogy was atypical, and it was for the best, probably. Recently, we have superheroes flying more and more in cloaks, releasing lightning from the finger and are somewhat one-sided, not asking sharp questions about the intricacies of soul searching. “Glass” is just knocked out of this order, showing the world non-standard characters, exposing the craving of people for painted worlds, where everything is not as simple as it seems at first. The comic is presented here as a myth, a legend, a legend, but is it worth bowing to them? Given how many films have already been released about them, we are not yet mature enough to answer this question.
7 out of 10
The final film of the trilogy caused a lot of controversy and received devastating reviews from critics and viewers who were unhappy with the completion of the promising saga about the heroes of Philadelphia, which was spawned by the same train.
If the description for Shyamalan’s film includes such genres as fiction and action movie, then expect trouble. For some reason, he does not know how to work in these areas, and the main problem of Glass is associated with the action part. It was the third act that caused so much outrage among the audience. The Beast's first encounter with David Dunn already looked like a not-so-skillful production, but the continuation of their fight in the parking lot only made things worse. This is not a fight between two of the strongest people, but a film adaptation of the famous meme, where “grandfathers and fathers clutched on drunkenness and spoiled everyone’s holiday.” Here, budget problems are affected, although for the same money Chad Stahelski shot the first John Wick.
Perhaps, if the film had a larger budget, there were no problems with the production and shooting of high-quality fighting scenes, and it was the prospect of seeing the confrontation between the Warden and the Horde that prompted people to go to the movies. The sluggish action was a tragedy for many, but not for me, because it managed to impress me in a completely different way. I was concerned here not so much with the confrontation as with the fact that the heroes crossed into one project. As a result, the thriller genre and Shyamalan’s bold decision in the finale (which also disappointed most of the audience) made such an impression on me that I sat with a fascinated look, completely forgetting how stupid the battle in the courtyard of a psychiatric hospital looked.
A new superhuman film theory states that superheroes are people with megalomania caused by damage to the frontal lobe. The imaginary gifted believe in the reality of their supernatural abilities, and rational Dr. Ellie Staple tries to convince each of the characters that they are only unhealthy. This applies to everyone, including Joseph, who as an impressionable child continued to believe in Price's fairy tales even as an adult. Casey has Stockholm syndrome. For her, the Horde in its own way is a liberator who turned her from broken to persistent. Thanks to the trials to which she was subjected by the admirers of the Beast, she was able to escape from the oppression of a cruel uncle. And now Casey wants to help not only the good personalities of Kevin, but also the Horde, begging Denis not to give the Beast the way to the light.
This is still a world of skepticism, and although the hero will be absolutely sure that his powers are true, the seed of doubt will be sown. Even the Horde, whose belief in the Beast gave birth to him in Kevin’s mind, is beginning to lose it. It is not surprising that the viewer will doubt.
Of all the characters, the least interesting in this film was the Warden. And primarily because Bruce Willis does not want to play at all, unlike his colleagues in the workshop, who give their best. For the stone face of Willis, "Glass" received its only nomination for the anti-prize "Golden Raspberry".
The yellow color finally becomes an integral part of the Horde, when in "Split" from yellow there were only Denis handkerchief and Hedwig jacket. In the new picture, a lot of new personalities of Kevin broke out to the light, which both McAvoy and his Russian voice play perfectly. If you light up with a statoscope, James in the blink of an eye reincarnates from one person to another.
Mr. Glass performed by Samuel L. Jackson is also incredibly good, but in nineteen years, due to strong sedatives, he seems to have moved his mind. Too obsessed with crossing reality with comics, which he considered the quintessence of documents about superpowers. The original plan of attacking Glass on high-rises was really smart, but based on the budget of the film, it was immediately forgotten, content with games with surveillance cameras. If David Dunn and Kevin Crumb had really come together in a battle at the grand opening of the towers, they would have been seen by a whole crowd, including the elite of the city and television cameras, then all Staple’s arguments immediately split like glass.
Shyamalan made three twists at once, one of which attentive viewers found themselves before the film was released in cinemas. The audience threw eggs at the rest of the plot twists, not to say that it is not justified, but I liked them. The twist, which marked both the beginning and the end, I found quite bold in this age of building long-running franchises.
The hero lives in each of us, a battered morality that sounded in a completely different way. "Glass" has its sins, but they can be reconciled for the sake of advantages.
“This is not a limited edition, this is the story of the creation of heroes.”
How do you know who is good and who is bad?
The film "Glass" tells us about three "super heroes" and their difficulties of becoming. McAvoy and his horde of troubled childhood, Willis and his invulnerable about his phobia and finally Jackson and his "crystal" body.
At first, it is not clear who is the main character in this film and who is the villain, but by the end you can understand that there is neither good nor evil. This film is about three versatile personalities (not counting, of course, McAvoy) and about one secret that should not come to light.
The beginning of the film shows that the characters are doing the same thing they did before, someone continues to saturate their beast, and someone tries to hide and do justice. The first minutes of the film fascinate the viewer with a pleasant atmosphere, that sadness of the city, gray colors, heavy rains. Some will take it as a boring part of the movie, but there's an attractive part to it. There are no bright heroes who do nothing but press a smile on their face, rubbing their forehead against a non-existent “happiness”, there are no beautiful stories about fulfilled expectations. Only a simple, harsh life where you can be beaten by passers-by because it will bring a lot of “likes”.
Simple and light tones of the streets, panicking faces of girls who know that they will become food and cheerful Hedwig who does not want to get acquainted with them.
I love Drake, Nicky, too, but they broke up, and it’s stupid to love two.
James McAvoy, the actor who could. It’s amazing to see one actor playing over 10 different personalities. Give you an adult Patricia or a 9-year-old Hedwig. You're watching a movie and you want more and more of these characters, or maybe someone new, or maybe some personality will show itself on the other side. I really liked the performance of McAvoy and his Hadwig. Hedwig is a very nice boy who at the age of 9 already kissed a girl. It is difficult for him, but he is happy, he is having fun. Looking at his character, I just want to smile. Mr. Glass said his greatest superpower is being a 9-year-old boy and that's true. Many people would give anything now to return to this age and look at the world with different eyes.
“Do you treat crazy people who believe they’re comic books?”
Oddly enough, but the theme of comics in the film, in my opinion, not directly. Comics are taken as a distraction, because immersed in comics, we can feel like heroes. The main idea of the film is to believe in yourself. You need to believe and then you can make not only yourself a hero, but also others.
"My name is Mr. Glass"
Mr. Glass is a very charismatic character, although he appears in the frame from the second half of the film and has few lines, but he attracts with his zeal, his goal, which in the end he can realize. The sight of a wonderful scientist, with his ruffled hair, gives him some confidence in his actions. He knows everything in advance, he thinks through every step, he always has a hidden plan. Jackson in this role showed himself great and to take a look from his acting is very difficult. All these nervous tics, pretenses, and strange actions end up giving us the genius superhero he wanted to be. "You were great."
We will prove that the broken are the strongest.
Bruce Willis shows us his hero as a vengeful person, ready to "kick ass" to anyone who violates justice. A green cloak hides his real face, a simple, loving father. It is difficult to talk about this hero, because he is very little in the film, but I will say that his ability to “see” with touch is, in simple words, cool.
"Are you with Kevin now? . . "
Anya Taylor Joy and her character Casey after the first film has changed a lot and on the contrary is eager to help Kevin and his personalities. You can see she's worried, she wants Kevin well, maybe more. Nice actress and amazing acting.
“While others will say I talk a lot, the endings of the films are leaked, lies, everyone knows that in the Exorcist the priest will die.”
Sarah Paulson is a psychologist trying to help our superheroes. She is pleasant to watch, you can say that she knows what to do, she sees through the characters and this gives her a kind of superpower. The intense dialogue in the pink room shows us that she has everything captured and is ready for the sake of our heroes to do anything to “cure” them.
The atmosphere of thrillers, difficult dialogues, different characters and approaches to the narrative about them give us a good film, from which you can sit in your thoughts for 30 minutes or even an hour. Add to this, already loved by me, the work of the operator, all these non-standard camera positions, transitions from frame to frame, different plans of the characters. But... Something is missing, something more exciting. Moments the film can make you get bored, yawn, turn away, but there are not many such moments and it pleases.
7 out of 10
After director and screenwriter M. Night Shyamalan finally realized that making expensive blockbusters was not his business, he returned to the roots of his career. First, Shyamalan put a cheap but cool horror film called 'Visit'. And then took James McAvoy into circulation and shot the thriller 'Split' with him. Both films were well received by the audience, the box office pleased the studio and Shyamalan decided to shoot a sequel ' Split', the film ' Glass'.
Interestingly, 'Split' and 'Glass' are not only related, but also refer us to 'Invulnerable' 2000 starring Bruce Willis. So we got a trilogy that logically closes in the new film. Maybe not everyone liked what Shyamalan did in the end, but Glass & #39; still has the right to life.
After the events of 'Split', the multifaceted Kevin Crumb, the invulnerable David Dunn and the fragile Mr. Glass, or Elijah Price, find themselves in a psychiatric clinic. Local doctors should check them for adequacy, and decide whether to let out cronies or not. But the characters are too complex to be analyzed. You need to grow in depth here.
