David Dunn (Bruce Willis) works in his own home alarm shop with his grown-up son Joseph (Spencer Trit Clark). Together with him, he secretly continues to fight crime, for which he receives the nickname “The Warden” on the Internet. When Kevin Crumb, torn apart by his many personalities, kidnaps a group of girls once again, Dunn begins his search. Their inevitable collision leads to the fact that the police capture both and are sent to Raven Hill Psychiatric Hospital, where they are already waiting for Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson).
She specializes in the study and rehabilitation of people who consider themselves superheroes. Working according to the theory that all her patients suffer from highly exacerbated megalomania, Staple wants to "cure" them, as well as her third patient Elijah Price, who has been in hospital all these years.
In order not to reveal further plot twists, you will have to stop at this point. Although there is no point in worrying that they can suddenly change the course of the picture and your perception.
Mm. Knight Shyamalan in 2016 showed the world one of the most stunning endings, combining his fresh film “Split” with his “Invulnerable” 2001. But tying them together in Glass has created a not-so-anticipated sequel to what heroes and villains are, whether self-belief is all it takes to overcome our limitations, and what happens if devotion to fictional mythology distorts one’s own sense of reality, rather than an ambitious and flawed sequel.
At a time when cinema is oversaturated with comic book adaptations, Glass could theoretically be a perfect commentary and self-reflective work, but it follows the inevitable path of any comic book sequel, straight-forwardly continuing past works that have lost their primary candor. "Glass" is more like a rash set of ideas, because it seems that the author is so interested in exploring existing concepts and combining his two previous stories into one grand symbiosis that he forgot to take care of the development of the characters. It's a continuation that seems more docile than necessary. The film turns a sinister commentary on the genre it also embodies into a boring blockbuster.
Anyway, it's not a bad movie. Shyamalan is arguably the most talented director of the last twenty years and it’s not just that he turned the expression “final twist” into property. Even as his work grew weaker and the feeling that his tail was wagging his dog increased, he was able to release The Visit and Split, proving his ability to capture audience attention. And even releasing script weak pictures, he remained a skilled visionary, which proves perfectly this time. The scene in which Elijah calmly rolls down the hallway in his wheelchair while carnage breaks out behind him is just one of many striking compositions he creates throughout the film.
In addition to the spectacular scenes, his acting ensemble is again at the highest level. James McAvoy takes over the screen every time he appears. From him a crazy cascade of personalities pour, filling his hero, resembling a crazy human radio, who does not know which station to stop at. With his game, he enhances not only the performance of two years ago, but also the very personality and identity of the character. Willis and Jackson, returning to the old character, perfectly understand what to do and how to move. And Charlaine Woodard (Elijah’s mother) and Spencer Trith Clarke, who played in Invulnerable, add the necessary nostalgia.
But all these advantages are not able to cope with superhero franchises and turn the genre inside out. Shyamalan’s confrontation with the ubiquity, popularity and dominance of superheroes gives Glass a low relevance. The director simply couldn’t handle the third and final part of the saga, like many other writers before him. What would happen if he got it right? We can only guess about this and hope that in some alternate universe everything is already known about it.
It should be noted that this picture concludes a trilogy of 19 years. The first of this series was released in 2000 "Unbreakable", there were also filmed magnificent.
Bruce Ullis and Samuel L. Jackson. The second film “Split” was released in 2016, here we were introduced to James McAvoy as Kevin Crump. The culmination was the film “Glass”. So if you want to feel the full satisfaction of watching a great story, you need to watch this series from beginning to end. Trust me, you'll be happy. The first film may seem boring and incomprehensible to you, the second will already make your hair on your head move, and the third film will simply plunge you into a stupor from unexpected plot twists, and the cult game of actors, from a cameo director and comic book seller with a length of 19 years, but the actor who played the son of the main character in Invulnerable Spencer Treat Clark appeared in the film Glass and not with a small, but a full-fledged role, it’s nice to watch.
James McAvoy, as well as after the film “Split” makes you not blink and look at his character with an open mouth the whole film, in my opinion he is just a genius of acting. Bruce Willis, like a good wine, only gets cooler and more brutal over the years, just like L. Jackson. Of course, I would like a little more screen time for these two heroes of our childhood. I want to mention Sarah Paulson, who may be known to you from the TV series “American Horror Story”. It's really cool when such talented actresses finally make it to the big screen. You could also see her in Netflix’s recent film “Bird Box.”
The ending of the film leaves a lot of questions, mixed feelings. Previous parts of the superhero trilogy belonged to different genres: the first leaned towards drama, the second – to horror. "Glass" tries to be everything and at once - funny in places, scary in places, dramatic in places.
Director M. Night Shyamalan also explained the gap of 19 years between the first and last picture, the fact that in 2000 the superhero movie was not in fashion, and the producers looked at the comics disparagingly, now when you watch this film, the atmosphere of a thriller-horror, and in the title of a superhero movie! And this, gentlemen, is a very cool and correct direction for a superhero, this is not Marvel with her Disney fairy tales and not DC with bombastic heroes. I hope this is only the birth of the Shyamalan universe, and there are still many such masterpieces waiting for us. The director himself says that this is the logical end of the trilogy, the ending of the film says something else. Of course, in our time, everything is decided by the box office. Let's help the film to get a good box office.
