I would say that the film is not so bad. The actors play well, they try. I have to admit that I miss even the silent Bruce Willis a little bit, and I have to say that he does a great job here as an old superhero. The message of the picture is something like this, there are superheroes, we are just convinced that there are no superpowers, that everything around is ordinary, but the three main characters, the essence of their existence, is to show that we have self-confidence, a sense of a certain dignity and importance of what lives in each of us, our superpowers and weaknesses, they really are. Everyone should understand that there are superheroes, and one should not succumb to the conviction of the surrounding world that everything can be easily explained by scientific methods, there are only facts and gray routine. The essence of Shyamalan’s superheroes is that they may be crazy people, but they believe that they can do more than anyone else, and their power is hidden in them as well as in every person, no matter how convinced we are of the opposite. We are cunningly shown the gray reality, so that we could not escape from it, always remain in clear and understandable to each framework and boundaries. But everyone has the power to find something in himself, another person or some event, to overcome the boundaries of ordinaryness and to go beyond the trap of his own mind. This does not mean that you will be like Superman, it means that everyone has the power to do more than usual, think bigger, and do things that seem impossible.
I could say that the film is average and in general does not make a revolution. Perhaps it is, but the fact that it makes you think about something, in itself is not bad. Of course, there are many ridiculous and peculiar analogies, too many parallels with comics, without which you could do. The plot is unnecessarily delayed. However, the characters are interesting to watch, and it is not a typical superhero to which we are all so used, and that is good.
Maybe I’ve seen meaning where it doesn’t exist and it’s just a film that just wraps up a trilogy and merges other films into a complete story and nothing more.
Director and screenwriter M. Knight Shyamalan decided to finally complete the trilogy, which began with the film "Invulnerable" with Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson. This film focused on the psychological aspect, in which the director tried to explore the world of David Dunn (Bruce Willis) and Elijah (Samuel L. Jackson). Then came out "Split" with James McAvoy, in which he played several personalities at once, also in this film was a little involved in fiction. I personally liked both of these films. And now it is time to release the final part of the whole story called "Glass"., in which all three main characters met face to face. In this part, the stories of each of the heroes, their psychological complexes, from which they originated and their motives were revealed in more detail. I also liked the episodic footage from the last part of the film, so as not to forget and even better understand what really happened. Therefore, in the plot, everything is more or less good. And as for the acting, I was not particularly impressed with it, I was certainly happy to see Bruce Willis and his David Dunn, but here he is mostly in the role of a boring and shadow-shifting character. Samuel L. Jackson is still good, but I’ve seen all this in his character in the 2000 film. James McAvoy looks more interesting and charismatic compared to everyone else, but I thought that everything that could be played, James has already played in Split.
“Glass” is not the most successful ending that could be thought of for the end of one of the most intriguing series of films, because indeed, these films are something peculiar and unique against the background of other stories about comics and superheroes, but this film is worth watching to find out and understand how it will end.
6 out of 10
Comics are certainly an integral and one of the most important elements not only of American history, but also of culture and lifestyle. Moreover, over the past ten years, the latter has acquired an absolutely global and large-scale character in the face of successful processions of the Marvel and DC cinematic universes with wild box office fees and a rapidly increasing number of new adaptations of various comics. In the conditions of oversaturation of American cinema with “superhero films”, famous M. Night Shyamalan and decided to again “deconstruct” the genre of superhero cinema with this film.
The plot of the picture logically continues the events of “Invulnerable” and “Split”. Wishing to put an end to the abductions and murders of young girls, David Dunn follows Kevin Crumb in the face of his alter-ego The Beast. However, their fight does not have time to take place. Both characters are caught by the police and sent to a psychiatric hospital, in which Elijah Price, nicknamed “Glass”, has been staying for a long time. Gathering together such extraordinary personalities, psychiatrist Ellie Staple tries to convince each of the three patients that they do not possess supernatural abilities. Without even knowing what consequences can lead to the imprisonment of all of them in the walls of the same hospital.
Director and writer of this film M. Knight Shyamalan has always been famous for his unique author's handwriting, which almost always went against the canons of the genre and focused on unexpected and mysterious plot moves. This film by the director and screenwriter was no exception. Similar to “The Expendable”, Shyamalan decided willingly to “deconstruct” the genre of superhero cinema on the screen. However, if “The Expendable” was created at a time when “superheroics” did not become mainstream and allowed to focus on a pronounced dramatic layer, then in this tape “Shyamalan” hit the symbolism and reverse quoting of the main canons of modern superheroics. Replacing the dynamic and rapid development of the plot with an absolutely measured, slow and even monotonous manner of narration. Actually, as well as large-scale and epic in spectacular moments of fights are very boring and bland action scenes, which are more like street fights. Thus, "catching up" modern superheroics.
The binding of this film to a single cinematic universe was certainly successful. Despite the fact that the previous two tapes at the time of creation were absolutely original, Shyamalan managed to link all three stories together in a very organic way. In my opinion, it is very competent and worthy of demonstrating both the further growth of the character of each of the three main characters, and putting a worthy point in the history and fate of each of them in the finale of this film. Along the way, creating a very thin and interesting groundwork with great potential for creating a new trilogy (or franchise), but with new characters, as well as very clearly voicing the main morality of this tape. Each of us is a superhero by nature and in order to be a superhero, it is not necessary to have supernatural abilities and wear costumes. You just need not be indifferent to the trouble of those in need and extend a helping hand to them.
However, there are also gaps in history. First, the introduction of the heroine's doubts about the presence of supernatural abilities in the main characters and the logical explanation of their abilities seemed an interesting and promising topic. However, already in the first 20 minutes of the story, the authors demonstrate reasonable and irrefutable evidence to the contrary and due to this, the topic is exhaled so thoroughly and convincingly not disclosed. Secondly, the linking of Dan’s son, Price’s mother and Crumb’s victim to the story was the impetus for the development of the characters of the main characters. However, as original characters, each of the trio of secondary characters turned out to be absolutely nondescript, and the motivation of the heroine Ani Taylor-Joy within the framework of the Stockholm syndrome seemed to me too boring and bland for the rich imagination. Thirdly, the crown reception of Shyamalana with an unexpected plot twist in the finale in this tape seemed absolutely boring, not interesting and simply stupid. In my opinion, he did not get the development he could get.
The direction of M. Night Shyamalani also turned out to be a bit ambiguous. The degree of entertainment in combat and the dynamism of the narrative is deliberately reduced to a minimum. The picture itself turned out to be rather unhurried, gray and perhaps even monotonous. All this plays in favor of revealing this tape as a thoughtful and deep psychological thriller, rather than superheroics in its traditional sense. However, at the same time, makes the picture very stingy on "bread and sight" for the eyes and makes viewing this tape a little more difficult. This approach was reflected in “The Expendable” and “Split”. But the first bought a much greater disclosure as a drama, and “Split” is heated to the limit of old-school suspense.
To the trinity of the main actors of the film in the person of Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson and James McEvo I can not find fault. Each of the actors revealed his character from a new side and gave a strong game. However, the main star of the tape was still James McAvoy, who again amazes with an absolutely magnificent switch from one alter ego of his character to another in the conditions of “communal” in the head of Kevin Crumb. Sarah Paulson also played well, who showed a complete immersion in her character. True, the character turned out to be quite gray and boring. Anya Taylor-Joy, Spencer Treet Clark and Charlaine Woodard played quite gray. Especially against the background of a much brighter game in the previous parts.
7 out of 10
Glass is the culmination of one of the most extraordinary superhero franchises in my memory, which started at the beginning of the zeros. Shyamalana for the second time decided to completely deconstruct the genre of superheroics with a full emphasis on the psychology of the characters of the main characters, rather than focusing on the epic and dizzying spectacle. This approach made the picture deeper, smarter and more complex, but at the same time a little duller and stingier on bread and spectacle. Giving an excuse to the viewer himself to determine what is more important to him and already, depending on this, drawing a picture of his impressions. I personally liked the picture and without some plot and directorial blunders, I would certainly like more.
The film is the end of the trilogy of director Shyamalan, the beginning of which was laid in the distant 2000th year with the film "Invulnerable". That year, in the summer, six months before the premiere of the film, the film "" was released in theaters. X-Men, which marked the beginning of a new era of comics in cinema. And against this background, Shyamalan's film looked "the wrong way." Plus, the advertising of the film, connecting it with the previous work of the director - "Sixth Sense" - played in the negative. We didn't get a hero movie or a deep thriller. The studios, although they collected a good cash register, were afraid that no one would go to the sequel and refused the sequel. After 15 years, the director decided to come back and finish the story as he wanted. But 15 years have passed and it is almost impossible to return to the film language of zero. Shyamalan invents the wheel - he releases the horror "Split", linking films into one world, and now can afford to work at the intersection of genres.
As the viewer sees it.