Of course, in ' Glass' Shyamalan played very well. His story became bigger and less personal. A lot of people didn't like it. Even I think that in some scenes, the director overreacted and it was necessary to temper his appetite for stunts and special effects, but Shyamalan decided that, and we need to accept his vision, or just not watch the film.
Participation in the role of David Dunn was a rare opportunity for Bruce Willis to work again with a strong director at a prestigious studio. he played well and even it is a pity that the actor is increasingly starring in passing projects, but he deserves more interesting offers.
In general, I ' Glass' liked, although it is weaker than ' Split' and ' Invulnerable'. Shyamalan decided to reveal all his cards, it turned out a little specific, but I do not regret watching.
Film "Glass" (2019) Every superhero has a weak spot. Dignity: Actors' game! Flaws: Timekeeping, no dynamics. Greetings, dear readers. I would like to share with you my review about the third film of the trilogy of Knight Shyamalan, the fantastic thriller Glass. The film is a little boring, sometimes even would say boring, a lot of dialogue. The plot, though confusing, but very interesting. The actors are great without exception. Especially James McAvoy, there are no words to describe how much this actor has done for the film. Playing the role of a hero who suffers from multiple personality disorders, combining 23 separate personalities, is not given to everyone. In general, the cast was selected successfully. The fantastic thriller "Glass" lets the viewer know that no matter who you think you are, superhero or villain, for the rest of society you are still a threat. At one point, from a positive hero, the media can turn you into a scum of society or, as in this movie, a superhero. Any organization or foe will make you think differently than you actually think. In general, the film, although stretched, sometimes a little tedious, keeps in suspense, makes you think. It's worth watching. I watched it once and I was personally pleased.
Mm. Knight Shyamalan illuminated the road to superheroes in the cinema with his beautiful picture ' Invulnerable' at the beginning of the century (along with ' The Men of X' Singer). After 19 years, the director sums up the twenty-year-old superheroics on big screens in the tape ' Glass'.
Indeed, over 20 years, a huge number of comic book films have appeared: the Marvel and DC cinematic universes, the stalled franchise ' X-Men', Nolan's cult Batman trilogy, ' Guardians' from Snyder, numerous reincarnations ' Spider-Man', original ' Blade' and ' Hellboy' and other less popular films. The director is trying to show us that once wonderful and rare heroes with superhuman abilities are no longer so unique because of their replicability. Literally everywhere you can find superheroes and supervillains on any 'taste' and 'color' In the next decade, the largest film studios are not going to slow down the turnover and number of stamped and polished to the brilliance of polished & #39; film masterpieces & #39; in this genre will clearly grow at an intimidating pace. I would like to see their quality correspond to the money spent on their production.
Shyamalan unites the characters of his two films ('Unbreakable' and 'Split') into one universe. It was very interesting, but the audience wanted to see a little more. The highly popular ambiguous character of James McAvoy, within which more than twenty personalities live, was a clear highlight of the picture in question. It was the continuation of his story that intrigued viewers who did not get what they wanted. Is it the director's fault? I guess not. There were many characters mentioned here and the Scottish actor perfectly portrayed his numerous manifestations. The task of the director was to show the multifaceted world of superheroes in his own way. He did it, as he always did.
The return of Bruce Willis, Sam Jackson looks amazing. And, of course, the main character of the picture is the hero-villain Leroy. His well-thought-out plan of action puts the story in a very cinematic way.
As a result, ' Glass', although not fully satisfied the mass audience with its plot decisions, is a kind of cinematic slice on the state of the film industry of the 21st century. Comic books are everywhere and this is just the beginning.
The late era of director M. Night Shyamalan can be described as follows. His early works, specifically The Sixth Sense and Invulnerable, do have great artistic merit. The advantages that later merged into one stereotype in the minds of the mass viewer: Shyamalan is a master of unexpected endings. Or rather, not even so – Shyamalan is rather very fond of unexpected endings, inserting them into place and not so much in every subsequent film. However, what was new at the time of the “Sixth Sense” soon turned into a trend, including for the director himself, and then became a cause for general ridicule. As the years passed, Shyamalan waited for failure after failure, and the best one could hear about his works among the people - "so bad that even good."
So what's changed? Since 2015, the era of postironic Shyamalan begins. In this case, this term means that the director began to understand the fragility of his directorial decisions and decided to play on it, and hardly departing from his own style. “Visit” in this sense skillfully balances on the edge, defusing the tense situation in the frame with humor, and vice versa, making terrible denouements for strange and funny situations. Split 2017 is a much less obvious example of this approach. James McAvoy’s game here is exaggerated and full of curves, which very much fits into the comic aesthetic of the tape. Here are intentionally ridiculous comedy episodes in which the actor sincerely fools, depicting a nine-year-old boy in the body of an adult. In the case of the film "Glass" postironia means the following. In isolation from the context, the tape seems tortured, almost completely devoid of action, with killed potential in the end and very stupid plot twists. But is everything as simple as it seems at first glance?
“Glass” is the conclusion of the trilogy about people with superpowers, which began “Invulnerable”. The latter can be considered as a snide deconstruction of the genre, which by elegance and conciseness can easily give odds to some "Guardians". The leitmotif of the entire trilogy is faith in oneself. David Dunn would never have been a hero if he hadn’t believed it. Just like Elijah Price, who doesn’t have superpowers, could not have become a villain if it wasn’t for his fanatical belief in it. The plot of “Glass” is an attempt to question this very faith. Most of the film takes place in the walls of a psychiatric hospital, where all three main characters got there - David, aka Invulnerable, Kevin, aka Horda, Elijah, aka Mr. Glass.
Everything that happens in the film next can be considered as one continuous comment on Shyamalan’s work, superhero movies and comic books in general. Forcing the heroes to believe in themselves, Shyamalan decides to hang a large Chekhov gun, hinting at a grand battle in the skyscraper in the final. And then, with mockery, the same gun throws away. A rather ridiculous plot twist at the end is needed only for the three main characters to find out their relationship much earlier than the expected denouement, and their decisive meeting would look very chamber by the standards of the comic book. Shyamalan for many years dreamed of making a sequel to his superhero film, to once again deceive the audience’s expectations – this time much more mocking.
The final in this sense puts the final point in the director’s plan Shyamalan. When one of the characters utters the phrase “I think this is the beginning of the big universe!”, it looks like a big hint of a sequel. And in any other movie, that would be the case. But the director said that the topic is closed – there will be no sequels, you should do new projects that are not related to this trilogy. Here is a laconic statement about the meaninglessness of the franchise approach in creating cinema – in particular, we are talking about the Marvel and DC cinema universes, in which the people are finally fed up with the fake deaths of old heroes and the endless appearance of new ones.
Mm. Knight Shyamalan is hardly a genius. But it is difficult not to admire the love and dedication with which he approaches his favorite business - the creation of cinema. I admire his dedication to his ideas, which, however, is not always successfully displayed on the big screen. All these principles are sufficiently manifested in the film “Glass”. In a film beautiful in its ambiguity.
Revisited 'Invulnerable' for comparison with this novelty and found this film wonderful. Just relaxed and enjoyed watching, which is not at all true of ' Glass'. Outwardly - the production, the acting - impeccable and the film, in general, is not even bad! ' Split' James McAvoy, I must admit I was very impressed and it would not be an exaggeration to say that he was able to feel and show amazing in expressiveness ' Beast' - the quintessence of incoherent personalities - ' whose name is legion'.
However, if you think about what else can be broadcast so eloquent 'Split-Beast' in conjunction with 'Invulnerable' and 'Glass' in the dungeons of a mental hospital and under the cold and unequivocal comments of a psychotherapist doctor, except that with these 'three', what went wrong? And then, of course, to think about what, in fact, happened and is happening on the vast fields of modern cinema entertainment, is not difficult. It opens the door to the imagination, which in turn leads to the disappointing conclusion that the brutal laws of the competitive market are no longer just a headache for politicians and businessmen. Of course, such a policy has been implemented before, but I am sure not on such a scale.
If you compare 'Invulnerable', 'Split' and 'Glass', then I would give the palm of the first and for one simple reason that 19 years ago, the geopolitical arrangement and spheres of influence did not yet assume the influence and policy that the Russian Federation and Western creative elites were not yet subject to that mental split and brought to the big screens of integral and original film products. Although today, in fact, nothing has changed and the initial vector of Western cultural education is carried out even on a large scale and today, nevertheless, one, it would seem, insignificant detail is increasingly striking - Western cinema, day by day, is becoming more aggressive, intolerant and that it is impossible to hide from the attentive viewer - it feels the notes of pseudohumanism and the desire to bite more painfully those whom it should not touch, taking advantage of the only weakness - the inclination of that privileged part of the public to forever put themselves in the center of the universe. And in fact, it does not matter where the methodological material for the construction of script fictions is drawn from - each individual territory of the globe with its own mentality and national and cultural specificity, but this is already too striking - every second picture is addressed to the Russian viewer!
If you weigh all the pros and cons of this masterpiece, then the film, I think, still deserved a positive assessment. In the end, there is no evil without good, and we must pay tribute to the creators. Apparently, they gave their all and put a lot of effort and effort into shooting.