We finally got to the final film of the Shyamalan trilogy, albeit late, and now we are in a hurry to share our impressions with the world (at least with my subscribers).
The ratings of the picture from critics and profile publications were depressing. I really didn't want to go to the movies to check the picture on my skin. The day before, we watched "Unbreakable" for the first time.
A few words about him. In my opinion, Invulnerable is a great example of a textbook film for pseudo-intelligent people. Absolutely empty film with almost complete lack of plot, generously diluted with heroic pauses in dialogues. But! Since it doesn’t look like a dummy from the Murvels, people give themselves a wrapper, and praise this “smart” film by putting 10 on the KP.
With Split, the situation was different. I had never even heard of Unbreakable before, and I loved the movie. A good, chamber thriller, if not for one but - why the Beast made literally superman? On the other hand, I'm not Shyamalan, I don't understand.
“Glass” combines characters and their storylines from two previous, completely different films. It would seem that nothing good can come of it, but the result surprised me pleasantly.
So, Kevin Aka Beast, Mr. Glass and the dullest of these three, Superman for the Poor David Dann will be in the local Arkham and finally find out who is cooler. But that's right, seed.
What about acting? Old Jackson is always good. His character in Glass is more interesting than in Invulnerable. And for the story, Mr. Glass is more important.
The love of the fans and some of the fans, the man who made so many people go to these movies, James McAvoy, is normal. Kill me, but what about Split, what about Glass, I don’t see the actor’s brilliant performance for which he is so praised in these films. Curious? It's crooked. Entertainment? Entertainment. But nothing more. Maybe it's my personal subjective. Like the rest of the review.
The three main characters are closed by the character of Bruce Williss David Dunn. Of the main characters presented, he is the most boring. Yes, and Williss acting talents never shone, and even in the golden years of his career played with the emotionality of a stone. With old age, the pebbles only grew stronger. The most boring part of the movie.
From the extras I want to highlight Casey performed by Ani Taylor Joy. And it’s not just to give praise. In Split, she was formally the main character and played normally. Here Anya plays in the best traditions of Kristen Stewart. Where to go without a long cameo from the director. And also related to the first film of the trilogy. About the rest of the secondary heroes and extras to say nothing – do not infuriate and good.
The plot here does not shine with refinements, but serves as a quite strong basis for the events of the film and the disclosure of characters. Plus, it was not without Shyamalan’s favorite twists, which, in my opinion, quite well closed the fattest holes in the plot.
Separately, I want to highlight and praise the visual style of the picture. The movie looks nice. Maybe the color correction is good, maybe the lack of gloss familiar for entertainment cinema and an abundance of special effects. I like the picture again.
It would be a crime not to mention the humorous part of the film. Classically, there are no jokes in the picture. At least the director didn’t think so. But over the course of the film, I’ve been laughing in my voice more than once with local story explanations and dialogues. Dialogue in Shyamalan’s paintings is a separate conversation. As if they were written by a creature that had never seen or heard people communicate. Some alien, maybe, who studied our only records in the "Voice Network" or 'Extranet' And this adds to the picture such charm and a slight sense of phantasmagoria.
To sum up my verbiage. Despite all the negative fair reviews, the film is worth going to. You will not get bored and touch something alien to an ordinary, conditionally adequate person – the vision of Mr. Shyamalan. The film is not long, full of events and colorful (except for David) characters. The excellent conclusion of the trilogy is epic (adjusted for the reality of the picture), closing all the storylines and giving, suddenly, even ground for discussion with its interpretation of the origin of superheroes. Unlike the gum of mursels, it feels like a soul is invested in the film. I want to talk about it, I want to talk about it. Although objectively, in terms of scripting skills, this is not the best film in your life.
Many critics believe that this film is dedicated to the nature of heroism, the creation of superheroes. To me, the movie is complete nonsense. The movie was so long that I was constantly looking at the clock. The only thing that director M. Night Shyamalan did well was insert secret societies. This is a psychological drama involving secret societies. Conspiracy theory is the only highlight in psychological drama. “The Nature of Heroism” – Who Needs to Reveal Such a Secret? The average viewer needs a show, a surge of emotions, not a movie consisting of one conversation. Actor Samuel L. Jackson (he plays Mr. Glass) coped with the role of a boring hero on 5 plus. From Samuel L. Jackson and pulls moralizing boring.
Actor Bruce Willis plays a positive character, but is very boring. The movie is very boring. Some human superheroes, some secret societies. Who needs all this? Who will watch this absurdity and pay 250 rubles for a ticket? The nature of heroism, the psychiatric clinic, the secret societies are the end of a trilogy directed by M. Night Shyamalan. This director has his own view of superheroes and is very boring, not visual. There are few special effects in the film, but there are many words about superheroes. There's a lot of verbal diarrhea in the film.
The film is not spectacular and the plot is absurd. Is Mr. Glass committing suicide or is there some conspiracy? Mr. Glass is smart, but he's defenseless. David Dunn (played by Bruce Willis) is very receptive, but is afraid of water. In the film everything is absurd and it is very boring to watch in the multiplex
The title of the film "Glass" is unclear, only then we realize that Mr. Glass started some kind of game. Mind, the nature of heroism is all to be treated in a psychiatric clinic. The film smells of depression. The film is strange.
Film critics rating for the film ' Glass' Rotten Tomatoes 36%. At the same time, the prequels 'Split' and 'Invulnerable' - 77% and 69%, respectively. Find out why ' Glass ' did not like critics and still cool for pop culture.