The main advertising of the film “Glass” was built on the fact that this is a continuation of the film “Split”, where McAvoy played 24 personalities living in one person. His acting was fascinating and of course I really wanted to see a sequel where he would repeat his feat again. The Internet even joked that in Split he played 23 more personalities than Sasha Petrov played in his lifetime. And this “Glass” is not so much disappointing – McAvoy plays amazingly, transforming from role to role right before our eyes. His performance is so good that Bruce Willis looks like an actor of the last century who accidentally got into the film. Williss misses a series of events without acting in any way reacting to them - "I am a superhero" - an event, "I am not a superhero" - an event, "I am dying" - an event, and there are no estimates. In the finale of the film, McAvoy is so good that he just closes two meters of Hollywood with his game. And from this point of view, the producers were good - they promised to continue the story of the film "Split", promised McAvoy - get it, sign it.
The viewer will puzzle over the theme of the film, over the message, and even over the genre for a long time, trying to fit the film into any category in his head – it’s great. It's a very good combination. When you leave the cinema with the feeling that you got what you came for, but also gave something to the load, think with yourself at your leisure.
Pleasant viewing.
The best thing about M. Night Shyamalan’s career-restoring thriller Split (well, apart from the chic McAvoy) was the final scene. Bruce Willis's brief but surprising appearance in the post-credits episode looked like a mockery of bloated blockbuster comics trying to nail viewers to the screen, and the creation of a shared movie universe of Invulnerable seemed to make even more of a mockery of current tendencies to create these very universes unnecessarily. Unfortunately, there is a huge gulf between fan service, teasing comic books and building a story around it all. The mixture of half-formed ideas from Shyamalan’s chambers of mind resulted in a free fantasy on the theme of superheroics: a film filled with unnecessary references and low energy, but still, probably, whole within its free trilogy and with a kind of charm.
So, “Glass” unfolds some time after the events of “Split”. Kevin Crumb reincarnates as the Beast and kidnaps some unfortunate girls. On the trail of the maniac comes David Dunn – a self-proclaimed superhero nicknamed the Overseer. Both Dunn and Kevin are detained and sent to a mental hospital, where Elijah “Mr. Glass” Price is already languishing. The trio should undergo a psychotherapy session, because the attending physician is sure: these men do not have any superpowers, they are just crazy.
One of the problems of Glass is precisely this psychological theme. Despite her crucial role, Dr. Staple, who has her own superhero theory, is not particularly interesting or dynamic. Interestingly, the script plays with the perception of reality as the main characters and the viewer.
Everything, of course, is much smarter and more complex. The emotional background underlying Glass is much stronger than the empty and discouraging contemporary comic book scripts. It becomes clear that each of the three stories separately (Invulnerable and Split) lies in the plane of a kind of modern superheroic, or, if you will, actual myths, in which existential questions are wrapped. In an almost psychedelic way, the viewer faces the problems of the superhero behind the scenes, showing the weaknesses and problems of superhumans, which are often ignored by entertaining pop-corn movies. Scholastic tape Shyamalan once again tells about the favorite theme of the director: the question of whether there is a place for miracles in the world.
Like Split and Invulnerable, this Schemann creation wants the heroes’ extraordinary achievements to be grounded and translated into the real world. The tension between heroism and realism develops with correct but slightly confusing accents. Is "Glass" intentionally such as to put an end to a conceptually intriguing trilogy? Or is it Shyamalan’s attempt to launch his universe (or, perhaps also, just to make the audience think about it, ridiculing these clichés)? Market realities make the latter more likely.
McAvoy's performance is still fascinating, expanding the number of characters portrayed. In general, the actor interacts with himself (or with personalities in his head) much better than with colleagues. Teammates on the set also do not lag behind: unusually sad and depressed Samuel L. Jackson attracts attention, and tired and exhausted Bruce Willis borrowed much from the cool harsh harmful heroes of the present, like Logan.
Depending on how the viewer relates to superheroes, the Glass trilogy works. The latest film correctly connects everything together and even finds time to insert social commentary into a bizarre mini-universe. Comics, as well as cinema, are really connected with reality - perhaps this is the mystery of their widespread love. In the course of the film, explanations of this fact drag on too long, but the way all three central characters look at themselves and their characteristics shows that the genre of comics will live for a long time and imagination will be enough for everyone.
I broke the glass!
Comics are an integral part of American culture. The history of their existence has almost a hundred years. To reach this genre on the big screen and gain popularity took a long time. Now it’s a huge business with astronomical budgets and a huge army of fans. Movies are filled with special effects, pathos and beautiful characters. "Glass" isn't about that. Shyamalan will show his view of the world of people with unusual abilities.
You won’t see the intense atmosphere of horror like Split. Yes, and dramas as in “Invincible” also did not bring. There is something between these genres, a thriller with a touch of mysticism, seasoned with dramatic moments. The plot plays with the viewer, forcing to doubt the existence of superheroes as such. Maybe it's just the fruit of an inflamed mind? They are sick and have too much faith in their own uniqueness. A reputable doctor specializing in megalomania will try to prove to the main characters that they are just people.
Of the cast, only James McAvoy stands out, thanks to his extraordinary multi-layered character, Cavin. The image of a chameleon with the ambitions of God, he manages amazingly. He could have earned another movie about himself. After all, 24 personalities require space and a voluminous plot. Other than that, nobody was happy. Bruce Willis has long played his best roles, his facial expression does not change from film to film. Samuel L. Jackson appeared to be a lean, unexpressive hero. I could not see him as a highly intelligent villain.
"Glass" turned out to be a very passing film. Was there a budget or a blunder in the script? Probably both. In some places, the film looks simply naive and stupid, people behave not naturally, the intrigue is not at all as interesting as you expect. The denouement of events is generally one of the most ridiculous that I have ever seen. It is not the best film of Shyamalan.
We need to look into the glass. No, I'm not crazy. It's okay with Mmm Night Shyamalan. Forget about those who call his new movie a dull nudity. The film is brilliant, I would even say iconic. From a technical and sacred point of view.
Glass can be called a portal to the future. The picture, despite the fact that it is a point in the trilogy (“Invulnerable”, “Split”), opens dozens, hundreds of prospects for various branches and sequels. In fact, Shyamalan and Ko managed to open the gates of a new universe of superheroes. I don’t know if Americans have enough comics, but their fellow tribesmen got involved in a colossal heroic epic. From this point of view, Glass is a picture, of course, iconic and cornerstone.
About the talent of James McAvoy we learned not yesterday, but here his skill of reincarnation is something special, emphasized and highlighted in bold italics. His work in Glass should definitely be called outstanding, it is interesting to watch him, without slurring. The spirit is exciting from the fact that no juridical theatrical style in its stratifications of personality is not felt. This means that we have the highest acting aerobatics.
For me, Glass is curious, beyond the above, for two reasons. First, we managed to fend off the problem of the attitude of adults to comics and all sorts of fairy tales. This, sometimes, even in countries far from comic ideology, has the outlines of mental illness. What about the United States? People are inclined to believe in miracles. All the more so when the Internet, cinema, television, literature, is being fed with such a powerful ideology. The magic of cinema is that it does not sterilize this faith, but strengthens and multiplies it. Black or white is magic - everyone decides for himself.
The second interesting aspect is that Glass is a petty but painful poke on all sorts of communities of decent people who are decent only in appearance, but in reality – absolute evil. All these secretly shaking hands that seek to decide for everyone else how to live and what to do is disgusting at the level of the idea itself. Any elite is a lie and an impostor.
8 out of 10
Shyamalan, if you look at the figures, collected an impressive cash register with three works of his fictional movie universe, which, taking into account inflation, can reach the billionth mark of world fees for all three parts. And this with a budget "Split" in nine million, and "Glass" twenty - Shyamalan, in addition to the cult director of thrillers, apparently wants to become also the cult goldfish of Hollywood.
"Glass" finally returns those promised in "Split" - David and Elijah, it would seem, a logical continuation of the story about the Beast, but for Shyamalan fans this is a whole event. And for this gesture, Shyamalan would certainly like to give a gesture of gratitude. However, his third film from this universe turned out to be very ambiguous, even without comparisons with the previous work of the director, “Glass” – in addition to the well-known brand, in its essence has nothing unusual.
Moreover, for some reason, if there was a debutant at the director’s chair, it would hardly have turned out worse. “Glass” keeps the screen only the first thirty minutes, in the future the essence of what is happening for the viewer no longer makes any sense. The plot gradually slides into a state of “working out” screen time, and it is impossible to enjoy the old-timers of “Invulnerable”.
Plus, for some reason, a significant space in the frame is occupied by the heroine of Sarah Paulson, having got rid of which less sagging would have formed in the plot, and fans of the franchise would not have been left in a state of misunderstanding. As a result, Shyamalan gives the film a compliment to his viewer, we sincerely thank him for this, but I want to believe that the director will stop living in memories, and in his next works will give something more innovative in the creative aspect.
5 out of 10
I watched the movie a long time ago. I sat down for this review for a long time, and now I finally decided to write it. And now I am constantly distracted, because the film is very deep, and I am sure that I still do not understand all the meanings embedded in it.
I saw the commercial of the film accidentally, and literally a week before the premiere, so there were no expectations about it. It was only after watching that I found out that this was part of the trilogy and the director also shot 'Sixth Sense'. A film that deeply impressed me as a child. It is difficult for me to immediately answer the question ' what is my favorite film', but the Sixth Sense was remembered first and always.