Shyamalan’s philosophical view of superheroes, of course, cannot but cause awe, delight and respect (Snyder salute), but we have already understood M. Knight’s point of view. And this time it was worth more variety of work on the fight, because somehow boring the whole film to watch two of the strongest people in his universe just stupidly push and hug.
This leads us to the fact that in fact they will not get the most out of the collision between Split and Dunn.
Shyamalan introduced them to us as equals, but in fact, if the Beast looks like a truly powerful creature, then Willis is a “strong man who pushes.”
Willis very epic, frighteningly scattered the schoolchildren at the beginning of the film and it looked truly mesmerizing, I would even say “Batman” (something reminiscent of the scene from BPS in an abandoned house from the beginning of the film, the same fear that those who “He” came for feel).
So why not continue this trend?
To be honest, I don’t remember a single accented hit by one of them on the other.
The train thing doesn’t work for the second time 20 years later – it doesn’t break through on compassion or sympathy for Split and looks more like a freelance than a subtle and beautiful curtsey towards the Invulnerable and his legacy. You could have thrown it in a long time ago, when Dunn's son first found out. It would be so, casually, a little careless, but therefore spectacular, without putting much on this twist.
By the way, McAvoy's a handsome guy and he's got a hundred. Give him a movie about a man with a difficult fate, let him put something on the shelf.
It seems that Shyamalan has a spare twist for fans of the secret organizations that control us from behind the scenes, in case the emotional effect of the turn about the train will not be so strong.
Despite everything, Shyamalan is a genius, and for his efforts and courage to bring something new and fresh to this genre he has a separate respect.
This film, although not perfect (if you swung high, then match), but certainly deserves much more respect, and a place in history, than the same Venom and Aquaman (who walk on the long-trodden paths ten times, traveled a hundred times themes and predicted a thousand turns, carefully, fearfully).
Shyamalan is not afraid to take risks and may not be fully understood, but he follows the plan.
Your plan.
From my last two reviews, you might have thought I was completely lost. But that's the perception. On M. Night Shyamalan I look very obliquely, I do not understand why the directors of thrillers are ready to kiss this almost below the waist. The Messiah, by his leg, made one worthy film, and that's all - he's already a specialist in unexpected turns. Yes, the phrase ' I am your father' and the mystery of Tyler Durden is a much more shocking plot twist than any attempt by Shyamalan to surprise the viewer.
The only thing that kept the backbone of the whole story - the ending 'Split' where the character Bruce Willis was shown, which made it possible to understand - 'Split' - this is not an independent thriller that allowed us to verify the talent of James McAvoy. It seems that Shyamalan was inspired by the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and decided to link the events 'Split' with the film 'Invulnerable'. A picture that many have forgotten for 17 years, but the appearance of David Dunn hinted at a continuation.
'Glass' perceived as a hastily made part of the script film. This project was very ambitious, but it's like walking barefoot on that very broken glass, which is why you get slurred porridge. It does not lead events to catharsis, it rushes from extreme to extreme - from ' Split 2' to ' Invulnerable 2'. The plot of the film tells about three characters - super-strong David Dunn (Bruce Willis), fragile Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) and ' versatile' Kevin (James McAvoy). All three of them end up in the same mental institution, where psychiatrist Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) tries to convince all three that they do not stand out, and their abilities are only a figment of their imagination. Like, David just after that disaster, his head hit hard, and the fact that Kevin in the image of the Beast crawled on steep walls - well, he watched videos about climbers.
And that, fellow viewers, is a flick. Superman, it turns out, can almost be convinced that superpowers just seem to him. I would love to see Ellie Staple rubbing Wolverine game about the fact that his regeneration is only a lucky coincidence, and Tony Stark would spit nonsense about the complexes that he hides behind the armor. And the witnesses who saw with their own eyes what the supers did, doubt, if only once to talk to them with a convincing appearance. But even without this problem enough - the film is hellishly stuffy and dull. After watching it is very difficult to imagine, but what was the film about? The problem is that Shyamalan cannot find a story by letting his narrative wriggle without gaining the momentum needed to work. So that you do not forget that this is kind of the end of the trilogy, characters from old films are introduced into the background - Elijah's mother (Charlane Woodard), Kevin's friend ( Anya Taylor-Joy), David's son (Spencer Triet Clark). I don’t care about them, because history is terrible. Even the moment when all three of them collide in the backyard of a mental hospital and enter into a confrontation does not cause any emotions. And #unexpectedturn has reduced the whole story to the level of some thrash, where you can unite superheroes and secret societies.
So it turns out that the only bright spot in 'Glass' was James McAvoy. Seriously, I have no complaints about him, his character has 24 personalities, and the actor had to constantly switch. I saw this movie in the original (my goodness, I spent time on the original!) and it plays out there. The problem is that the script is bad. I feel sorry for James, really sorry.
I find myself thinking more and more that M. Night Shyamalan does not deserve the cult status he was given. Watching this movie is like taking public transport next to someone who coughs all the time. No matter how comfortable you are, it is better to go straight out.
How much dirt has spilled on this movie! Perhaps one in three viewers felt it their duty to offend everything they saw in it. But what made it so? Why are the audience mostly dissatisfied with the new project of M. Night Shyamalan, and why does he occupy an honorable place in the marathon of atypical heroes? I will discuss these questions for you in this review of the feature film “Glass”.
Review without spoilers!
So, long before 2019, M. Knight – ours – Shyamalan proved to be Hollywood’s most unstable director. It really is. His career competes with both masterpieces and depressingly bad films. Honestly, from his 2008 “Phenomenon,” “Lord of the Elements 3D” at the end of the zeros, as well as the highly controversial “Before our era” of 2013, I still get mad! But there are such films as “The Sixth Sense”, “Mysterious Forest” – these are really outstanding works! Also positive films include “The Visit” in 2015, “Split” in 2017, “Unbreakable” in 2000, and films of medium severity for perception – “Signs” (2002) and “Girl from the Water” (2006).
Agree, this is a whole palette, which makes Shyamalan a nugget of modern cinema. And he has other directorial and script work! But back to the movie.
The picture tells us about several extraordinary personalities and a temporary confrontation between them. Each of them has superpowers, but soon they fall into certain conditions, where to convince them of the absence of these abilities is the main task of the staff. In connection with these events, the film combines very atypically with the perception of the viewer and goes far beyond the “superheroic”. The lion’s share of the story was devoted to the psychology of the characters, and most of the action takes place in a chamber location. At the same time, the plot itself moves at a completely correct pace for him, gradually giving answers to all the questions asked within the plot. This film is exclusively for the viewer who is ready to perceive all its originality without comparisons and inflated expectations. This picture is a real break of numerous patterns and a way to discover amazing phenomena in seemingly obsolete artistic techniques. The sophisticated mass audience could not accept such a vision and took the film undeservedly poorly.
However, I highly recommend watching the feature film Glass, but be sure to chronologically with tapes from the previous two posts! Without this order, Glass will simply shatter your time! If you have already watched the trilogy in order, write about your impressions in the comments, I will be glad to hear your opinion!
The movie sucks. The script seems to have been written by a teenager maximalist, who has little knowledge of how the world around him works, at least the security system in the places of detention of violent madmen. There are plot holes everywhere. Allegories? No, it's just that the blue curtains symbolize the blue curtains. The film has a budget of 20 million, and he collected 240 million, a score on imdb 6 with something, in my opinion, undeservedly high.
To the pseudo-intellectuals, I'll say it very simply - Shyamalan just fucked your wallet. Like a visiting uncooked and unwashed wizard from a circus shapito - one, and that's all. The trick wasn't how the bird you saw in it came out of the sleeve, but where the wallet went. Undoubtedly, he is a professional in his field, taking off his slippers in front of talent. And you stand there and realize that now you are a noble fool, but you do not want to confess this to yourself. And that is why I see so many positive reviews, and the average score is not about 3, which would be fair, but twice as high.
And why, I'm sorry, then criticize Marvel movies? It's all the same - a pure divorce of suckers on cash, the plot (I wrote this word in the commentary on the film?) only as an excuse. Only their approach is at least more honest - the picture is juicier, budgets are higher, and the fraudster himself is beautifully dressed, combed and fragrant.
Oh my God, I was waiting 'Shyamalan' endings, well, waited - psh in a puddle, this is ' the birth of a new world' Why should I? What kind of naivet? Did you really like that? Oh, come on!
I watched it online for free and have no regrets. Or rather, sorry for the time spent, it would be better to go to sleep, I have dreams and then more meaningful, then naked myself dream, then fly.
'I know what it is. This is the birth of a new universe.
I finally saw Glass and the feelings inside me are very mixed and ambiguous. Let’s take a look at this in detail.
The film will be evaluated by such criteria as the plot, acting and soundtrack.