Briefly on what can be considered fair minuses:
- References to the prequels, on which most of the plot is built, because of which the film may not look like an independent unit for everyone. There is a risk that for new viewers it may simply be incomprehensible.
- Insufficient disclosure of the motivations of some heroes: this is about the finale. On the one hand, this is intrigue and an unexpected finale, but its presentation was too crumpled and the prerequisites for this during the film itself were to some extent not enough.
- A somewhat romanticized relationship between Casey and Kevin (the hero of James McAvoy), which is hardly necessary here.
- In fact, the shift of the prequel genre.
And now why 'Glass' can be considered a cult for modern pop culture. Now movies about superheroes are experiencing their heyday - the Marvel franchise about the Avengers is one of the most successful in the history of cinema. DC, of course, periodically fail, however, their recent films ('Aquaman' in particular) make a really good box office. Simply put – now superheroes on the wave 'hype'. And to make a film in which one of the central characters is a fan of comics, while sincerely believing in superheroes and trying to reveal them and show the world is a real joy for real fans of the same Marvel or DC.
Add to this the fact that Mr. Glass (dubbed Mr. Glass) is played by Sam Jackson (Nick Fury of ' The Avengers'); who mentions such phrases as ' General Collection' and 'I discover superheroes'. These are the Bible references for those in the subject.
And there is also James McAvoy, who in ' X-Men' plays a young Professor Xavier. Beautiful combo. And, in isolation from the Supehero theme - a really talented game of James McAvoy, at least for which it is worth watching the film.
In the film there are such "Easter eggs" ' as the sign ' "True Marvel'", the font of which is similar to the original font of Marvel Studios and the phrase "' Birth of a new universe' directly in the context of comics.
Yes, we don’t get that kind of disclosure of Kevin’s personalities here, like in 'Split', from a psychological point of view. It's a movie of a different mood. At the same time, we get a decent cast (besides Sam Jackson and James McAvoy here and Bruce Willis with Sarah Paulson) and a really beautiful picture.
Those who love comic book movies should appreciate it. In fact, this film reveals the real construction of any simple comic book, its tactical moves and canon from the inside. All of these things are just fun.
If I didn’t watch, but I would blame myself later with thoughts ' what if the film is good?', and after watching the sensation is not what I would like to have.
For the first time I see such a thing when they make a continuation of two different films and merge into one.
In ' Avengers' and ' Justice League' simpler: Marvel gathered all his heroes, D.C. his, and preserved in one large 10 liter movie can.
I can't say that ' Glass' only causes spitting, no, by no means.
It's just, it's boring and not original.
' Invulnerable' there was a cool film from the time of Bruce Willis, when he had still strong nuts, and 'Split' - in general, a find film in which McAvoy, after a split personality in ' Dirt' forced by the writer's plan 'split' to act out for a hurrah already not 2, but as many as 24 personalities, and then still reveal and delve into the game of the Beast.
Here: half of the tape - boring interrogations of a psychologist, shooting studio, in small rooms. The second part is a long-awaited action, but weak. That's how Stetham's fists are asked from 'Adrenaline' and Liu Kang's legs from 'Deathly Battle' while fighting the Reptile.
Monologues from the series ' The world needs comic book heroes' - I consider childish nonsense, because - stupid!
But Mr. M. Night Shyamalan is shooting in his own unique style. His ' Signs' with Mel Gibson, by the way, were brilliant!
But ' Glass' - due to the lack of a good urinal, fights, lack of some new original highlight (if James in ' Split' struck with his skill to play different personalities - in ' Glass' nothing innovative he could not impress, and repetition - is not a surprise to the viewer).
There are movies that don’t need a sequel. It's simple.
Cinema is not a garbage, I have no disgust after watching it, it is just boring.
Apparently, in America, unlike Russia, men retire not at 62, but much later. The same last of his roles in films do not score above 5 or even 4 ratings.
5 out of 10
To begin with, this is the best superhero film of this year and the previous 5 years. And in the last 10 years one out of two or three maximum. And for those who didn’t have enough jokes/action/black panthers, please watch Captain Marvel and Deadpool 16+ in another room.
There. Just like after watching Invulnerable, we managed to bring back this amazing feeling of watching a real superhiro movie - smart and interesting. When you see something unusual in the genre, something new, not taken off the assembly line. A worthy sequel to Invulnerable and Split with the stunning Willis, Jackson and McAvoys. Special applause for this particular piece to Jackson. That sounds like the bad guys teaming up.
What about Shyamalan? When the director with interest tries to understand the very nature of comics, competently handling the cliché, when he does not care what the product will turn out to be, then this work is original, rich and captivating, inspiring and revealing the potential of the genre anew. Yes, they got used to it and try to omit the movie out of habit. But as a result, this kind of cinema, author’s, live, should be encouraged, and it should become a classic.
Maybe there’s not a lot of money going around here and there’s not enough of a big picture for such big actors, but maybe we’ve forgotten that money isn’t the main superpower of cinema. When was the last time you saw old Samuel L. Jackson being so sincere in a shot? When did a superhero action movie offer you not exploding cities/stadions/planets, but a truly superhero message?
Think of the Raimi Spiders, the first X-Men, revisit the Invulnerable and Split, brush the stingy dust and go to the movies on Glass. This wasn't a limited edition - this was an origin story.