Very subtly, very carefully, almost imperceptibly you feel the whole range of internal emotions behind external actions full of bewilderment.
This film is not simple, about trauma, about struggle, about strength, but not in their external manifestations, but in the depths of the souls of the main characters.
Perhaps watching this film can be called a session of the therapy group, perhaps consciously no influence will not be noticed, and this is even better, so the subconscious will get more. But long-term activation of internal mental processes is guaranteed.
After all, here it is about the fact that sometimes superpower is a consequence of serious mental trauma and there is no fundamental difference it is used in the name of good or evil.
The director will try to blur the lines between black and white, showing that these are two sides of the same coin and saying that maybe there is something bigger and more important than these categories.
So watching the film will not end with the last shots, a multi-day aftertaste is guaranteed.
9 out of 10
I believe that comics are the quintessence of documents collected over centuries of human superpowers.
Why doesn’t everyone like glass?
People are waiting for something like a blockbuster from the Marvel Universe Cinema or DS. Yes, Shyamalan shoots extremely unevenly, but Glass is a realistic, logical film for those who like to think. Do you have to put it in shelves? If you do not agree, then do not read further and immediately put a minus.
Lack of clear logic. I think the action of the third film seems to be drawn with clearly calibrated storylines. This film is like the beginning, the understanding of the heroic comic in general. We forget that almost all villains and heroes were ordinary people. The effect of presence for the viewer is almost tangible.
For some reason, many went to the movies without watching Split and Invulnerable. Really? I keep silent about the fact that the first film of the trilogy came out in 2000, but you can not call it invisible. “Split” is amazing with its realism, atmosphericity and acting. Of course, without history, the narrative will seem strange to us.
No epic battles. Did anyone watch Naruto, where the fight could last a few episodes? Irritated? In this film, the battle is not between a villain and a hero. A combination of motives, actions, games. Ordinary and miracle, realism and imagination, faith and doubt.
We are invited to comprehend the very essence of comics, the opposition of evil and good, the emergence of otherness and the very idea – why do people need stories about heroes and villains – from mythology and legends to modern cinema.
So all our heroes were caught and locked up in a mental hospital. Dr. Sarah Paulson does not try to cure, but convinces our heroes that they are ordinary people who believe in their superpowers. Is he a villain or a superhero the tenth? Do you feel the difference?
By the way, I do not write about the actors, about the game, because it took place, and not a semblance of acting.
James McAvoy (here I must specify the list of personalities, but I’m frankly lazy) – I agree, the peak of his hero’s development fell on Split, we have already seen the Beast and know what it is? Does the Beast know itself? And does Kevin Crumb know himself?
Samuel L. Jackson (Mr. Glass) is a villain who, by the third film, no longer seemed like a villain to me. His theories, his mind, his complex image command respect. Compare the psychology and motivation of villains. Who is more interesting in the psycho-attractive sense?! – I can only remember Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Joker (Heath Ledger), Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch), Helmut Zemo (Daniel Brühl) – motivation, personality, intelligence, charisma. Maybe more Moriarty.
No less interesting is Invulnerable. Of course, there is something symbolic about this character being played by Bruce Willis. How many of his positive, unkillable characters do we remember starting with Die Hard? From disbelief to acceptance. Such an inconspicuous hero among a crowd of ordinary people.
And in the end, the film seems to settle before our eyes – we are waiting for one thing, and we are shown a completely different thing. First disappointment, and later reflection. Comics are one thing, reality is another. And here we are in our "today", and someone scratches inside - what if ...
8 out of 10
Already many people have grinded ' fragile ' tape, so, fortunately, I will not justify.
Shyamalan should be respected that at the head of his interests is not the justification of the wishes of the audience, but the opportunity to speak out, albeit in such a very controversial way not without branded ridiculous episodes - remember only ' Girl from the water' that so savorily spit on expectations, turned out to be a very strange fairy tale.
Nevertheless, ' Glass ' manages to strike in self-digging and if anywhere it looked quite pretentious, here he manages to keep his attention, what is there, for all the time to think about time there was no desire at all, but with the arrival of that summarization, so necessary point for the whole trilogy you feel disappointed. No, very disappointed. Yes, Shyamalan is not so interested in defeating evil, over which the audience in the first act was extremely interesting to watch, but... After a bitter but somewhat triumphant finale 'Invulnerable' and instructive in 'Split' to see something so smacking and naive, like a studio move for a spy thriller of the 90s? ... Emme...
Shyamalan is again playing with the colors -- okay, the illogicalities in the plot, whether they're contrived or random -- OK, but what he's always done, and these are some spectacular, emotional scenes -- they're not there. Just not. After all, the only episode is taken straight from the editing table 'Invulnerable' and you know what it's about.
From the brilliant camera work of Serra in ' Invulnerable' and Giulakis in ' Split' there is no trace, especially when you consider that Giulakis is shooting again, the musical accompaniment serves as an imperceptible background score, which could not be said about James Newton Howard and West Dylan Thordson ... And you have to consider again that Thordson is back in charge of the music -- although it's not going to turn out well, because it's just -- it's mediocre. About the actors will be silent, unless again entertaining McAvoy and periodically strange facial expressions of Samuel L. Jackson, but not to mention Spencer Trit Clark can not - how beautiful has grown.
Extremely lean, gray and what a controversial conclusion, but divided the audience into two camps.
It's time for Shyamalan to leave - beautifully, then he can't. . .
Shyamalan has found his way and we need to keep improving. . .
Crossover is a common phenomenon in the creative world. However, this happens most often in the comic book industry (or in the anime industry). Sometimes different universes intersect in movies. The most logical way this happens in comic book adaptations. Thus, Glass is a common crossover of films by the Indian director ShyamalanInvulnerable (2000) and Split (2016). How successful was it to cross projects that have been separated for 16 years?
The Universe ' Glass ' is our everyday world. Superheroes do not exist, they are just fiction writers, comics writers and screenwriters. And yet, there are a few caveats. Where do you get all these reports about a woman flipping over a car, about a child jumping over a five-meter fence, and things like that? Adrenaline rush? City rumor? A lucky coincidence? Shyamalan answers this question differently. Superhumans live among us, but their existence is undesirable for the powerful. That is why Mr. Glass ("Samuel L. Jackson"), Invulnerable ("Bruce Willis") and the Beast ("McAvoy") are admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
The plot here is not full of action scenes. The story develops smoothly, but at the same time suspense does not leave the picture until the last shots. In turn, the psychiatrist puts the hospital patients to the question: ' Are you different from ordinary people?' And the viewer, along with the heroes of the film, is lost in guesswork for a long time. This is the kind of ambivalence a good psychological thriller needs.
By composition construction ' Glass' very similar to recent ' Split'. Camerality, an element of psychologicalism, mental disorders, finally McAvoy in one of the main roles. However, some viewers did not like something in the new project of the Indian director.
First, there is the old problem 'Split'. McAvoy's character has too many different personalities that simply cannot be revealed in such a short period of time. There was clearly more Beast and a little added Kevin (the main personality, lost among the others), but almost removed Dennis (a little-talented man who previously participated in the abduction of girls). The rest of the situation has not changed. Just remember that there are other characters who need screen time.
Second, the hospital's weak security. It is necessary to recognize too easy to open doors and hack into the computer system of the clinic. You may be a megabrain, but it's not easy to pull this off. On the other hand, Mr. Glass clearly misled everyone with his excellent disguise as 'vegetable': it is very natural that he could not even concentrate his eyes.
Third, the behavior of Casey ( Anya Taylor-Joy). Why is she so fond of her kidnapper? It looks pretty weird. However, this case can be explained. The girl was abused by her uncle, Kevin severely punished his mother as a child, which led to multiple splits of his personality. Casey just found a soul mate in her kidnapper. Yes, it is controversial, but still relatively realistic.
In the end, ' Glass ' is an extremely interesting film. It's a very natural way of showing what would happen to superheroes in our world. They wouldn't wear fashionable leggings and run on rooftops. They would simply be hidden away from human eyes, and if necessary, eliminated.
Glass, the third part of the not the most noticeable superhero series of films by M. Night Shyamalan, continuing the storylines of the heroes ' Invulnerable' and 'Split'. After a series of creative failures with multimillion-dollar blockbusters, Shyamalan returned to small chamber stories that do not claim to be pretentious laurels, which is what the director sinned at the very beginning of his career. Return to glory! Money and respect fell again and seems to have returned to the clip of the talented Indian.
But Shyamalan would not be himself if he had not fulfilled a long-held dream, to speak on a topic that so vividly passed through in many of his works, but did not find a full-fledged embodiment. So did his dream project succeed? Critics did not appreciate it anyway. I think this project really did not fit into the modern agenda of the superhero entertainment genre. He clearly does not give what is expected of him. It goes against what is now accepted. So why?
Shyamalan falls into an abstract reflection on the essence of the myth about the hero, plays with presonages, as if they are on the page of some bonkers edition of the comic book, gives dialogues deliberate convention, and behavior emphasizes their mythical essence.