Plot: I haven't watched the previous 2 installments of this franchise, so it will be the opinion of a neutral viewer. A word about the plot: Here we are told about three superheroes, antiheroes or supervillains who begin to hunt each other. Everyone has their own special interest. The movie is very addictive to you from the beginning. There are thoughts in my head that this will be an atmospheric and slightly frightening dramatic thriller. In the beginning, you think that Manoj Nelliattu Shyamalan is trying to ridicule superhero movies, talking openly about the tick of films of this type. But then you realize that the movie is actually trying to seem like a serious superhero movie. Next, we should describe this story a little. It is very twisted, the thought or message of the film does not lie on the surface. There are a lot of plot sharp turns. As a result, you really admire such a thoughtful plot to the smallest detail. Sometimes you can feel the notes of Zack Snyder, who also makes such hard-to-understand storylines that not everyone can understand. But the sad thing is that somehow it is done a little crooked. There is no logical connection, some moments look ridiculous and too easy. Perhaps it’s because I didn’t watch the previous two parts, which is why I didn’t get to feel the charms of this storyline. I don’t know, but somehow I couldn’t be in a movie to get it through me, so I didn’t get much of a surprise from it. Separately, I would like to note the ending, which is really unusual and unexpected. She seems to hint at a sequel, while the director himself said that there will be no sequel. But in general, I liked the plot in terms of thoughtfulness, but in terms of execution I have ambiguous thoughts.
Actors, almost everyone, I really liked it. The image of each was completely revealed, even though I hadn't seen the previous parts. This should be the kind of franchise that has a logical connection to the previous installments that Marvel has been able to do, but it doesn’t work for my favorite DC yet. Back to the actors. In addition to the disclosure of the images of the main characters, the acting game itself was very qualitatively made, that is, the actors clearly tried and completely merged into one with their heroes. Each was a person, not an ordinary speaking decoration, but an important part of the whole mechanism. You feel the life experience of everyone, you feel his pain, but for some reason you do not sympathize, that is, you do not have emotions. The actors played great, there are no complaints, but you do not feel anything for them at all. It's a very strange aftertaste. But from sad to cheerful. Here I would like to highlight the names of the actors: Bruce Willis played his role posh, although sometimes he looked very ridiculous with his cloak. Samuel L. Jackson played his part perfectly. You couldn't directly predict what he might do in a second, why he would give you sometimes cold chills all over your body. James McAvoy played his best role, playing 24 or 33 characters in one movie. And he did not just play, but revealed the image of everyone, it is just a real talent. He showed himself to be a very versatile hero, here you can only applaud. I also really enjoyed revealing the secondary characters, which were also an important part of the whole mechanism. The image of everyone was revealed, but almost everyone. Why almost? Because images of some have been revealed through previous films. That is, it was already implied that the viewer knew them, so until the end I did not understand the motivation, for example, Casey, played by Anya Taylor-Joy. I thought she was a psychotic girl, but at the end of it, something cleared up, and I changed my mind a little bit. The same was true of Mrs. Price, played by Charlaine Woodard. So there are some questions. Now a little bit more sad. The only thing I really didn’t like about this was Sarah Paulson’s acting as Dr. Ellie Staple. Her image was again brilliantly revealed, but she herself did not play very well. I don't know, maybe it's because she's a psychiatrist or a psychologist and you can't show them any emotion, but that makes you feel cold to her character, nothing more. Therefore, in general, this criterion is ambiguous, there are real claims, since something is clearly lacking.
Soundtrack: The musical accompaniment in the film is also done at a good level. I don’t remember it because it’s not DC. But music was still a nice addition, no matter what. She played where it is necessary, and where it is necessary to cause the audience the necessary emotions. In short, she accomplished her main task. No more, it didn’t interfere and that’s the most important thing.
Thus, 'Glass' is a very ambiguous fantastic thriller and drama with notes of psychedelic. I liked the film in general, but I won’t call it a masterpiece. For me, this is a strong middle peasant in its genre. ' Glass', it seems, in general, perfectly made, but clearly there is a feeling of understatement or underdevelopment. For example, the ending, despite its originality and unpredictability, is simply not clear and ridiculous. It lacks some dramatic note or epicity I don’t know, but the whole picture at the end does not look clear. I have a lot of questions in my head, but I don’t want to spoil it. In short, I didn’t feel the ending, for me it was unfinished. When it comes to sending the film, the message is not so fundamental. The director wants to tell us that the world needs balance, if there is a hero, then there must be a villain. Agree, this sounds strange. Since it's commonplace, police and criminals, here's your hero and villain. It feels like the director is trying to explain why the sky is blue and the grass is green. Maybe I didn’t get the message, because again I didn’t watch the previous parts, but for a neutral viewer, the message of the film is not clear. On the good side, I really liked the fact that there was no particular villain in the film. There, every protagonist can be both a hero and a villain. The characters are very ambiguous and slippery, and that's really commendable. In total, I hope this review turned out to be useful, since ' Glass' clearly not for everyone, because not everyone will be able to understand it, but it is worth seeing.
7 out of 10
It was a pleasant surprise for me to learn that the story I saw almost twenty years ago in Invulnerable has a continuation to this day. “Glass” has developed a previously begun theme of hidden opportunities hidden deep inside each person.
Mm. Knight Shyamalan invented extraordinary superpowers (and superweaknesses) for his heroes. His superhumans were very realistic. Also quite interesting to me was the topic of the relationship between comics and the world.
The main characters are contradictory: the actions that some of them have committed are monstrous, but I can no longer condemn them with the same certainty! After all, they themselves understand the duality of their situation, as indicated by the phrase: “We do not choose sides.”
Impressed the cast: although you can doubt the correctness of the staging of several scenes, but in one director deserves all praise – it is the choice of actors for the main role – all in their places! A separate mention once again deserves the play of James McAvoy and his "many-faced" character!
But, perhaps, the biggest gift for me was successfully inserted flashbacks - it's a little uncomfortable to see some of the characters grown up (and some aged), while in "Invulnerable" they were still children!
Do not forget the composer "Glass". I had only seen his work in Split before, but he was more than happy here! His compositions are atmospheric music and it fits perfectly into the film!
In general, “Glass” is a beautiful movie that will especially appeal to all comic book lovers! Following the main characters, I can say about this film that "this is the moment of the birth of a new universe!"
9 out of 10
“Glass” is a picture that performs in my favorite genre “grab a superhero and turn inside out.” In addition to the two previous films ("Unbreakable", "Split"), you can remember "The Chronicle", "Guardians" or the same "Kick-Ass" and "Scott Pilgrim". All these paintings are united by their approach to the beaten cliches: original, ruthless, ironic and sarcastic. Oh, yeah! Glass.
After visiting the well-known site, I was quite surprised how the masses met the new film by M. Knight. Shmalayana (seems wrong). “Glass” is far from masterpieces like “Guardians”, but the impression of the tape left only positive. In many ways, this is the merit of the main idea of the film, the rudiments of which were pecked back in Invulnerable, but bloomed in full only now.
“Glass”, traditionally taking the title chasing one of the main characters, deconstructs the image of the superhero as such. The film offers to reflect on the importance of comics for the media and society as a whole. In the end, the viewer is asked a truly “Batman” question: “Is not a mentally ill person who spends his leisure running around the city in a raincoat and beating criminals?” Maybe it was his cuckoo, not theirs?
Of course, it would be foolish to say that such fabrications are the know-how of Shmonalan (eh?). Grant Morrison pondered on these topics in Arkham Asylum and did it much more deeply. But in mass cinema, this topic does not arise often. Moreover, “Glass” leads the viewer to somewhat different conclusions, so that the secondary film will not work.
The tape is not without a psychological element. A person closely watching the events will feel himself sitting on the next, fourth, chair next to the Warden, Horde and Mr. Glass. When they begin to doubt their uniqueness, the same doubts are penetrated by the viewer. And at this point, it becomes very uncomfortable.
Thanks to the almost theatrical chamberiness, created largely by artificially limiting the locations of the main action, the atmosphere in the film is literally tangible, a little more and in the cinema hall you could distinguish the smell of hospital corridors.
An interesting idea, a thick atmosphere and the unattainably talented acting of McAvoy and L. Jackson would provide "Glass" a ticket to the audience's hearts, but the film stumbles annoyingly towards the end. The pre-final plot twist leads Shmelian (bypass!) into completely unnecessary wilds. “Glass” seemed to look at the smiling face of Lawrence Fishburne and grabbed a blue pill. The wrong choice, Mr. Glass.
Subsequent events partially compensate for the awkwardness of the script, bringing the tape to a rather impressive ending, but the illusion, the specter of the grand beauty of the finale with a pinch of spicy understatement that this film could have received, will continue to hang over the closing credits, quietly whispering: "Undiscovered potential." Nevertheless, the plot and those twists that eventually reached us on the screen – this is also the result of a long and painstaking work, which attract and force to strain the convolutions. Yes, it could have been better, but it can not be said that it turned out bad.
Glass (both the character of the same name and the film) is very dear to comics, their stories, images and motifs. Therefore, the tape is strewn with scenes with references, allusions and frontal references to a particular comic phenomenon. Shyamalan (yes!) disassembles the genre into pieces, and then examines each of them under a microscope. And I will not hide it, it was very interesting to watch.
This isn't a limited edition. This was an origin story, the whole time.
8 out of 10
It has long been known that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And in this respect, for the first time, I see that the very idea of the whole was formed only after the first part of the three was ready. Not immediately, but fifteen years later. Everything in order.