10 out of 10
It is amazing what a person who believes in himself, and especially if his family believes in him. The filmmakers have a slightly different view of superheroes. Have you ever thought that people with superpowers could be among us? If you think about it, not a superhero firefighter who enters a burning building and saves a person, a scientist who made a discovery that changes life and the course of history, an athlete who sets unthinkable records. You need to believe in yourself and work hard on yourself. However, the film shows that quite a few allegedly convincing facts from the lips of the “psychologists” around us and most change their opinion, cease to believe in themselves.
The film turned out to be atmospheric, with its own style and idea, sometimes delayed, but only in order to more easily explain what follows. Actors at the highest level, play in such a way that it is impossible to imagine anyone else in this role. Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson feel like they didn’t have to play the roles, as if they were originally intended for them. McAvoy proved everything in Split, except for the American Film Academy, and in Glass only kept the bar at the highest level. It turned out great with a directed film with an unusual idea and an exciting plot.
P.S. I recommend you to watch Invulnerable and Split before watching Glass, as many will not understand the whole idea.
There are very few truly talented people in the world who are able to combine their directorial work with script work. Shyamalan is one of the few. His films have always riveted me to screens, and it doesn’t matter at what age I watched them. The person on the street will call some works boring, but I will call them polished to shine. Polished like "Glass", which recently started in theaters. How many critics have you listened to? I challenge each of them. My thesis is that the universe ended as it should: nothing superfluous, nothing mediocre.
The fact is that half of the critics set up some kind of air locks, waiting for the meeting of three people with superpowers of action in the style of crappy “Avengers”. But here is a completely different action. For example, I did not expect, but predicted. My speculations were based solely on previous works of the director, and, surprisingly, he did not give up on himself. Everything that is shown in Glass in one way or another follows from the general paradigm of the universe.
Let go of people who talk about the dullness of the picture (they do not belong in the ranks of the intellectual elite), but we must not let go of people who say stupidity. Honestly, during the viewing, I was confused by some of the actions of the characters, but at the end, when the maps opened (oh, these Shyamalan twists), all the problems in the logic of the narrative disappeared. Advice for the future: just look carefully, try it sometime. I think I could have defended the film in any kind of debate.
It was a pleasure to watch Jackson, Willis and McAvoy in the scenes. Probably, my joy is commensurate with the joy of Shyamalan himself during the gathering of all together: the dialogue under the exciting acting feels no worse than the action scenes in blockbusters. And even if the script literally shouts something like, “Stick to me, come on!”, I fully appreciated the scale and the message of what the director wanted to say. I find it hard to say better.
Do not take the word in the number 36, the current rating only confirms my opinion that the pack of critics (and the general masses) are simply primitive creatures, unable to appreciate the genius of the canvas that closes the filigree trilogy. I know that many will disagree sharply with such a statement, but if you go against everyone, then go to the end.
10 out of 10
Today, my friend and I went to the movie Glass, the trailer was quite exciting. I had a little idea of this crossover in the spirit of “Batman v Superman”, “X-Men”, etc. In other words, a dynamic action about the collision of several superheroes, but it came out quite differently.
Before that, I had the opportunity to watch the films “Split” and “Unbreakable” so the backstory of the characters is familiar.
Attempts to unite heroes from different tapes is a rather successful commercial move, but if Split is quite successful, then Invulnerable with Willis is little known to the general audience, and probably not so interesting.
The most important thing I expected to see in the tape was a dynamic action, powerful special effects, but there was more drama with action elements. In the film, a red thread runs the thought voiced by a psychiatrist (actress Sarah Paulson) that maybe all three patients of the hospital do not actually have superpowers, but suggest it to themselves, and the events that demonstrate them as heroes are just a random sequence of events. Characters cling to this hypothesis in the hope of verifying and disproving, but, in my opinion, this is a cheap trick that should not have been bothered with the plot.
The dialogue in the film is quite long, sometimes confusing and philosophical. Many psychological conversations, attempts to establish the causes of psychological trauma.
The script of the film, to put it mildly, is a little unfinished, but was it necessary such a drama, when there should be something else, full of fights, action-packed, with maniacs and murderers. The weakest link in the picture is the character Mr. Glass, looking at his condition it is impossible to believe that such a "vegetable" can cause harm to someone. Maybe it's my personal impression. The character of David Dunn, aka the Green Guardian, is a sullen and obsessed with just retribution to criminals. He looks like a supporting character, lacking some charisma. The most striking character, in my opinion, is Kevin Wendel Crumb, also the Beast, also Miss Patricia. The Beast (Horde) as the central antihero looks bright and even shocking. As you can guess by the beginning of the viewing in the tape, the villain Mr. Glass will join forces with the Beast against humanity.
In the plot there is an unknown society that watches all superhumans, trying to balance the balance. And there is a dark horse that represents his interests.
Scenes of fights are few, at the beginning of the film, when the Warden discovers and tries to save the kidnapped girls, and at the end. And this is one of the main disappointments, because this should be the main feature, in my opinion.
The ending of the film was unpredictable, and I was a bit confused. But, looking at the picture, there was no attempt to comprehend, to feel the aftertaste. In general, not bad, but expectations were not met, not a failure, you can see.
6.5 out of 10
The final part of the story about the superheroes of Shyamalan I waited with anticipation. Which turned into disappointment.