Shyamalan is clearly awestruck about the very culture of comics, those ideas and archetypes embedded in them and consistently criticizes modern trends in the superhero. To do this, the director immerses the viewer in the metaphysical depths of the origins of the heroes, telling us that anyone can be them.
It is fascinating how sincerely he talks about it. The whole last battle is pure concentrated comic action. The one on the pages is not so large-scale, even limited due to the two-dimensionality of the image. Here he laughs at those comics where, every superhero is invulnerable, and every blow demolishes a skyscraper.
After watching a lot of screenings of the film, I realized that people are just wondering why you need to make the final battle, push on the lawn, caricature everything even with phrases literally from the cover of the comic book. But Shyamalan stands on his strange, sometimes distorted perception of cinema. And no matter how many people do not like his films, it is impossible not to admit that he makes a unique product, if good then for centuries, it is bad that even his teeth shrink.
So Glass is a clear author’s statement that condemns the current superheroes (the ones featured in the film) and gives impetus to new ones (the ones that aren’t there). The film, which is now doomed to be scolded, because it came out a bit early, but having all the chances over time to become a cult.
7 out of 10
I don’t know why the West criticized this film so much, in my opinion, it turned out chic, but too sad.
Recently, directors of many films are trying to attract as much attention to their work due to the cast. 2-3 world-famous Hollywood actors and it seems that the film will beat all the ratings on ticket sales in theaters, and there you look to the Oscars not far. Unfortunately, the effect is often the exact opposite. The actors are trying, it is clear that they got used to the role, special effects and computer graphics at a height, but the wretched plot burys the entire film in the ground to the very top.
So, in this film, fortunately, did not shake up neither the cast nor the plot. About the game Bruce Willis, James McAvoy and Samuel L. Jackson, I can only say one thing: as always, gorgeous! The girl from Split also coped with her role quite well. The psychiatrist aunt has a monotonous face throughout the film. It reminds me of Kristen Stewart in almost all of her films.
But all my attention was focused mainly on James McAvoy, and he coped, as I said, perfectly. In "Glass" we discovered not only new traits of character already known to us some of his personalities, we also learned about new ones. It is amazing that so many different people live together in one person. And each of them James reveals perfectly. And his relationship with Mr. Glass is something!
Speaking of him. Such a lively, extraordinary intelligence in such a broken body. The story of his childhood will touch even the heart of stone. But people with this disease really do exist. Yes, they do, because it is not life. A person cannot simply say hello to someone by the hand or kick a ball with his foot, because any careless movement will simply break his bone in the floors. It is difficult to imagine how difficult these people are in life, and do not want to.
So, let’s not talk about sadness, but rather about Bruce Willis. Aged, of course, decent. But that only made him more charismatic. It's hard to believe that this old man with a gray beard is capable of knocking down a steel door. What can we say about fighting the beast? But nevertheless, "Invulnerable" does not lose its grip at 50 years.
Just a few words about the plot . You can't call it twisted or unpredictable, but I didn't find any drawbacks in it. Unless, when the real plan of Mr. Glass was found out, this was what is called a “turn”!
Musical accompaniment pleased no less. Especially Physics, who played in the opening credits.
As for the end, there is clearly a hint of continuation, or I misunderstood it. But if there is a sequel, I just wonder who. The new super-genius psycho villains? Or will the main characters’ relatives start messing with something? I don't know, but anyway, the movie was great.
Review of the film “Glass” or broken hopes of fans
I'll start with the script. Overall, the heart of the story is well written. There are twists, there is no violation of the course of events and there is some dynamics. Unfortunately, there are many butts: first, the atmosphere and mood of Split did not enter into a symbiosis with Invulnerable. In a common plate of three heroes, you get porridge. The first part was an independent fantastic movie, the second - a psychological thriller with a slight touch of mysticism, and the third was a run from genre to genre.
In addition, dialogues were very sluggish. There's a lot of -- there's a lot of them. The main idea of Elijah, David and the Beast chewed millions of times, thereby spending a lot of screen time. Take Sarah Paulson’s character: her lines are a constant reminder of her specialty and her willingness to save everyone. It's actually a dummy character. Speaking of them! Apart from our psychopaths, there's no one to mention except Ani Taylor-Joy. Price's mother is unscripted, Dunn Jr. is also amoebic, and the staff is generally as stupid as traffic jams.
Further: the operator coped with his task and throughout the story skillfully played with various plans and methods of shooting. The soundtrack did not make much impression. Colors, shades and locations of the painting have survived from Split, although something new and larger was expected.
And finally, the ending. I don't mean Mr. Glass's strategy, but what happens after. What these three “Gavriks” carried, did and played was a very unfortunate conclusion to the trilogy! Despite the fact that the minuses are radically more pros – the film is worth attention at least for the sake of McAvoy’s game and familiarity with the plot.
Glass is a clear example of how from rather template details you can make an extremely unusual design, full of both advantages and disadvantages. This is not an innovation and certainly not an art house, but at the same time the film seriously stands out from the clip & #39; hero' tapes. It is likely that this was the reason for such ambiguous attitude towards him. Before us is a fantasy, in which fiction itself almost does not have time. A fighter in which action is less than chatter. Thriller, trying to attack psychology, but, unfortunately, not up to emotional involvement. And also ' Glass' could be called a satire on superhero movies, but there are nuances.
In light of all this, I would say that we have a tape trying to swing in several directions at once, but not pulling any of them. The most important advantage is the extraordinary plot of the film, simply lost in the production, made in my opinion, extremely uneven. Everything that could become memorable is orchestrated as if it were a passing moment. Even the final was crumpled, although, definitely, it carries a very interesting idea. It is based on a simple idea: take an assumption about the possibility of the existence of special people – superheroes and supervillains and place them in a world that is completely unprepared for these very people. Moreover, in a world where these people themselves do not understand how they with their abilities can get used to it. Down with the pretentious and straight-forward handsome men in their underwear over their tights, you give them personalities. Another superstructure clings to this scheme: what if the heroes still begin to doubt to the heap whether their skills are real, and not by themselves, but by the pressure of external forces.
The above idea is both the achievement of the tape and its failure. The audience went to another movie ' according to comics ', the viewer thoughtfully expected to see something more than a sluggish attempt to stretch a simple puzzle to the level of a total twist, opening you more and more new meanings. Yes, there is not even a double, but a triple bottom, but it is served extremely poorly. I can say the same about character disclosure. They seem to be spelled pretty well, and played well, but something elusive is still missing. Although, it would seem, here you Grandpa Bruce is a master of playing ambiguous characters ' not without flaw' here is Samuel Jackson, for nothing that half of his role in the plot he plays the role of furniture. And here's James McAvoy, who is not just a lot - he is everywhere, and in a purely positive sense. His prank on a man with multiple personalities is simply masterpiece. And yet, despite all this, the heroes do not feel whole. They break up into separate scenes and dialogues.
No wonder many scold ' Glass ' for the tightness. Only here the matter is not in timekeeping, but rather in the fact that the film is served extremely ragged, as if sewn from several patches. Separately, the confrontation between the Warden and the Horde, separately, the attempts of the psychiatrist to convince the heroes of the unreality of what is happening, separately, the plans of Mr. Glass. Each of these parts could make a movie - thriller, action movie, arthouse. Together, this is something very strange, although, I confess, not without originality.
I wonder if M. Night Shyamalan thought in 2000 to shoot based on the film ' Invulnerable' the whole franchise? To be honest, this is doubtful, although the director insists on something else. His film not only did not collect much at the box office, but also fell into a time period when the theme of superheroes was irrelevant. But when the theaters appeared 'Split', which showed in the final of the same David Dunn from 'Invulnerable', it became extremely clear that Shyamalan never says goodbye to the past and is ready to put it in his service when necessary.
The events of the third film of the unexpected series unfold within a psychiatric hospital, where all the characters of the previous films thundered. David Dunn, Kevin and Elijah Price must undergo rehabilitation and accept the fact that they are ordinary people, although before that they thought very differently.
A nice-looking doctor honestly tries to help her patients, but she didn't know who she was really dealing with. It doesn’t matter if our guys are superheroes or not, they’re capable of incredible things. There is one small nuance in all of this... If the dark side wins, something terrible will happen. But David Dunn essentially remains in the fight with Price and Kevin, whose identity the Beast is still beyond control.
' Glass' defied the expectations of part of the audience because the audience wanted from Shyamalan some dramatic revelation, unconventional thoughts and amazing plot twists. In fact, the director simplified the plot as much as possible to tell us a story that absolutely everyone can understand. Shyamalan wanted to like us and I accept it. Of course, he could have created a much more complex work in terms of meaning, but his conclusions have the right to be heard and there is nothing frankly wrong in them.
The movie is worth watching if you’ve highlighted the past. Otherwise, not everything will be clear. Get ready to meet with outstanding personalities and find out how their confrontation ends. Do not expect anything outstanding, but just enjoy watching the film.