It was first 'Invulnerable' in 2000, where Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson played hero and villain. This film entered the top 20 films after 1992 according to Tarantino, as well as in the top 10 superhero films according to the magazine 'Time' in 2011 (along with 'The Dark Knight', 'Blade-2' and 'Iron Man'). As you can see, not only invulnerable, but not with a finger. Despite the fact that the movie in 'Time' called superhero, I would carefully keep it in my head apart from all these steroid-knitted beauties, because from the very beginning the director shot a thriller conceived as ' Deconstruction of the phenomenon of superheroes' (long before 'Boys', note), by creating my own universe in which this concept is very different from the established in pop culture. In this world, heroes have no word ' or' in an ordinary fork ' born - become ' - both conditions must be met. Agree, not the most usual approach. This is not surprising, given that the author is Night Shyamalan, who gave us 'The Sixth Sense' that is, he can surprise.
' Invulnerable' was immediately conceived as part of a trilogy (codenamed 'Eastrail 177'), but as a result of insufficient box office, the director lost faith in his own abilities, and the project in its initial form faded for as long as 15 years. After this period Shyamalan reworked the concept, and instead of the original more or less classic cycle (even Nolan did so) ' birth-blooming-gone' superhero, decided to devote the second film entirely to the villain. So there was 'Split' 2017, in which James McAvoy gives aerobatics, playing at the same time twenty personalities, on the move switching between them so great that one changed look becomes clear who is in front of us.
The unusual concept of the film about the villain caused a response from the public, and box office success finally allowed to make a third film. We are finally getting there.
It is not that ' Glass ' is a super-film in its own right. Yes, everyone here plays great - even Mr. ' cracked shell ' Bruce Willis. Yes, the concept that those who consider themselves to be possessors of superpowers here are hidden in a mental hospital and are going to be treated is quite refreshing. Yes, visually the film is made very nice and clear. But it's not God knows what. But the plot here is not just unusual, it is absolutely iconic, and its originality, together with the surprise, is not limited to one film.
'Glass' is the piece of the puzzle that allows you to glue all three films together, and it is the fact that this is a complete and complete trilogy that adds depth and interest to each of the films. The fact that 15 years have passed both in reality and in the Cinematic Universe makes this experience completely surreal, and adds a completely unique scale to this epic story. It’s as cool as Linklater’s sunset-dawn trilogy, where each film is shot 10 years after the previous one, or the sequel ' shot 27 years after the original.
I'm not afraid to say it - the two previous films were not bad, and the third was not bad either. Each of them pulls seven points. But together they are the perfect candidate to stock up on friends, favorite drinks and snacks, and plant a whole movie night on this trilogy, with the obligatory subsequent heated discussion. The result of which may be the lynching of the person who proposed this wonderful idea, but the probability of this is as small as the probability that two babies will be born somewhere at the same time, one of whom will be fragile as glass, and the second - invulnerable.
8.5 out of 10
If you liked how far away from ' classics' gone ' Guys', then this will come.
The film “Glass” should be a summation for previously created paintings of an unexpected trilogy, and in part it is, despite its name, clearly referring to only one of the characters. I’m not sure whether it’s worth characterizing the film as a thriller or a drama, but rather it’s a somewhat mocking exploration of the distorted human nature of the three main characters.
The author puts forward a hypothesis: all gifted people are psychotic, and begins to simultaneously prove and refute it. For his experiment, he chooses the ideal, “sterile” conditions of a remote place where the patients – the subjects – are essentially left to themselves. The author examines all human states: from conditional normality (the hero of Bruce Willis), through the borderline state (the hero of Samuel L. Jackson), to a clear mental deviation (the hero of James McAvoy). Each state, each hero corresponds to some thing or phenomenon that characterizes them, be it light, or a piece of glass, or steel, and this something is necessarily present nearby, of course, affecting the hero. For someone, such a thing-reflection harms, for another it helps, and for the third it is a kind of motivation. Thus, the opportunity to see oneself, albeit in things, is something that affects the person himself, which uniquely characterizes the nature of a particular person and his behavior. These three characters behave diametrically differently: from indifferent calmness to frenzied emotionality. The first state is characterized by physical strength (and calm is also strength), the second is a set of personalities, or versatility. In the hero of McAvoy, one can consider an exaggerated embodiment of creative nature - contradictory and emotional, necessarily talented. In the hero of L. Jackson there are echoes of the same creativity, but in a different way – insulted and unrecognized, and the fragility of this hero is actually a visual embodiment of the concept of “subtle mental organization” and “anyone can offend the artist.” At the same time, the character of Willis is absolutely far from the rest, and these features of each of the characters clearly affect their relationship: from and to.
Returning to the author’s hypothesis, we can say that he proves the normality of the hero of Willis, and refutes the rest. Refuting, he connects all the uniqueness with consciousness, conviction, and in something with the author it is necessary to agree: we are what we think about ourselves. However, the line with the characters of the comics and their connection with the “research” conducted by the author is not very clear. Of course, it is clear that by connecting the characters of the film with the characters of graphic novels, the author leads to the idea that both are fiction, and this is an argument against the hypothesis. But, albeit accepting the theory of self-persuasion, the heroes can do something, and this is an argument for, only adjusted for the fact that everything is subject to man, and superheroes on the pages of magazines - this is not so unrealistic. But comics in reasoning still seem superfluous, do not have a key influence on the plot, and what is, looks “attracted”. To tell the same story could not be worse without references to this product of mass culture, because the comics still remain only an indirect and hypothetical factor of influence, and attention to them is paid unreasonably much.
Each hero “locked up” corresponds to a “support group” in freedom – conditionally normal relatives or friends. Their role in history is not decisive, their existence is designed to prove that everyone is dear to someone as he is, and this each has an influence on the other, and what matters is whose influence will win. This “support group” is influenced not only by the central characters, but also by the events that are taking place, and in the finale it is not completely clear what affects their worldview more: people or incidents. One thing is clear: the support group is also changing.
But the heroine-observer (Sarah Paulson) – the doctor – is on the periphery of the plot. It seems that her only mission is to bring the three together and let them exist, as her role in the film tends to zero. Even the finale does not change anything in her respect - too little of her influence on the development of the plot, it is definitely not his engine.
None of the heroes of the film does anything radical, revolutionary, and the development of the plot is reduced to successive episodes of communication, but almost never - action. The same is due to the actual absence of a central storyline. Here there is only a hint of it, when the heroes for its development make a minimum of almost random actions. The final disclosure of all secrets, although it puts everything in place, does not bring satisfaction, since there was no worthy mystery.
I think it's generally accepted that the author in this film made fun of the comics, but I'm not inclined to agree with that opinion. Rather, the author started a dispute with himself, but did not choose what conclusion to lead the viewer. The author’s characters are too strange with too strange talents, perhaps even repulsive to be seriously empathized with. For some reason, one does not want to see in these three the quintessence of talent, and this makes it difficult to accept the very essence of the dispute. It is difficult to know who won: talent or not. And if talent, why was its purpose so ... irrelevant? Perhaps it is difficult to agree that talent and giftedness are such, and this somewhat interferes with the perception of the film as such. It turns out not a mockery of comics, but a mockery of talent, which is difficult to agree with.
This film is one of those that should be admired. But the impression remains that the author has overthinked. Laying an interesting idea, he diluted it with something completely unnecessary, and did not fully understand how everything should end, which the viewer must understand. The film is definitely well shot, the acting work is delightful, and James McAvoy just wants to applaud standing up, but the film seems to contain no specific thought, because of this confusing. Maybe I didn’t fully understand it, or maybe it really wasn’t fully thought out.
6 out of 10
Manoj Nelliattu Shyamalan is better known in the world as M. Night Shyamalan, having settled in Hollywood, began from place to career when he released the hit of 1999 & #39; The Sixth Sense', to this day considered one of the best representatives of the genre of mystical thriller. Shyamalan’s next work, “Invulnerable” & #39; (2000), may not have received such a whirlwind of enthusiastic reviews, but was still well received both by the audience and in a critical environment. Shyamalan’s third and fourth paintings 'Signs' (2002) and 'Mysterious Forest' (2004) allowed the assimilated Indian to be considered one of the best directors of thrillers. But in 2006, Shyamalan's career made a steep peak - the heavily advertised film "Girl from the Water" & #39; caused bewilderment, and some frank disappointment. Attempts to return to the top with tapes ' Phenomenon' (2008), ' Lord of Elements' (2010), ' After our era' (2013) and 'Visit' (2015) were not crowned with success, moreover - Shyamalan's works became regulars of anti-awards ' Golden Raspberry'.
But the fact that the Indian did not give up and continued to fight in almost a brick wall deserves respect: in 2017, the long-awaited project of the sequel was developed ' Invulnerable' - Shyamalan released another mystical thriller called ' Split' with James McAvoy and Anya Taylor-Joy in the lead roles. ' Split' was not a sequel 'Invulnerable' according to canonical rules, it was more of a spinoff, and the main character' David Dunn played by Bruce Willis only appeared in the final episode of the film. By the way, Willis and Shyamalan are connected by a long-standing friendship - once ' tough nut' supported Shyamalan's candidacy as a screenwriter for the animated feature film ' Stuart Little' (1999). And Shyamalan repaid, so to speak, Willis for the lead role in 'The Sixth Sense' and then, as already mentioned, in 'Invulnerable'. But back to 'Split' and ending the story about the second part of the trilogy conceived by the Indian, it is worth noting that the appearance of David Dunn, who has real superpowers, immediately convinced the viewer of the imminent appearance of the third part.