The things that were admirable in the first two films were sometimes annoying. Kevin’s change of personality seemed banal, and David Dunn’s ability to anticipate evil was not as exciting as in the first film. At least I was still in awe of Elijah Price's brilliant mind.
Of course, the superheroes with their superpowers in the third movie were now given away. The main thing was what happened to them next. It will be difficult to share your opinion without spoilers.
Half of the movie I didn’t know what was going on. The big question is, why is the asylum so poorly guarded? Why put cameras when no one is watching? Then, when the events in the film became more or less clear, there was another plot twist, unpredictable, but also awkward.
What did the creators want to say with this film? 'Superheroes actually exist' or 'Which superhero is the cooler'? Either I don't understand the meaning, or it's so jaded that it's a huge disappointment. Not what I expected after two gorgeous films, rated by me by dozens.
Having closed our eyes to the shortcomings of the plot, we understand its presentation. And acting. Why did Dr. Ellie Staple walk and talk the whole movie with the same facial expression? Given that it is not as simple as it seemed at first glance, I would like more from the actress Sarah Paulson. I wanted charisma, mystery. Perhaps that's why the ending seemed raw and implausible. There are no complaints about the game of superheroes James McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson. Their images turned out to be whole and harmonious, as before. It was interesting to discover that Spencer Treet Clarke, 19 years later, played David Dunn’s son again, but now an adult.
My verdict: nothing special.
In view of the excessive abundance of various and monotonous film adaptations of comics, trying to sometimes seem original in using age ratings or playing a genre change, the film directed by Manoj Nellattu Shyamalan "Glass" for obvious reasons was in the lists of modern cinematic superheroics. The reason for this is not only the unusual representation of the hero in the "Invulnerable", among the interiors of a crowded stadium, train stations and shops with comics, which made a bright impression at the beginning of the two thousandth, but also the cunning final move of the "Split" that, in addition to psychiatric excavations, turned out to be telling about the formation of the antihero. Whether the director originally envisioned more than one film connected by one common world, but after nineteen years he succeeded, and in the general wave of inadequate expectations of representatives of the Mervel sect, the final film of this uneven trilogy was met and received from a completely different side and with a different mood. Fortunately, not all viewers were waiting for a loud crossover with lightning throws, and a person familiar with all the works of Shyamalan is able to take the triquel not as the culmination of the story about people in cloaks with superpowers, but as a social drama in the wrapper of a psychological thriller, expectedly interesting, but stumbling on his own unbalanced scenario.
Almost all of Shyamalan’s films, with the exception of well-known large-scale films that did not gain positive responses, have tangible inner strength, impressive scenes, soulful moments created with the help of corporate directorial minimalism and understatement. "Glass", being a continuation tape, significantly dependent on completely different in mood of the original stories, according to the author's script, definitely tries to combine the lines of David Dunn, Elijah Price and Kevin Wendell Crumb, which affects the placement of screen priorities. I want to believe that the tape lost the proper emotional concentration not from the amateurishness of the director in pairing several previously revealed characters, but from the introduction of many other characters in the script in the form of extras and related optional events. The appearance on the screen of Casey, the grown-up son of Dunn and Price's mother, undeniably delights and complements the close environment of the main characters, but at the same time deprives the tape of a kind of inspiring magic, additionally repeating or chewing already known facts. Until a certain time and according to the traditions of Shyamalan, the film remains chamber, sometimes literally, while meticulous psychiatrist Ellie Staple in one of the hospitals, with all his persuasiveness tries to knock the dope out of the three characters, as if they imagine themselves to have superpowers.
At first, it is strange to watch the lion’s share of screen time as a psychiatrist “cures” the truth of the delusions that touching people is not able to give hidden information, great power is mythical, ordinary climbers can climb walls, and a calculating and far-sighted mathematical mind is only the fruit of imagination or obsession with megalomania. But, the viewer has long thought over everything and believed in everything, which allowed to watch the trinity under the pressure of annoying lectures, where David barely copes with doubts, although he has long “worked” with his son “supervision”, and Kevin, whose multiple minds replace each other more often, under the onslaught of the Horde led by the Beast, almost do not give the opportunity to appear the main personality on the light. Silently sitting in a gurney Elijah, imprisoned in the clinic for more than a year, here becomes the highlight of the program and the name of the tape "Glass" was chosen by the director for a reason, since it is he who, after the dynamic beginning of the story and the dull on the events of the middle, will become the main driving character with his own secrets. Shyamalan, as if deliberately causes doubts in the viewer, greatly simplifying the dialogue scenes, alternating with disturbing moments in anticipation, predetermining albeit not grandiose, but amazing ending. A finale that would be able to stir emotions, which the director likes to skillfully play, but now and then stalling on the absolutely necessary flashbacks or scene changes. Appearing in the film as a cameo of the same character as many years ago, the director does not deprive the story of pieces of appropriate humor, relating not only to Kevin’s bright personalities, but also to some scenes that are significant for the plot, hiding quite serious meanings.