7 out of 10
So ended the trilogy of M. N. Shyamalan. It is worth saying that the film “Glass” is really well polished and has no stains, but still, like the material, it is quite fragile and in one place still gave a crack. The third film came out an order of magnitude above Split, but slightly fell short of the integrity of Invulnerable. However, Negliattu Shyamalan deserves praise for his originality and scrupulousness, even top directors of world blockbusters can learn from him. Despite the huge time difference between all the films of the trilogy, (especially if you start from Invulnerable), there are no blunders or dockings in the story of Glass, the plot begins literally immediately after the story of Kevin Crumb, but does not accelerate the painful hour and a half as in Split, but gradually pushes the viewer and each of the characters to the main idea of the trilogy and I must say, does it very competently. . .
In this film, almost every scene and dialogue makes the viewer think. Weigh the pros and cons, and then finally lean to any version, at least until the very end. The main advantages of the film “Glass” can be attributed to the excellent performance of the actors, each of them would like to pay due attention, as well as the story, the idea, references and a good soundtrack, which at the right moments keeps in suspense almost as in the firm embrace of Fincher’s thrillers. A huge disadvantage, which, in my opinion, covers everything, is the ending, which does not allow the viewer to finally decide, and what does he believe in himself?
So who are our heroes?
David Dunn (Bruce Willis) – a person with an elevated pain threshold, strong immunity, great strength for the average sapiens and strong bones, working as a security guard who later opened his business, or simply Invulnerable Superman?
Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) – a person suffering from multiple personality disorders, one of which has supernatural abilities or simply changes the chemistry of the brain and he shows the behavior of animals?
Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) is a brilliant man who is struck by a rare genetic disease that causes his bones to break like glass or just a psychopath with megalomania.
Among other things, the director selected all the actors who played roles in previous films, it is nice to see the grown-up Spencer Trit Clark (who played the son of David Dan in the first film, also known for the role of the boy Lucius in Gladiator). A separate word deserves a cameo of M. N. Shyamalan himself, who appears to an attentive viewer in each film, and what is even more interesting is the same character!
Playing the main actors in Glass is worthy of applause standing, even despite the clumsiness of Bruce Willis in some scenes, still surprised by his charisma. About James McAvoy I want to talk endlessly, as to play 24 personalities is really difficult, the reincarnation occurs right in the frame, talented, vivid, and most importantly I want to say: “I believe”. Jackson, as in many paintings, remains a snob, but here he does it perfectly, smokes a pipe in a brilliant suit, and also brings all the characters together and conquers the viewer with his distorted view of the world.
Idea of the film
It is worth admitting that the main idea of the film is fully revealed after watching the entire trilogy. And this idea is not even an attempt to create an adapted version of a superhero film with Nollan realism for everyone, it's a look at the world and how we perceive it. Through the philosophy of Mr. Glass, the director gives thought to the frustration of our inner world. Who do we want to be or who do we seem to be? And this idea allows you to rock the plot like a boat floating on the waves, it's a trick that allows you to hook people with different views to the screen, rivet their interest and say, what if this is true? For people with a material view of things, everything that happens will mean a physical constant that fills the characters, changes them, and manipulates them. People who prefer a mystical explanation of natural phenomena, who believe that man is not the measure of all things, will be inclined to the unique abilities of heroes. How do you explain David’s phenomenal power? Or the Beast's ability to climb walls? Does science have all the answers? But there is a moment where Shyamalan tries to reconcile everyone. He introduces the character of the secondary plan - a psychiatrist, performed by Sarah Paulson. The result of her work will be to bring all the heroes together. This scene is the culmination of the author’s reflections on the duality of our perception of the world. And the allusion here are comics, but in the universe of Shyamalan they play a contextual role, through them, we like a prism see the view of Elijah Price on the world and what is happening. Substituting this with the help of comics was a peculiar move back in 2000 when creating the drama “Invulnerable”, when the era of popular films about heroes was just beginning and it was necessary to find the ground. Glass is not an attempt to explain unexplained things or people’s actions, but rather an allegory of comics and the characters we usually perceive them to be. That is why, the viewer is constantly given a rational explanation of all the abilities of Dan, Crumb, Price, as well as their weaknesses, but not everything becomes clear here, the boat rocks again and Elijah Price again makes you think about what is happening in a new way. The antagonist gives strength to the protagonist through faith in himself, and who are we if we do not believe in ourselves? Involuntarily, you begin to recall all kinds of world records and all the phenomena associated with people registered in the modern world. Now, for a moment, imagine how it would have been explained hundreds of years ago, a thousand years ago? Power many times greater than dexterity, ability to change behavior, sharp mind, in the end - the end of invention! And so a myth is born, which acquires an allusion, in this case (on the history of the film) through the comic book. Mr. Glass's philosophy is compelling, it gives rise to reflection, but so does the psychiatrist. Who's ultimately right? Are there people who have abilities beyond their physical development, or are we creating a false reality by limiting our powers?
Unfortunately, the director took the answer, and this is the main disadvantage of the film - its ending. “The Birth of a New Universe,” but why and who needs it when the Marvel era is in the making? In the end, it becomes clear that Shyamalan still planned to create his own image of realism for superhero cinema. We were shown a well-veiled trilogy of superheroes among us rather than a good, clever, psychological thriller. Is it worth watching?
If you watched the previous ones, then yes, even if you dig so deep in the messages, and if you missed, then you will not miss anything masterpiece. Who fits? Definitely for fans of smart cinema. Fans of action, dynamic action - this time by.
6.5 out of 10
What can you expect to see a movie with such a star cast? The title “Glass” together with the name of the director, we did not talk about anything, about the previous paintings from this series I have never heard of, and therefore, when the question arose “what would it be to go tonight?”, it was immediately decided in favor of this work, primarily thanks to old men Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson.
Doubts didn't come immediately. The film started quite cheerfully and with a good supply of intrigue, but by the first scene of the confrontation between David and the Beast, what was happening on the screen began to give some very obvious unnaturalness: shrieking schoolgirls, without any horror in the eyes; strange behavior and speeches of a male boy (even this person and 9 years old, but she behaves like a teenager with a delay in development); his absolutely unimpressive transformation into the Beast with the tearing of clothes and bloating cheeks near the homeless shelter (what did he kill? And what was meant by a phrase addressed to one of them: “I am you”?
After a rather sluggish scene of the struggle of two seemingly superheroes, but in the appearance of just grown men, the film smoothly plunges us into the hospital interiors, which became for two viewers in our person the nightmare of the evening.
Endless dialogues; references to backstory, about which we had no idea; stupidity of secondary heroes; absurdity of the order and methods of work in the clinic supposedly strict regime; protractedness of each scene and almost complete absence of any dynamics of the plot.
I honestly didn't know if they were real superheroes, and Dr. Ellie Staple practically convinced me that the three were ordinary psychos. I sincerely believe that such a turn of the plot would explain a lot and lead the film into a reliable, well-trodden channel of the thriller.
We sincerely expected from the film a bright reversal, a flash, a transition from hospital despair to an action comparable at least to the beginning of the work. Only a belief in the light and the beautiful kept us from getting up and leaving the cinema in the middle of the story. But all the dynamics boiled down to dull ceilings with sleepy special forces, and the final fight of two antagonists did not dispel the feeling of boredom for a second. The revelation was the presence in the roadway of a pit of truly Russian proportions. We certainly didn’t expect to see it.
Disclosure of the global idea of the plot in the last minutes also did not inspire. There are truths, there are opponents of truth, and people should really know. Yes, it is true, of course, it is a sacred matter, but is it so easy, as shown, to convey it to society, and is it so necessary for the masses? This is something that everyone will decide for themselves.
As a holiday, we met the final credits and, wiping away tears of joy, hurried away to common sense, people without superpower, away from the tired philosophy of “you just need to believe in yourself”, besides wrapped in such a nondescript, dreary film packaging.
Not good. The film is drawn like a boa constrictor. He just does not keep his attention - you want to look at the clock, at the neighbors, at a glass of Coke, look back on the life lived or think about the futility of being - in short, anything but what allegedly happens on the screen.
The film director himself is a very interesting figure: he is able to create intriguing plots and unexpected endings. I liked his Invulnerable, it had something that you can’t catch by the tail, but it turns history into an experience that you want to experience, into which you want to penetrate the mind and realize completely – like any beauty, the secret of which is that it attracts, but it is impossible to understand it or possess it. In other words, there was a mystery in Invulnerable – it wasn’t intrusive, but it was clear – it was clearly there.
McAvoy showed a very expressive game, it is pleasant and amazing to watch his reincarnations. I never thought that acting could be so powerful, truly brutal, even monstrous, but in the best, almost reverent sense of the word. There is no doubt that talent is born, a simple artisan from art will not master this, here you need a “spark”.
Bruce Willis just did what he was asked to do. He did not see a rush, all the time through fatigue. He looks like a heavyweight boxer whose best fights are behind him. You respect him, but deep down, you know that's not the case anymore. As a chess lover, I had a similar feeling watching the performances of the aged Kasparov. Anyone in the subject will understand.
Samuel L. Jackson perfectly withstood the character once given to his character - as if there were not all these long years between the two films. Jackson as if simply, easily spinning the wheels of his stroller, easily slipped from "Unbreakable" in the last part of the trilogy. An amazing artisan from art, whose diligence and diligence is so great that in itself is already akin to a great talent.