So it happened, besides ' Split' turned out to be commercially successful - with a very small budget of $ 9 million, he collected more than 275 at the world box office, which allowed two years later to announce the official premiere of the final film of the trilogy, called ' Glass' nicknamed one of the characters. In it, Shyamalan gathers all the plot-forming characters: David Dunn goes to the character of James McAvoy, suffering from multiple stratifications of the personality, and in defeats him in the fight, but Dunna, along with the opponent, is arrested by the police. After a while, both of them find themselves in a psychiatric hospital, and if McAvoy's character has long deserved it, Willis' character got there because of his absolute belief that he has superpowers and he is literally a superhero who exists in reality, not in the pages of the comics. Ironically, in the same hospital is Elijah Price, nicknamed ' Mr. Glass' - antagonist from ' Invulnerable'. The Trinity is assembled and soon the performance conceived by one of them will begin, because there is a very subtle and ingenious game. . .
To say that ' Glass' according to the rules of the genre contains in the atmosphere an inflating state of suspense is hardly possible, the action is rather devoid of proper dynamism and adrenaline-boosting scenes in the blood is not so much, and plot twists unexpectedly changing the whole idea of what is happening in the picture is not so much, but Shyamalan mastak of such methods - again let's remember 'Sixth Sense' which discourages, and even shocks its finale, and ' Invulnervulnerable twists the film when it reveals all the main opinion.' But ' Glass' may be striking the scale of the plan for what the heroes of Willis and McAvoy face, but do not cause much awe and shock. In principle, you could even guess what should happen, and if the viewer understands the carefully hidden climax in advance, then such a thriller is unlikely to enter the cohort of hits of the season. And even in the obvious minuses ' Glass' personally I would record frankly infuriating acting work of Sarah Paulson, which even against the background of very statically played Willis, McAvoy and Samuel L. Jackson looked like a dummy on their background.
Of course, M. Night Shyamalan can boast of successful box office ' Glass': with a budget of $ 20 million, the film collected more than ten times, but to the level of all the same ' Sixth Sense', ' Invulnerable' and even ' Mysterious Forest' it is very, very far away. We can only hope that ' Glass' (like 'Split') will give confidence to the Indian and he will again please the audience with cool mystical thrillers, because we all know what Shyamalan is really capable of, so we wish him success in his further work, but ' Glass' receives, alas, no more than:
6 out of 10
The end of Shyamalan’s trilogy about people with superpowers living among us was ambiguous. Like the whole cycle, though. The first film masqueraded as a detective drama (along with Bruce Willis, a lifelong actor). 'Split' was a solid thriller based on the true story of Billy Milligan - the most popular patient diagnosed with 'plural personality'. And so the story of the Beast comes to a logical end, and we are shown a pretty old Bruce Wee., turning 2 completely different films into a concept. The audience is shocked, the audience is intrigued, the audience is waiting for the continuation. I didn't have to wait long.
So, 'Glass ' All the characters from the previous films came together, as expected in the final part of the comic book series. But Shyamalan tried his best before, trying to make an unusual movie about superheroes. Everything was on the most serious side (Willis, Freeman and McAvoy). So in the final part of the story, everyone pretends that no one has abilities, that all this is autosuggestion and mental illness, but we remember everything! To reveal the plot is to kill all the good that is in the film, and there is not much of it. The movie looks rather boring, although the picture is beautiful, clearly set and painted with meaning: lilac, yellow and gray accompany the characters everywhere. The only thing that struck me was two unexpected plot twists at the end that brought the whole story to its logical conclusion and explained why these films were indeed related.
' Glass' - the conclusion of the story of 'Unbreakable' and 'Split'. If you have watched the previous films, you will be interested to know how it ended, otherwise you can safely skip further.
Mm. Knight Shyamalan really managed to surprise the audience with a triumphant return after a series of failures in 2016 with the film ' Split', which foresaw the desire of some prominent figures of cinema to film the biography of Billy Miligan and all his twenty-odd dependents. ' Split' managed to sow a seed of hope in the minds of the audience not only for the rehabilitation of the master of mysticism and twists, but also for the large-scale crossover plans of the director regarding his own works. Yes, and Shyamalan himself was so excited that he soon introduced his own superhero franchise, fitting 134 pages of the script. Maybe he was in a hurry.
The plot of the film tells the story of how David Dunn, known local crime as “The Warden” & #39, hunts Kevin Crumb and his cheerful brain cooperative named “Horda” & #39. In the course of the confrontation, both extraordinary elements are neutralized by law enforcement and sent to a medical and correctional institution, where Elijah is already serving time nicknamed ' Mr. Glass'. What will the rehabilitation of such unusual patients lead to?
Previous ' Split' managed to get almost a standing ovation for the fact that a psychological thriller, reflecting on whether human consciousness is able to materialize into the real world of a monster, eventually turned out to be a cunning detail of the crossover already planned by the director with previous paintings by the author, pretentiously running into the mainstream - the territory of modern superheroics. Many expected from the master of a certain genre niche a new and fresh look at the established trend of comic pop culture, especially given the fact that Shyamalan has already turned a similar focus ahead of his time ' Invulnerable'. However, what a couple of years ago could be considered a bold experiment, in the realities of today is a deafening and very shameful failure. ' Glass', however ironic it may sound, appears in all its transparency: all the storylines are connected by frankly far-fetched and fragile nodes that have already been repeatedly used before. There is no psychological thriller, no mysticism, no new word in superheroics on the way out. In the remainder, the picture is similar to the pretentious fiction of a sixteen-year-old geek who created what was invented several dozen times before him, but confident in the incomparable originality of his idea. And even star caste does not save a situation in which even nostalgia does not work in the right direction: Samuel L. Jackson is amused, changing the role from picture to picture, Bruce Willis frowns and meaningfully silent, and James McAvoy repeats his tricks from ' Split', set for accelerated reproduction. In this superhero craft (forgery), relatives and friends of the three main characters for some reason become their sidekicks, and the presence of their own version ' Shield & #39; dooms the viewer's face to a handprint threatening to stay there forever. Add to this sagging dynamics and frankly weak dialogues, justifying each scripted blunder, containing an indecent amount of words ' Superhero' and ' Comics' which makes it elementary shame for the author and it becomes obvious that Shyamalan will have to work hard in the next few years to rehabilitate his cinematic reputation... again.
Pros: Intriguing idea, cast.
We met as the Overseer, Mr. Glass and the Beast...
Expectations from the film are colossal, even if the title is clear that the main idea of the film will be tied to the fragile and bad hero Samuel L. Jackson, still wanted to continue the same "Invulnerable" who even before Marvel and DCs told us a wonderful fascinating tale about the formation of David Dun, about his inner struggle with himself. But Shyamalan would not be himself if he did so. To tune in to some plot or ending in the case of his film is pointless. A bad impression is guaranteed.
Glass turned out to be an unexpected chamber film, and there were no action films in our usual understanding. Marvel’s producers are probably horrified by a superhero movie without all the main attributes. But in the film there are a lot of conversations that allow you to penetrate the inner world of the characters. Or is it possible that Shimalan is himself? Superpowers heroes generally put from head to foot, whether it is or it is only a reflection of some mental characteristics. You can scratch your head for a long time, among the layered nonsense that the heroes carry should be the same grain or not.
Our favorite Bruce Willis, unfortunately, takes very little screen and story time, and not at all in the form that I would like after the 2000 film. But James McAvoy frolic in the film to fame, his psychotic personalities increase the general degree of insanity, illogicality of the film, crush the grains of the related plot. The film is not easy, for an amateur, not waiting for an answer, not looking for a single concept and common sense.
Glass perfectly shows what comics were invented for during the Great Depression in the United States, but only people in life do not believe that they can do more than they think. You don’t have to be a hero to all of humanity. It is enough for your child to believe in a miracle. On the other hand, when horror reigns in the family, the child can grow into a beast or monster. The thriller contains simple truths that everything goes from childhood, all fears appear then. One bad decision in childhood, a bad family, a childhood trauma, and a child can cripple his psyche or his whole life... forever. That's how cleverly Shyamalan connected children's family secrets with comics and superheroes, turning it all into a fierce thrash arranged on the territory of a mental hospital.
When I first saw the trailer for this film, it immediately became clear to me that this is another legend film, which will be talked about for a long time. Incredibly interesting and masterful idea at the base, a wonderful script and cast of famous, talented actors. Since the release of the trailer sparked the idea to go to the movies, but did not work out, so I had to watch it later on the Internet. And now that I have gone, I can say that the effect of high expectations has not happened. Because the film fully justified the hopes placed on him. How wonderful that the world cinema in our time is still able to give something suitable for viewing.