As a presentation of the story, it is certainly worth thanking James McAvoy for his worthy performance, who tried on even more characters and temperaments, albeit for a few moments. Sometimes these transformations, which occur extremely often, caused feelings of saturation, but in comparison with some modern pseudonominees for awards, the work of the actor evokes true respect. The immutable Bruce Willis with a gray beard remains very charismatic, which even benefits the visual representation of the tired Warden, who is helped by the character of the already grown-up Spencer Trite Clark. Alien Anya Taylor-Joy for the tape, perhaps, is not very important, but the director, using close-ups of the face, definitely gives hints of the presence of some inner force, or superpower. Samuel L. Jackson at the end of the story is not only a temporary vegetable, but a clever man and even a madman, whose main part takes place behind the scenes, as Shyamalan tells in conclusion. Interesting, but not causing goosebumps "Glass", despite the strengthening of suspense, accompanied by music that combines the themes of previous tapes, and disappointingly slowing down the final scenes, still able to boast of perfectly shot and memorable episodes. A controversial picture that shatters any expectations about superheroics or thrillers, after understanding it turns out to be able to transcend the features of the declared genres and recall the faith and importance of each person, conspiracy theories and the art of suppression, hinting that it is about us, about me and about you.
7 out of 10
In theory, the new tape Shyamalan was to smoothly complete the design of the universe he conceived, combining both the spirit 'Invulnerable' and the mood 'Split'. However, surprisingly 'Glass' with all its colors remains surprisingly gray, with interesting angles - unexpressive, and with the available interesting moments and potential - too boring and standing in one place. The first ringing crack is given when you realize that the third part painfully plays with the spirit of the first tape, the main beauty of which was not in the usual twist at the end, but in the psychology behind this twist. A perfectly human obsession, anger at the injustice of life and the search for a place in the world were only framed by the comic essence, where the representation of life as a comic was not an end in itself, but only one expression of that very obsession. In 'Invulnerable' Shyamalan skillfully wrote references to comic features, giving one of the most human stories about people with non-human ( or maybe ) abilities, fully showing the real background of the myth at the heart of the genre. His heroes were ordinary people who dreamed of something bigger. 'Split', the second part of the whole story, was the same immersion in consciousness, but already more insane and strange. The most talented MacEvoy, without overdoing, changed many faces to keep the viewer in suspense. And even the unexpected transition to the common universe did not upset, but only interested in what Shyamalan came up with in the end. But the third part, unfortunately, lost not only the psychology of the first, but also lost all tension of the second. Of course, 'Glass' and should not have been similar to the previous chapters, but nevertheless M. Knight, without absorbing anything from there, did not dare to add something more to the lazily weaving script, designed to seem larger and deeper than it is, played with at least some interesting colors for the viewer.
'Glass', after the presentation Shyamalan, making a reference to his cameo in the first tape, seemingly cheerfully comes to business, bringing the avenger in a cloak with the beast-abductor. But hopes for an interesting development of the clash of heroes and villains quickly collapse, getting behind the closed doors of the clinic. In the hospital Shyamalan begins to trample on, forcing McAvoy to play more and more, and Jackson to play less and less. The Indian is stomping, in fact, understandable for what: stirring up interest in a future battle, the final and most important, as in a limited series of comics. Therefore, the viewer, who misses empty conversations with the characters, continues to sit waiting for the denouement. However, time goes by and Shyamalan is slowing down. Old characters appear in the story, completely unnecessary, but only distracting and so not very concentrated attention of the audience. The central characters, on the contrary, are not in a hurry to interact, for which everyone here, in general, has gathered. After a series of conversations after about an hour and a half of incomprehensible reasoning, designed to show the Shyamallan depth of understanding of the comics, the already tired viewer begins to realize how much ' Glass' he was deceived, especially seeing how the battle, the most important and big, results in dispassionate clenching in the parking lot, and the whole potentially interesting canva turns into several endings with sudden turns. The very same Shyamalan in his comic book game goes too far: if 'Invulnerable' his story was smoothly framed by this, then 'Glass' it is too straightforward and without a sense of taste completely impossible: the characters will always say what is happening in the comics, drawing parallels even where it is not necessary so that the viewer understands, understands and once again understands how everything is superheroic here. And, perhaps, it could look decent, if it did not create the feeling that Shyamalan only does that boasts about his vision, repeating over and over again how he understands this genre, without looking inside behind the cover.
Perhaps the main failure is that the initial potential of the idea of a different vision of heroes and villains merges quickly enough when three characters of different colors meet in the pink room for just one time to continue their tasteless philosophy and boring action. Shyamalan stubbornly try to deceive his characters along with the viewer, trying to prove that there was something more in this meeting, that there was a dangerous game with reason everywhere. However, M. Knight, despite all his personal play with the form of the narrative through bizarre angles, misses a simple truth that he, strangely, certainly must remember: the final twist will not work if the viewer does not care about those with whom the twist occurs. As a result, the local story of heroes and villains grows to a whole universe, built, it seems, hastily and the author himself does not fully understand why. On the one hand, 'Glass' - really does not look very bad, and if you want, you can even see something in it, even despite the zeal to scold Shyamalan for the lack of a sense of proportion in his philosophy and a waste of available time and heroes. But on the other hand, you don’t even want to look for something good. Looking at the rather overplaying McAvoy and listening once again to the allegedly uninteresting deep monologues, it seems that M. Knight is lost under his own ambitions: trying initially to make the story of superhumans close to human, he eventually just slows it down, and, most sadly, loses and misses everything that would be interesting to listen to, under the pile of his own desire to build a larger universe. You can think more deeply about how and why it was not possible to combine the previous two films competently to create not the appearance of the universe, but to give the viewer a sense of its reality. One can think how Shyamalan deceives everyone around with expectations , getting confused in his own thoughts, where in the end the idea gets stuck among strange twists, boring narration and uninteresting story, remaining some perverted version of himself: after all, trying to make the comic more real, Shyamalan for some reason made it even more remote. But why understand the causes of cracked glass? Better replace him with another.