The movie itself. The plot and the main message is not so bad, but leaves a feeling of disembodiment, lack of meat on the bones. The film commits the worst sin - it does not cause emotions, neither positive nor negative. It only raises questions in the brain, “Will it all end there soon?” He is so dreary that he does not even cause irritation, but only bewilderment and persistent regret: “Why am I not somewhere else now?” In the movies, there was a guy behind my back who used to swear. This was the case when it was not annoying, but fun, adding at least some action. I was in solidarity anyway.
Conclusion. I do not recommend watching the movie “Glass”. Seeing him is like looking at Mozart (Makeva) with a leaky Bayan in his hands. Mozart does everything he can, but he has a leaky Bayan in his hands, and that changes everything. Think again about the futility of being - I assure you, it will be much more exciting.
American director M. Night Shyamalan has always been able to surprise. There is a certain aesthetic, personal handwriting in his cinematic creations. "Invulnerable", "Visit", "Split" - many of his works aroused keen interest in me, because the director with a sober look at things simply is not able to make such an unusual movie. To me personally, Shyamalan reminds me to some extent of a mad scientist who cannot be stopped, so great is his desire to create something new. And despite the fact that almost all of his films lose a lot after the director’s usual unexpected plot twist, concluded in the last fifteen minutes of timekeeping, they are still pleasant to watch. However, despite this, before going to the movies for his new thriller, I was faced with the thought several times: “Maybe we shouldn’t?” The percentage of freshness "Glass" on the aggregator site "Rotten Tomatoes" did not inspire confidence. Once again, I was convinced that the opinion of critics does not always correspond to an objective assessment of art. Is it true that many people didn’t like it so much? I had to watch a large number of reviews of Internet critics on the video hosting "YouTube" only to come across the terrible truth - their nitpicking is so pathetic that it is not worth absolutely nothing.
They complain: "There's not much action in the movie!" But who canceled the talking movie? Tarantino and Jarmusch, then, should they stand on their shoulders if they dare to give more importance to dialogue than to action? They whine: "The plot is falling apart due to an overabundance of characters!" Tell that to Leo Tolstoy or Anton Chekhov. They shout: "Why are the actions of heroes devoid of motivation?" Even realizing that this is far from the case, a counterargument still appears in my head: “It’s as if the heroes of your favorite Marvel films had some motivation ...” In fact, the film “Glass” can be justified for an infinite amount of time, and at least one argument can be brought to each reproach in its direction. It upsets me when people listen to the opinion of pseudo-critics who distort the facts, so as not to stand out from the general background. Now “Glass” is very fashionable, there is nothing you can do.
First of all, I would like to praise the director for the maximum confidence in his product. It would seem to combine two completely different films – the idea of the craziest, a priori doomed to failure. But that didn’t stop him, he went to the end. This approach commands my respect. Shyamalan himself explained that the main idea of the Eastrail 177 trilogy is that in each of us, ordinary and ordinary Clark Kentahs, there are supernatural abilities. Naturally, we are not talking about letting the web out of your hands, etc., but about the elementary human potential, its ability to do something more, once you break out of the gray routine.
The main character of the first film, the guard David Dunn, played by Bruce Willis, met with dissatisfaction with his life every morning. In the end, however, he finds himself and finds his place in the world, in contrast to Elaigi Price, Mr. Glass, performed by Samuel L. Jackson. He had to pay a heavy price, but he was able to help Bruce Willis, but not himself. The hero of "Split", Kevin Wendell Crumb, in the image of which he invested his artistic skills James McAvoy, is a mentally ill person with a multiple personality disorder, a consequence of emotional abuse by his mother. Shyamalan’s creation of this character was obviously inspired by the life story of Billy Milligan, whose 24 personalities with a variety of talents and IQ levels left an indelible mark on the history of world psychiatry. Some of his personalities were aggressive towards the world, and one of them, Adalana, committed several rapes, for which Billy was placed in a psychiatric clinic for 11 years. This fact was the impetus for the emergence of the idea of the main intrigue of Split - the personality of Kevin with the simple name "The Beast". Shyamalan allegedly hints that even one person is capable of many things, sometimes even impossible. The Beast - the apogee of Kevin's capabilities, manifested in the belief of other personalities that he has control over the uncontrollable. Kevin’s personalities at the end of Split have their full potential, and give the viewer a kind of promise, which is a kind of reserve for the continuation of the story.
The Final Issue, designed to complete the storylines of the previous two films, was released in 2019. The project was expected by the general public, who loved Split so much. However, numerous negative reviews of professional and responses of non-professional critics not only undermined the confidence of the average viewer in the project, but even instilled in him the idea that Shyamalan returned to the role of “bad director”. For me, the film “Glass” is a phenomenon that says a lot about the director not only as an artist, but also as a person. Knight Shyamalan is a real humanist who loves people with all his heart, although he does not recognize much that is dear to them. Because of this rather simple and romantic message of the film somehow passed by the eyes and ears of many viewers.
Don Kay, a critic of the website "Den of Geek!", writes in his review that Shyamalan is cunningly mocking the viewer. There's some truth to that. The director violates the rules of building a classic superhero movie, spits on what he could promise the audience through his characters, does so that we, with all our desire, could not predict the end of the story unfolding on the screen. Periodically during viewing, you can encounter the idea that the director was inspired not by comics at all, but by the tragedy of William Shakespeare. And although my thought may sound naive, but a kind of shocking and a desire to challenge the inexperienced public inherent in both artists.
From a camera point of view, the film also raises no questions. In principle, the trailer can already understand that “Glass” plays with a wide range of different colors. Many shots from the film are so attractive that they can simply be framed and hung on the wall. It is surprising that Mike Giulakis does not have a special authority in Hollywood, and his talent is as much underestimated as the tapes in the production of which he participated.
West Dylan Thordson's soundtrack sets the tone for the film with its violin cries, creates the right mood. Personally, I consider the best track of the film the composition that accompanies the opening shots - "Physicks".
In general, "Glass" - a pleasant picture, completing the "superhero" triptych Shyamalan. The director skillfully ridicules modern entertainment films and skillfully mixes different genres, creating something unusual that does not fit into any framework. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why viewers and critics rejected Glass. After all, if I remember correctly, all experimental films, among which there are many cult masterpieces, were initially considered the product of the writers’ insanity. Perhaps Shyamalan’s new opus will not pass the test of time and will not be recognized, at least not a good film product, but it will definitely not leave anyone indifferent.
7.5 out of 10
First there was “Intangible”, then “Split”, and finally so everyone expected “Glass”, which was to put an end to the old-new Shyamalan trilogy. But in the case of Knight, everything is never easy, he is not the kind of director to do everything by stamps. He is one of those Hollywood directors who has his own unique author's handwriting, his films can definitely say "It was shot by Shyamalan", everyone knows about his signature final twist, which even turned into a meme, but honestly it is the craving for unexpected plot twists and spoils him as a director. Having imagined himself a great creator, he makes a serious movie with very funny blunders, the whole film can be surprised by elementary script errors that are literally conspicuous, he manages to contradict even himself, and there is a feeling that Knight’s plot is of last interest. The most important thing for him to stun the viewer with an unprecedented ending, so that on the way out of the cinema he thought “wow, how unexpected”, but frankly, it would be better for the director to care how to make a smart film, and not what eventually came out. Shyamalan united the heroes 'Invulnerable' and Split, putting them in one psychiatric hospital, and assigned a psychiatrist to them, so that he conducted educational conversations with them about their “superheroism” and this is actually the whole plot.
Almost all the action takes place in a mental hospital, each of the characters has fun there in his own way - Elijah skates through it as if nothing had happened, Kevin changes his personality without much meaning, Dunn just sits, there is practically no action, as well as the relationship between the characters. Dunn is expected to have some complaints about what Price has done, but he has no antipathy for him. The whole action centers on Kevin and Mr. Glass, and the Overseer is the third superfluous, accomplished a couple of feats at the beginning of the film and quietly receded into the background. It is not known what Shyamalan did with the actors, but they play as if in discord, you can see that the role is really spelled out only in McCavoy, he changes his personality every five minutes, but it gets boring by the middle of the film, and gradually begin to perceive the change of personalities as usual curves, Jackson and Willis just shine their face not trying very hard, and it turns out this strange triangle. Realizing that nothing can be done with the characters in such a limited space, Shyamalan adds another three auxiliary characters to each of our heroes so that they move the plot as much as they can, this is, respectively, Kevin’s friend from Split, as well as Elijah’s mother and son Dunn, who are already familiar to us from Invulnerable, there is nothing to say about them since the characters have not changed at all. The doctor performed by Sarah Paulson is most expressionless, the director pokes her, like everyone else, in the face with a camera, but the sensations of all this are very comical.