Each part is wonderful and similar to each other. But they are very different, especially the triquel. His finale surprised me, and for the worse. It was more like X-Men or the series Heroes. But despite everything, the atmosphere and degree of the film kept in suspense all 2 hours, and constant conversations did not make me bored, so I am completely satisfied with the picture.
9 out of 10
At the time 'Split' made a huge impression on me. Combining the successful elements inherent in the genre of the modern thriller, with a sufficiently deep psychological background and strong emotional hooks, the film was deposited in memory as a very thorough and powerful statement on the topic of painful splitting of the personality. McAvoy's magnificent play, atmospheric soundtrack and general bias towards creating a special mood in the viewer only complemented the picture. And by and large, all of the above can be safely attributed to ' Glass', but with some reservations.
Since ' Glass' is the conclusion of the trilogy of which Split' was a part, the film introduces new variables in the form of two additional main characters. This initially creates a slightly different perception of the film, as, unlike 'Split' this movie requires much more narrative lines to focus on. Of course, acquaintance with the previous works of the director is welcome, but without them ' Glass' does not pose unanswered questions to the not fully dedicated viewer.
But the increase in the number of actors still affects the level of immersion in the atmosphere of work. McAvoy is still a lot and his charisma is still on top, but the increase in the volume of action and sometimes the excessive desire of the authors to twist unexpected plot twists (which are good in themselves) casts the impression of the film as something more ambitious and less personal than ' Split'. This is especially true in the first half of the film. This is not bad in itself, but it is worth considering when watching.
On the other hand, the movie was great. A magnificent picture, still an extremely atmospheric soundtrack, a wonderful acting game and a powerfully submitted final idea of the entire trilogy with a super-emotional denouement - all this suggests that ' Glass' is an example of a distinctive and self-sufficient thriller that is definitely worth seeing if you are interested in the genre. And if you, like me, some scenes from ' Split' brought to tears and goosebumps, then viewing is strictly mandatory - here this too was found.
The movie is disgusting. And yes, I say that in the first line of my review. Why is that? It’s simple: when there is no plot, no budget (where did they spend 20 million?), no director – you can shove at least a dozen famous and / or talented actors – none of this will come out.
I believe that an independent film should be understood by everyone, and, in my opinion, in some parts of the Hunger Games and other sagas, there is more meaning than here. Yes, all right, I really did not watch the previous parts, so starting to watch the glass, I made a discount on the fact that some characters and references I do not understand, as part of the plot.
Well, you can't understand what isn't. We are told about the “superheroes among us”, but throughout the film we were not shown anything “super”. Fights are invariably accompanied by close-ups and a shaking camera. I can’t feel the power of these superhumans, and the whole movie I just didn’t understand why they should be taken seriously. For me personally, the film hit bottom. That’s why I’m writing this review.
Distracting from all the ideas of the writers, it is worth paying special attention to the technical execution. Especially because it makes the world’s own rules crack at the seams. There was not enough budget for fights (this language cannot be called a battle), there was not enough budget for scenery, there was not enough budget for extras... It seems that the entire budget went to the fee of the “Trinity”, and everything else was done on pure enthusiasm.
Everything is bad here, and if you are not an ardent fan of this trilogy, feel free to pass by. This film is more like a separate series of low-budget television series (the same one where they show a boring backstory of the characters and where nothing happens, because you need to shoot the proper timekeeping, I think there are such in every TV series) because without preparation nothing is clear, and there is nothing to watch here.
If it was not advertised everywhere and not called to the cinemas, I would put more, and so only
2 out of 10
The kidnapper with multiple personality disorder Kevin Crumb and the terrorist-disabled Mr. Glass go out on their longtime opponents – injured teenage girl Casey and aging superhero David Dunn.
The third film of the series “Invulnerable” and the general sequel to the films “Invulnerable” and “Split” by the cult director M. Night Shyamalan – completes the trilogy of what the director himself may not be able to explain, but that it will remain in his ' track record' – more than obvious. First, it is worth saying - that we have a deep-author's picture of M. Night Shyamalan, and it is in his ' head structures', the viewer and ' digs' - trying to find out - is it not another - is it ' masterpiece' from the author ' Mysterious Forest'? To those who expect from this picture - something ' in the spirit ' ' The Avengers', or even ' Venom' - you made the wrong address, and do not then pour on it all your ' unfulfilled hopes ' By and large - before us - ' unfinished play for a large piano' - put the data of the story on the stage - and everything around ' will shine ' large, dramatic, ' Shakespearean colors' The question - ' to be or not to be?' - is more relevant here. Because, and the central trio of talented and eminent actors - McAvoy, Willis and Jackson - plays absolutely ' Tragico-Hamlet' the game and the final scene of their death - this confirms. And the most amazing thing is that they believe in what they are doing: and under them this ' summoned construction' - in an unknown way ' turns ' in a slender plot in which you believe. It should be noted - and brilliant camera work of Mike Giulakis and impeccable music of West Dylan Thordson, which help to more accurately understand what is happening in front of us.
Sarah Paulson's heroine, Dr. Ellie Staple, works in a psychiatric hospital - ' special patients' - those who consider themselves ' superheroes' (although they are in reality - for example, one of Crumb's personalities is the Beast: climbing walls and flipping cars). The hero of this picture - Mr. Glass - a mysterious and strange person, suffering from osteoporosis, hovering in childhood on the "Superhero" & #39 comics and dreaming of organizing another terrorist attack - the most obvious villain you can imagine.
The conclusion of all three films is to be in the finale of the picture - when the videos from the hospital's cameras get on the Internet, and everyone around realizes that they live next to them - real ' superheroes' - which are difficult for ' understanding' and also simple - in their actions: David Dunn - saves everyone, Kevin Crumb - torments everyone. The perfect pair ' antipodes': Spider-Man and Venom on their background - so, friends on the sidelines.
The career of two-time Oscar nominee director and screenwriter M. Night Shyamalan resembles plot twists from his own films - then he will give a spectacular and outstanding hit, then suddenly turns somewhere and begins to rivet confused crafts. After a series of failures and a bouquet of “Golden Raspberries”, he shot a quite successful horror “Visit”, continued by no less successful “Split”, so it seemed as if the director again went on the right track. But here came to light a fantastic thriller “Glass”, combining the storylines of “Unbreakable” and “Split”, and after watching it again there was an unpleasant feeling that Ostap went wrong.
So, the invulnerable strongman David Dunn is on the trail of a multifaceted psychopath Kevin Wendell Crumb, who kidnaps girls, but as a result, their fights both end up in a madhouse where the villain Elijah Price is kept - the famous "Mr. Glass". Observing patients Dr. Ellie Staple states that they are not superheroes, but ordinary schizics, and cites a number of quite convincing evidence. Of course, everything will not be so simple, and Price himself, like some other characters, has his trump cards up his sleeve.
In the West, critics met “Glass” for the most part negatively, but still somewhat scolded it: the film has a number of serious shortcomings, about them later, since there are pluses. Although Shyamalan puts his brainchild as a conversational comic book, it is quite interesting to follow the twists and turns of the plot, besides, he builds most mise-en-scene scenes perfectly - in this he is helped by the operator "It Follows You" and "We" Michael Giulakis with his love for non-standard frame composition and outstanding work with lighting, which fills the screen with indescribable anxiety and tension. But Shyamalan, having more than one interesting idea in stock, or superficially worked on them (the demonstration of the hospital security service, including two stupid orderlies, does not withstand any criticism), or had a very vague idea of how to clearly present them to the viewer, but “Glass” in the end came out unassembled, loose and fragmented. The transitions from stage to stage in style and mood are cutting and inorganic, outstanding suspense moments are replaced by passing and protracted episodes, and the images of the characters are monotonous and undeveloped - Samuel L. Jackson silently jerks a century, Bruce Willis pensively and wearily squints, McAvoy arranges a new season of already seen fools and constantly strives to undress, Sarah Paulson is generally depressingly no (and very boring), as is Anya Taylor-Joy, whose heroine with an exceptionally emotionally shaking syndrome in an exceptionally emotionally shaking story.
Another and perhaps the most significant disadvantage unexpectedly lies in the branded Shyamalan twists. They are available, and more than once, moreover, they are very well conceived, but the way the director puts them is no longer a delight, but a skeptical grin. Shyamalan seems to have forgotten how to shoot unexpected turns that change the plot and genre vector, since many events are represented by some cheap deception, and some scenes closer to the final are generally farcical. It is difficult to say in which direction the director will turn after the release of this picture, which, although criticized, became a commercial hit, but “Glass” again begins to show a bad tendency to deterioration of the quality of Shyamalan drama and production, and this, as can be seen from his past experience, is an unkind sign.
6 out of 10
The superhero trilogy of M. Night Shyamalan, which includes the films Invulnerable (2000), Split (2016) and Glass (2019), is a unique series of films that tells not so much about superheroes and supervillains, but about why they appear and what they are. Plus, the director throws aside stereotypical ideas about such guys, closing in a dark closet all the cloaks that tighten tights, shields, swords, cowards stretched over the pants. This series is not about the bright representatives of comics, with the enviable constancy of “pop up” on the big screen. It took Shyamalan 19 years to make three films and combine them, although after Invulnerable he had no thoughts to make a sequel.