Mm. Knight Shyamalan is a special and extraordinary director of our era. He is a master of mystical films, shot brilliant & #39; Sixth Sense & #39; and several other very interesting pictures. Personally, I was always bribed by the author’s style of Shyamalan, this is what his films are good, in all the works he shot, the characters were skillfully worked out, the atmosphere was competently inflated in the course of the narrative, there was always some general idea in the plot, which invisibly went through the entire timekeeping and developed to the final, each film was an absolutely organic, finished work at the end of which all the dots were placed above the i, and the viewer had almost no questions after the final credits – only positive emotions.
' Glass' it seems to me that the film is not quite Shyamalanovskih from this and so mixed reviews and ratings on the Internet. But everything in order. The director’s idea to combine three interesting and original characters from his past works into one cinematic universe is very good, but by the middle of the film it seems that it is not one universe, and the characters are drawn from different worlds. To give an example: the characters from Marvel joined the characters of the DC universe or even worse Mortal Kombat - some kind of prefabricated solyak turns out, and not a single monolithic work. I did not leave this unpleasant feeling for the whole viewing, but, as is clear from the introduction to the review, I like Shyamalan. Mr. Glass and David Dunn are the characters of a mystical drama where, after a long search for himself to the end, it is not clear whether there is something supernatural in the hero of Bruce Willis or it is only the rarest coincidences and their interpretation of the mentally and physically ill fan of comics Elijah. And this plot can also be continued separately. The Beast/Patricia/Dennis/Barry, etc., played by James McAvoy, this character already claims his mini universe. 'Split' already in its entire finale begged for a sequel - a psychological thriller with an open ending in the genre of fiction! There is a huge field for experimentation. Perhaps because of this mix of genres 'Glass ' and it turned out to be frankly weaker than its predecessors, and perhaps because in the film there is very little from the mystical-psychological thriller / drama, which the director knows how to shoot very well. The first half of the film looks boring, there is little action in it - the plot as such does not develop and it is not clear why they are all gathered and what unites them. There is a woman psychiatrist who supposedly should become one of the main characters, but in the end she begins to manifest herself from the middle to the end of the film and the whole first half passes in contemplation of the life of a mental hospital and the trio of new superheroes. By the middle of the film, the plot is rocking, just on the scene from the trailer where a psychiatrist almost convinces Glavheroes of their insanity. After that, the plot begins to rush through the timing and becomes really interesting. The final, unfortunately, is smeared - a deft and implausible escape from the hospital, the final fight of the hero and the antihero under the watchful eye of the supervillain in whose honor the film is named - but the final credits have arrived. The end. Of course, in the final, as befits Shyamalan, all the veils of secrecy will be removed, and the viewer will almost understand everything, but spoilers will already go, I will not write them, of course. The only thing worth noting is the drawback - the whole denouement looks stretched and far-fetched in several places, but the director gave such an ending to understand that this is the final part and there will be no sequels.
A few words about secondary characters. It's nice that the grown-up son of David Dunn is played by the same boy from 'Invulnerable' - but here's a short storyline about the father-son bond and their little secret - in ' Invulnerable' transmitted better, in ' Glass' it simply does not exist. Sweet and cute Anya Taylor-Joy from ' Split' here clearly revealed not able, but the guilt of the actress in this is not, her character is simply ' merged' if it was not the film would have lost nothing, it seems that her court inserted just to show the continuity of the plot and prove that all the films are part of a single whole. The reason is that the nascent warm, human relationship of Glavheroina ' Split' with one of the hypostases of her tormentor was not quite revealed in the original script, but immediately moved to ' Glass'. Secondary characters, with the exception of a psychiatrist played by Sarah Paulson, do not affect anything and got into the frame as part of the cinema universe of M. Night Shyamalan - for a tick, simply put.
Despite the criticism that I made about the film of M. Night Shyamalan, do not consider this film bad – it will not be true. The film is interesting and well shot, there is a place for the original plot twists, the actors play well and believe them, I personally liked the scene of the fight between the heroes of Willis and McAvoy shot in the first person, the effect of presence is an interesting find. Perhaps my opinion is connected with the fact that I really liked 'Invulnerable' and I am not indifferent to Shyamalan’s work, in principle. But when you talk about your own trilogy united by a common leitmotif, you expect a little different scale.