In general, the manner of shooting Shyamalan is a separate case, everything looks cheap, fights are poorly staged, the actors put their eyes in the camera, probably in this way he tried to achieve a sense of documentary what is happening but the right atmosphere he does not reach and when we are told that you have superheroes, it becomes even funnier how can you consider a schizophrenic a hero? Or the same Jackson character who's smart just because there's huge holes in the script? The only hero is David Dunn, but he hardly shows himself. It is clear that Universal wants a universe like Marvel, but in their quest to make money, they went very strange ways trying to cross the stories of Split and Invulnerable, getting a similar misunderstanding. The main idea that the film is trying to convey has long been outdated, and looks very naive, but the director conveys it with such importance as if he was the only one who thought of it, “here is my fresh thoughts about superheroes.”
Trying to shoot something new in this genre, Shyamalan uses all the old clichés of superhero films and even cartoons, again villains, again heroes, he dutifully bows his head before the superhero genre, afraid to laugh at the absurdity and pathos of the genre, on the contrary, doubling them even more, and it turns out another conveyor superhero film. In the end, there will be a twist as usual, but as I have already written, there is a feeling that Knight shoots his films only to stun the viewer in the final, but all this is designed only for the primary effect, in subsequent views he has nothing to surprise since the finale is known, and everything else is simply filmed very poorly.
The director M. Night Shyamalan is a very ambiguous director. The quality of his works can be compared with the roller coaster: from the magnificent and roof-bearing 'The Sixth Sense' and 'Invulnerable' to the godless 'The Lord of the Elements' and 'After our era'. Both successes and fatal falls. However, the rather unexpected trilogy presented by the film 'Split' (Sudden sequel 'Invulnerable') breathed new life into the director. At least at the time, that was what critics and hardened fans said. And many people became interested in his work after the picture with McAvoy.
Well? Did Knight keep the bar? Did he stay true to himself or did he fall back into the delusions of a madman and finally bury himself? - Let's try to figure it out.
So-so, briefly and in order!
Plot
Knight has repeatedly proved that he likes to twist the plot twists, knows how and practices. And in this picture, he will not fall into the dirt. However, it should be noted that the film is not independent. It is completely tied to the previous two parts, in isolation from which the cuco will clearly look. However, the whole place works in amazing synergy, complementing and continuing each other’s ideas. The plot twists are unexpected, the manner of narration at least to someone and will seem a little sticky, in my opinion perfectly conveys the atmosphere of doubt and mental instability, which is the red line drawn through all three films.
Characters and Actors
It's all over the place, James McAvoy. And no wonder, because he plays not only for himself, but also for ... and yet you know yourself, and if you do not know, you will understand. He's great and there's nothing more to say. But colleagues in the workshop are not inferior. Sarah Paulson was very good. The way she speaks and looks really make you believe what her character says. Separately, I want to note Spencer Trit Clark - a very pleasant surprise.
Overall impression and outcome
It came out briefly, but I wanted to tell you as briefly as possible and without spoilers. Missed the moment with the action, because that is not the main component of the film. However, it does exist and it is quite good. Here it is worthwhile to understand that this film is not about guys in tights from Marvel, and therefore you do not need to wait for something over. The action is as down-to-earth as possible, as far as its atypical story of superheroes & #39 can be shown in our harsh reality.
The picture is based on the play of actors, on dialogue. I want to look at their interaction. If you’ve seen the previous two movies, you’ll be thrilled by the interactions between the characters. A strong and nervous atmosphere is attached.
Like the movie 'Split' or 'Invulnerable' - what else are you waiting for? Run to watch!
Unknown to the previous two paintings? - Check them out and question ' see or not' fall away by itself!
Love ' grounded' stories about harsh realities with atypical heroes - Your choice!
P.S. A movie to think about. Don't expect him to have a stunning ride. He's good just the way he is. From the atmosphere and style of the previous parts, it was clear what kind of fruit would be. And therefore quite incomprehensible reaction of critics, which the film is completely hounded. And about self-styled critics-videobloggers, I do not say at all. They scolded the film just for company.
The first film from the trilogy M. Night Shyamalan was released in 2000. Suffering from excessive expectations, "Invulnerable" was received coolly. However, when he came out on DVD, he suddenly made a splash, becoming in some ways iconic (at least recognizable) for an entire generation.
And so many years later, Night Shyamalan continued his film trilogy, revealing it within one universe.
First appeared ambiguous "Split" with a cameo character Bruce Willis, David Dun. Then the “boom” from the appearance of Bruce was colossal.
Honestly, I didn’t even say a word to anyone at Universal. When they first watched Split, they didn't know Bruce would be there. He wasn't in the script. Did they react? "What-O-O-O?" (From an interview with M. Night Shyamalan)
This is not surprising, recently the viewer really swallows Easter eggs, cameos, sudden references. It's a doll effect. You watch one movie and it takes you to another and more and more. And often that kernel of stumbling, that very culmination of the plot becomes a disappointment of high expectations.
Shyamalan managed to create his own author's universe, moreover, the finale of "Glass" is open and gives space for continuation, the appearance of new characters and new "matreshkas".
Generally, it’s in my spirit to first come up with one thing (“Glass” here began with a scene in which there are three people on a train), and then string ideas and ring them. Well, I'm very attached to my stories, clinging to them. By the way, I already have a new idea for the film, but I won’t tell you which one yet (From an interview with M. Night Shyamalan).
Yes, and the bet on comics worked as well as possible. Shyamalan waited a decade and broke into a story that, in the face of the popularity of numerous film adaptations of color print publications, really attracted its audience.
The most difficult thing is to competently combine stories, make the narrative untightened, reveal the characters within the framework of the plot situation. And then the problems started. For someone who came to see the film without knowing the existence of Invulnerable and Split, the action looks confusing and the explanations are drawn out. For someone who wants to see the trilogy complete, explanations overwhelm the narrative. Shyamalan tries to get out of this conflict using flashbacks. In the end, the film is saturated with them.
In general, when it comes to conflicts, merging films into one trilogy seems like a strange solution. “Invulnerable” is a thriller, “Split” is as close to horror as possible, “Glass” swings at the superhero epic. The existence of characters of these genres in one frame is confusing and raises questions. Oil is added to the fire by the character Sarah Paulson, who convinces people with superpowers that they do not have these abilities (although everyone knows that this is not the case). As a result, the viewer, who already suffers from the protracted plot plot, suffers from the distance of the climax - the characters must first go through the path of doubt and self-doubt and only then the dynamics of events will appear.
However, the cast is pleasing to the eye. Here and Bruce Willis, who feels quite "in his plate."
I knew how I wanted to see him on screen. Such an adult child. And most importantly, Dunn never aspired to be a superhero. But he just can't stop and stop helping people. And this is his burden" (From an interview with M. Night Shyamalan
And McEvoy, whose task is now to play all 24 personalities, with which he copes with “hurrah” and generally appears as a kind of decoration of the film.
I think that James thinks of himself more in the image of a genre, characteristic, and not in the image of a movie star, which is just enough to walk in the frame. In addition, he is a physical actor, prone to pantomime, working with body language. Obviously, he likes to play radical reincarnations – a woman, a child, a beast. And I used it" (From an interview with M. Night Shyamalan
Samuel L. Jackson in the image of a bright and crazy, but damn brilliant character also looks very organic and convincing. Secondary characters pleasantly complement the picture.
The result is a good superhero drama, sometimes overloaded and drawn out, but pleasant to the eye. Undoubtedly, the denouement leaves questions about its relevance, but the positive impressions of the film do not interfere (albeit slightly blurred). The tape is definitely worthy, perhaps not deep and thoughtful, but still viewing.
6 out of 10
It was the first time I signed up for a review here, and no film had ever encouraged me to do so. To be more precise, it was the tons of negativity that made me stand up. What is happening now is the main point of view of the author of the film. Any action strikes opposition that brings chaos.
Yes, Shyamalan made too many mistakes in his films, but Glass is not one of them.
Let's not be biased. Those people who leave negative comments do so because they try to compare Shyamalan’s universe to DC and Marvel, but that’s a huge mistake, because he doesn’t even try to compete with them, because he did something different and deeper than the templates of Marvel and DS.
What is the difference in the universe?
And the fact that he poses the main question is not how superheroes cope with evil, but why superheroes appear at all. The root cause itself is important, because it is because of the root cause that motivation should come from.
In the film, a very important part is that when superheroes appear, there are villains who must balance. The main difference of his film is that we can feel a sense of belonging to all points of view, both positive and negative characters. We can understand them because they are human. Their motivations are so simple that they resonate with everyone.
The invulnerable fights evil because he feels responsible after his trauma.
The Horde wants to prove that the Beast is real, to prove its power before the world and so that no one dares to hurt them any more. It was a childhood injury for Kevin.
Glass, too, wants them to know and pit them against each other, this is an attempt to prove that there are superheroes in the world and that these are special people.
The clover organization wants to hide this fact for the reason that superheroes create super enemies and plunge everything into chaos, in which ordinary people suffer.
Everyone has limited powers and they are all flawed and we can understand everyone, regardless of whether we like them or not.
The whole movie is on edge. Great acting, a bunch of twists, which in my head only: 'What? 39, may seem long in some places, but when we get to the end, we like how we are fooled. It's nice that the trailer didn't leak any of the key points at all. That's how you run the trailers.