Perhaps the realization that the first of the three films was the impetus to try to understand the nature of superhumans, allowed the director to think about the continuation and create a new world. But there is no new doubt about it. Although Mr. Glass uses comics as documentary evidence of the existence of people with superpowers, but he only in this way reflects the idea of the existence of such people, trying through the prism of print publications to see those who have a gift, but sometimes he does not see it (for example, the hero of Willis).
To become a superhero, it is not necessary to save the planet from hordes of aliens, it is enough to save several or one person. You don't have to tear half of Manhattan apart, you just have to have a little swing in the parking lot in front of a mental institution. Although, if a superhero to feel like a superhero and raise their own status in their own eyes, you can save the planet. Once again.
It was foolish to assume and expect something large-scale and epic from Glass, given the format in which the first two films were shot. Shyamalan continued to bend his line and looped the trilogy in such a way that the characters represented in each of the three films turned out to be by the standards of global superhero films figures may not be large, but significant.
The very idea of the author to push the viewer to the idea of why comics appeared, why people with incredible abilities are described there, which was the reason that they came out of the shadows, is very interesting and suggests fantasizing, so that a person watching “Glass” sees not the usual comic with an abundance of pictures and small replicas, but tries to penetrate into this world, decompose it into bytes and bits and realize that the comic is a kind of intermediary for acquaintance with something unknown.
A lot of people won’t say, ‘Wow!’ after watching it, because Glass isn’t a typical superhero movie. This is a superhero film with the status of the author’s, fresh and original view of the director on such a popular direction in the film industry today.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Monsieur Shyamalan brings superhero civilian fantasy to a new psychological degree of comprehension, shutting down both marvels and vizards-of-se-coast and neils of geymans with all their new-old gods and planners, turning his positive and negative heroes into living metaphors or icons of a new wave of poststructural analysis of the aesthetics and ontology of drawn universes and their pantheons. Now, viewers around the world are free to ask rhetorical questions: ' What if, indeed, people with superpowers come across me every day in subway cars? And what if I am one of these, not for nothing I have such and such a congenital disease / trauma / mental deviation / shamanic gift / supermemory, etc.? What if the Illuminati exist? What if there are anti-heroes?' In general, American comics and Franco-Belgian BD have long since moved out of the realm of teenage toothache and entered the realm of author magical realism and serious scientific dissertations. Mr. Glass deserves special praise and respect as an excellent antipode to Prof. Xavier of X-Men. It is no less pumped mastermind, only a trickster/madvillan, who also specializes as a historian/expert in comics and painting. The film raises many philosophical, rhetorical and generally pressing questions, such as what is the Gift, what to do with it, how to define it or measure it, whether it is dangerous or useful to yourself and others, whether it is possible to live with it and how to position yourself by fully accepting it. Well, the age-old theme, is superhero drawn literature for primary school age a chronology of anomalous human phenomena of physics and psyche, morality and ethics, science and magic? Also ' Glass' raises the question, is it possible to become so 'obsessed' one of your favorite heroes/villains to somehow adopt his/her perception of the world, abilities, skills, flaws and vices, or fully enter the role model, becoming a kind of avatar? In addition, we recall Fahrenheit 451, when the entire society of civilized people switched to reading vector graphics. To no small extent, comic culture is also correlated with the modern abstract heb-hob scene.
Oh, Shyamalan screwed up business. Managed to leak a good franchise, breaking his own rules. It seems that at the end of filming he was deprived of time to work, and he ran to finish “Glass”. To understand what is happening in the film, you need to familiarize yourself with the films Invulnerable (2000) and Split (2017), since the sequel is the most direct. Three films represent three acting characters, when the supposedly trilogy ended, you can arrange the paintings by names: invulnerable – Bruce Willis, split – James McAvoy and glass – Sam Jackson. Only after watching all the films, you realize the intention of the Indian director.
The entire franchise touched on the subject of questionable superheroes, gradually revealing each and putting them in real life. "Glass" continues the narrative where "Split" left off. Like the next episode. The opening shots are eye-catching, with McAvoy again stealing attention at himself as his different personalities appear in front of viewers. It seems to be the usual details of crimes, but when James is on the screen in his personalities, it becomes fascinating.
Immediately the reverse side of abilities, for good is Oliver Queen, which is very different from the image. It seems to be the Green Arrow, but Bruce is no longer John McClain, so his minimal tricks are replaced by a double. You can see that. Catch the villain by the classics of the genre, until we are met by the Arkham hospital, where there is already imposition, manipulation and nonsense.
A trio of superstars who have their own points of control under the supervision of a doctor. The second stage ends, Shyamalan shows us not the usual comic path, but the difficulty to get along with ordinary people when you have any deviations. (Just "X-Men," that's just a mutant plot, that's it.) Further, the narrative either cuts down on important details, promoting a particular storyline, or stretches the arch of the character, which in the end will lead to nothing.
The episodes with McAvoy in camera are a separate piece. Certainly the best thing in the movie so far. We leave the perpetrators of the celebration and transfer to the secondary heroes, and then the first puncture. Anka Taylor-Joy is just a piece of furniture in the picture. She does not carry any information, she does not decide anything, she contradicts her own actions in Split. For a moment, remember that she and her classmates (they were not friends) were kidnapped by James. Yes, Anyutka understood the problem of personality disorder, but why deny the fact of violence and death in the sequel? Like an old friend you haven't seen in a long time. Delusion.
The doctor’s arguments, conversations with personalities involved in the main characters are boring, uninteresting and steal most of the timekeeping, and it ends very quickly. Around the middle of the film, Sam Jackson comes on stage (rolls out, sorry), who shares his acting talent with McAvoy. His character, known for Invulnerable, is a typical comic book villain. Tellingly, a person is a fan of comics and brings to the viewer the scientific basis of Marvel Comics & Detective Comics.
The usual plans for the future, the intriguing details in the hospital, the interaction of Jackson’s mind and McAvoy’s power and... the merged finale. Man, that was terrible. Not only is screen time running out, but the developmental perspective that we were just presented with turned out to be empty. Everything ends in the unsaid, stupid and meaningless. The whole film by means of good shots, boring explanations, a bright palette of colors (the pink room creates a certain contrast) prepares for something unexpected, but in fact - stupid shit. Immediately you begin to look for tricks or hidden symbols, ask yourself the question – why should I do this, and what would be different? Even without paying attention to the finale, you begin to predict the intention of the director in advance – Samuel L. Jackson explains, prepares the audience, you are already anticipating the main intrigue, but it is not.
Manoj Nelliattu Shyamalan was upset when he heard the first feedback. What reaction did you want? So merge an already shaky project where the tension is kept by the actors, not the plot. What's it for? What's the point? You could consider a pledge for the future or an open ending, but it still does not satisfy. About an hour and a half to intrigue the viewer, give to warm up James McAvoy, so that 20 minutes before the credits do not care about the script, the audience, the idea.
The theme of accepting yourself as good as you are can have the right effect, but it doesn’t work here. Just because the movie is about something else. You can not shoot the lion’s share of time from one angle, and in the end turn the genre, the plot, and the worldview. The meaning of what Shyamalan wanted to say is clear, but it is inappropriate in this regard. It's like showing the exclusivity of a Wolverine mutant with regeneration, strength, claws, and then at the end, stressing that Adamantium is a rare metal, that Logan's skeleton is the only source.
Dennis "Danon" Dunn, a modest security guard from "Unbreakable" turned superhero (Bruce Willis), is in an active search for a maniac from the movie "Split" nicknamed Horde (James McAvoy). The catcher and the beast runs, but the epic conclusion of the trilogy is interrupted by the appearance of a psychiatrist (Sarah Paulson), who claims that everything that happens is the nonsense of a stew mare.
“Any phenomenon can be debunked. Find a simple explanation. And yet it's a miracle. You know that deep down. Everything we know and see has a scientific basis, but everything has a limit. It's not a cartoon, it's the real world. However, some of us can’t be killed with a bullet, and others can be easily bent by steel, and this is not a fantasy. – says the cunning manipulator Mr. Glass, the hero of Samuel L. Jackson. It is easy to imagine how the director M. Night Shyamalan smiled, prescribing this phrase.
Analyzing the film "Glass" on serious occasions is like disassembling a children's typewriter - you will not see anything new and the child will be upset. As the “wheels” is an excellent cast, pulling, frankly, the “raw” script. “The body” is a plot twist (there are three of them). And for the “engine” of the plot are two characters – clinical idiot-sanitary.
In his best works, the director was able to relate the structure of the narrative, which was never in the first place, with what was really important to him - an idea, a thought. People with superpowers are, and if they are, why are there only three? It looks like a small step back, because in previous films we have already figured it out. But Shyamalan decides to play, and for the maximum participation of the viewer involves him in the action by a simple method - more close-ups, where the actors, almost without blinking, saying the text, look directly into the soul. And I have to say, it works. Only now closer to the finale you realize that you can not take what is happening on the screen in full seriousness. There is no doubt that Sarah Paulson’s eyes act magnetically and convince anyone, and Samuel L. Jackson is a genius actor who can squash even a broken vacuum cleaner. It's a pleasure to watch these two oppositions, but really, Mr. Shyamalan, why set up a branch of Ren-TV?