Yes, there are no super fights in which people break whole houses and do not destroy planets, but epic from what is happening is not lost, because here they break the whole consciousness of a person, which is more important than cardboard houses. Instead of destroying planets with the clicks of fingers, here words destroy the usual vision of people and make you really think about something more.
A film in which the victim forgives and understands the abuser. In which the main villain carries a positive mission, even through terrible deeds, but because he believes he is right. Where the main positive character can be defeated in a fight because his weaknesses are found. The battle of reason, not fists, is a gift for those who are tired of tons of meaningless action. Here every action is justified and meaningful.
Finale with a taste of bitterness from the loss of villains and heroes. We want to see them again, because they have so much potential that could not be revealed in one film, but the essence is not in these characters, but that they are just the beginning, which started a new branch. I hope that Shyamalanu allocates a budget for a sequel or at least a series.
First, the banter and, first of all, over himself and his worlds from Shyamalan. And secondly, the biblical story. Not even the Bible, but the New Testament. The Three Messiahs and a Society That Convinced Them Of Ordinary. Well, there can't be a superman from Galilee, let alone from the next street.
It has its Magdalene, its Mother, and its Apostle. Yeah, as usual, there's a victim. Rather, the bearers of the new message (good or bad news) are sacrificed, crucified, even if their own hands.
' The Apostle', 'Magdalene' and 'Mother'—bring the message to people. It's like 2000 years ago. Only instead of Golgotha - a madhouse.
A big plus of Western cinema is to remake the source so that no one comes to mind the source itself. We can't do that. The maximum for Jesus is Yeshua. And this is from the brilliant Bulgakov. And here's the Beast with the prototype in Billy Milligan, Glass and Invulnerable. . .
And yes, comic books are an alternative narrative. Why not? Everything you can think of and imagine is actually real.
In modern Hollywood, it is difficult to find a more controversial figure than M. Night Shyamalan. Having trumpeted about himself to the whole world thanks to 'Sixth Sense', the director managed to conquer box office peaks more than once, then get involved in blockbusters that almost cost him his career. Unable to dispose of big money, the director again returned to the fact that he started and put an interesting thriller 'Visit' and then 'Split' which returned him to the highest echelons of Hollywood.
The story of the maniac with two dozen personalities turned out to be so fascinating that Shyamalan took and inserted Bruce Willis’ cameo into the picture. And in the role of David Dunn, the main character 'Invulnerable' 2000. Thus, fans and foes of Shyamalan suddenly realized that the director started to build a franchise, the third film of which will be unifying.
The main events ' Glass' take place in the walls of a psychiatric clinic, where David Dunn, Kevin from ' Split' and Mr. Glass from the same ' Invulnerable' got there. The attending physician of the heroes tries to understand their complex psychology, but it is worth noting that each character has its own characteristics and is ready at any time to throw unexpected trump cards on the table.
Shyamalan never stops cheating on himself. In his film a lot of plot twists and unexpected revelations. Not all of them deserve attention, but in general ' Glass ' it turned out not bad. Each viewer has their own expectations about the film and it is not surprising that part of the audience took it into bayonets. For example, I ' Glass & #39; I liked it more and I consider it a strong thriller with well-discovered characters and digestible conclusions.
I believe that everyone should evaluate the film for themselves. 'Glass' It turned out to be memorable and you will definitely not forget it so easily. At least James McAvoy's acting speaks for itself. The identity of his hero is back in business and who knows what he's up to.
7 out of 10
Of all the arts, the most important for us are the cinema and the circus. Comics?
Thriller is not a suitable definition of genre for this film by M. Night Shyamalan. Even if we apply such an “indefinite” definition as “psychological”, then this does not make Glass a thriller. This is a screened supercomic with all the basic characteristics of a classic comic book: the sequence of frames - drawings - pictures, the verbal component in the form of dialogues of the characters, the non-verbal component as a background and the frame limitation of pictures. And, of course – Superhero, Supervillain, representatives of Good or Justice and Dark Forces.
In the center is always some one character as the basis of the picture. It can be the Beast in all its guises with a semblance of vomiting before each reincarnation, a pseudopsychiatrist with an asymmetrical face, a bored (or exhausted?) hero of Bruce Willis.
And each of them gives the viewer his dose of verbal component. The mentoring instructions of the psychiatrist Ellie Staple almost immediately make you doubt her professional affiliation, she would be more suitable for a pastoral soutana. The Beast - Kevin Crumble - etc. gives out long monologues on the mountain. But they are more like exercises in acting, not the schizophrenic delusions of a maniac: the actor is beautiful, the hero is not at all convincing.
Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson), appearing in his visual part of the comic, gives the film undoubted intrigue and dynamics, forcing the viewer to focus on solving the plan he conceived.
At the same time, around all these pictures there may be other actors who should do something according to the plot, for example, called police officers, or hospital security, but the director periodically safely forgets about them.
As the final chord of the victory of Good over Evil in the comic book - in the picture in front of the viewer a close-knit team of fighters for the victory of Justice. The fact that this team is made up of representatives of different generations, different gender and race makes it somewhat comical. And the director’s message that real superheroes are ordinary smart boys, selflessly loving girls and understanding grandmothers – do not even need to be deciphered.
But the young orderly is sorry. Although, he should review the film about Hannibal Lecter and be more careful in his workplace.
I don't recommend the movie.
Honestly, what would you like about this movie? James McAvoy game? I disagree. We have already seen this in 'Split' He certainly plays well, but not to pull this movie out of the abyss. And, most importantly, Shyamalan clearly does not trust McAvoy’s acting, since when each character appears, he considers it necessary to voice his name, and we ourselves must understand what this character is! Let not from the very beginning it was necessary to abandon the names, but at least in the middle of the film.
A new superhero universe, right? Oh, what universe? Who is there besides Bruce Willis? And does he come in by himself? This will remain unanswered, everyone perceives this hero in his own way.
Why did the movie come out so many years later? What did Bruce's hero do all these years? At least flashbacks showed, and it seems that he and his son were trampling on the spot and the only thing that happened in 19 years is that Willis has aged, and the son has grown up.
Next. I was in the movies in this picture and honestly, the reviews of people sitting behind and in front of me were negative, to put it mildly, people in my head (including me) had so many questions and non-junctions that crazy. There were those who left the theater at all - so the rating is clearly overestimated, sorry, but for this you can not put more than 3, each of the characters on a score or all three McAvoy - no matter, because Ulysses and Nick Furry do not play anything here at all, just shine their faces and everything.
Shyamalan, lock yourself in the room, sit down and write a film after which the audience will be delighted again and return their credit to you, but most importantly, write it now, while at least someone goes to your movies! Alas, but '6 feeling ' already forgotten!
3 out of 10
"Glass" is the third and final film of the peculiar superhero universe of M. Night Shyamalan.
The film tells the story of three unusual people who, under certain circumstances, end up in a psychiatric hospital. In this hospital, everything is run by a certain Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson), who will treat our patients for how she says ' a special form of megalomania'.
Patient #1: Elijah Price/Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson).
Elijah was a simple boy who had an amazingly terrible syndrome - ' brittle bone syndrome'. This ailment did not allow him to be like everyone else, any collision, fall or injury, became hell for him because his bones broke. But Elijah steered it in the right direction and over time acquired an intelligence that elevated him to the status of genius. . .
Patient #2: Kevin Crumb / Horde (James McAvoy).
Kevin was not much different from the average child, but ' care ' a father from the family radically influenced his fate. His mother went crazy and abused Kevin. And then his mind gradually invents new personalities, each of which is different from the other. Kevin himself went into oblivion, and the Beast came to replace him.
Patient #3: David Dunn/The Overseer (Bruce Willis)
An ordinary man. Normal work. A normal train. Accident and unusual consequences. David was a miracle survivor of a train passenger who was involved in an accident that left no one alive. And it paid off. David discovered the power of touch to reveal all the secrets of man. . .
Shyamalan is a stubborn person. Shooting what he thinks is a normal film, and the output turned out feces with a nomination for ' Golden Raspberry', he still did not quit directing. Something will shoot. And after another series of failures, comes out "Split", which collects the cashier and gives the green light to the sequel.
The cast is simply rich in star names: James McAvoy, which perfectly plays each personality, conveys its character and behavior. Samuel Jackson, who again took his typical role. And the cardboard Bruce Willis who has the same face in every movie. But all these factors give us an unusual interaction between the characters, which is interesting to watch.
Own
I wasn't expecting a sequel, so I wasn't interested in it. I liked 'Split' but I didn't want to watch it again. And so in the summer, during Comic-Con in San Diego' the trailer arrives ' Glass' and I'm like 'm, understand' I wasn’t interested because I thought the film wouldn’t show anything new, and it did, but it developed the existing ones.
After a series of films I was interested in, there was a lull. Premiere 'Glass'. And because I didn't overestimate my expectations, I liked the movie. I liked the way the story is presented, the meaning of the film itself and the acting. I was struck by the ending and even made me think.
Output
Watch 'Glass ' or not, your choice. The only thing I can say, before ' Glass' better see ' Invulnerable' and then 'Split' to understand what's in the film.