P.S. Without a background in the form of a preview 'Invulnerable' and 'Split' impression of 'Glass' will be absolutely unreliable
At all times he loved the kind of human fairy tale about people with a wonderful gift that was given to him from Above. In other words, superheroes. Myths of ancient Greece, tales of knights, Slavic epics ... in general, what only a person did not do before the saving arrival of the Internet. The heroes of our era are comic book superheroes. In the cinema, it looks especially picturesque - colorful, bright, explosive, artificial special effects against the background of a green screen. As we all know ' the most important ' on this soil entrenched the monsters Marvel and DC, the titans of their business. But still, sometimes, very rarely, their monopoly is shot down by elements of non-industrial, auteur cinema about people with abilities. I think the most successful example can be called Zack Snyder with his wildest ' Guardians', ' Forbidden reception' even '300 Spartans' you can also count as a comic book film, only with sound. It is time for another director to decide to fight two monsters, if not for box office, then for quality in films of this genre. Like three hundred brave Spartans fighting a deadly battle with thousands of evil Persians, such projects are usually doomed to failure. It is not necessary to tell that in our mean time, the main criterion in the cinema is the money collected from the audience, and this is the indicators of DC and Marvel, Kraken and Cthulhu of our ocean, ahead of the planet. Although if you do not bend the soul, it is worth admitting that the size of the budget for such films is very different. But on the other hand, maybe this is the main convenience of cheap, author's cinema - in its payback? And if the film paid off, then you can shoot a sequel. It is not known whether this idea came to the bright head of M. Night Shyamalan or another, and to confess, it is not really clear what wandered in this talented Sharabank... but, something nevertheless motivated to do their own universe with superheroes. At the beginning of the century, after the masterpiece 'Sixth Sense', already a quite successful director, he released the first film. 'Invulnerable' With Bruce Willisov and S. L. Jackson in the title role turned out to be an unusual, by public standards, and quite passable thriller. Quite successful with the collected box office. And, most importantly, it makes you believe that the director was able to put a film about superheroes on a small budget. And now, not even sixteen years pass as Shyamalan decides to speed up and releases a sequel - gloomy and psychodolic ' Split' James McAvoy's magnificent performance, gothicness and passion heated to the limit did their job - the film was recognized by both viewers and critics. The viewer had to wait two whole years. But the day has come and for the joy of everyone and everyone, Shyamalan is filming the third, final series of his franchise. At the beginning of the distant two thousand nineteenth year, the viewer was able to see ' Glass'. What do we have or rather say that the genius of M. Night Shyamalan decided to give us?
First 'Glass ' turned out to be a very impulsive film. That is, the creators put more emphasis on passion than logic. Lots of gaps and white spots. This nervousness, I will not say that it is bad ... rather its disadvantage is that it distracts from the main idea - the hero lives not in each of us, only in the elect. Second, the script is not as bad as everyone says. Quite saturated with unexpected moments and by the way, this gives odds and the first and second parts. I confess that several times I caught the director on blunders and mistakes in the plot, but continuing to watch, I became increasingly convinced that only one representative of the human race is wrong here - I myself. And Shyamalan, like his hero Mr. Glass, thought ahead and for sure. Third, McAvoy's cool acting. The guy goes out of his way trying to express a crazy, unhappy man who is not understood, who is suffering and therefore forced to kill. The youngest in age, but not in acting, shows more acting skills than both of his opponents combined. Fourth, the musical accompaniment. Its composition, plus the constant ticking of the clock, create such a tense atmosphere, suspense of the moment, which makes the viewer experience as if he himself is in the center of a fascinating narrative. A bonus is a non-standard, tragic ending that melts everything into its places.
In the end, I want to add that we have observed a remarkable phenomenon, a phenomenon in nature, the moment of birth and death of the universe.
Looking at Split, I didn't think there was room for a sequel. However, the soul of the director apparently could not find peace until he completed the trilogy.
Okay, the movie. I liked the picture. Pleasant tones, a lot of central composition, transitions. Some scenes are long, I even managed to get bored, but the ending seemed somewhat crumpled.
McAvoy, whom I discovered after Split, impressed me with his performance. Especially the scene where hypno-lights were turned on and off several times in a row. Sayuel L. Jackson was always pleasant, but here' hard nut' Willis, it seemed to me, had begun to pass. Maybe it was the role, maybe the actor, but in my opinion he was just an extra.
I would like to highlight the role of Sarah Paulson. I really liked her character.
Overall, the film is nice, but it’s too slow and the ending is too fast. There was no tension that I wanted. Yes, the interesting thing was that suddenly there was some kind of conspiracy, it could be a good start to the new picture, but no, the authors had to put a sweet ending in there, which is supposed to inspire, but somehow it spoils everything.
Can superheroes exist in our reality and perform feats that could only be imagined by the authors of graphic novels? If you believe the story of David Dunn, it is a tangible fact that must be accepted and admired as a miracle that came down from heaven. Being a seemingly ordinary guy, who is not very lucky with work, and at home everything is not as smooth as he would like, David nevertheless realized that he is invulnerable and he needs to fulfill his potential in order to save innocent lives and show people by example that each of us is in one way or another capable of feats. Without seeking fame and trying to stay in the shadows, the hero became a legend, which is not spoken about on television, but which is known, respected and told about it to their friends.
Is it possible to put 24 personalities in your mind at once and still not go crazy? This question is much more difficult than finding an invincible hero in yourself, and the personal psychiatrist of a young man, whom we know including Kevin, seriously expects to cure him, recklessly believing that the patient is dangerous, but not so much as to lead his emotional outbursts to irreparable trouble. Having abducted innocent girls and placed them in his dark lair, Kevin gradually began to uncover all the confusion that lurks in his mind and finally revealed the Beast, which became the apogee of his dark side. Without feeling the slightest fear and compassion, the Beast finally gained freedom and now only a miracle can stop him, which, fortunately, exists in our world.
What to do in our world to a man whose bones are as fragile as glass and whose mind is sharp as a perfectly sharpened razor? There are many options, but Elijah Price, or Mr. “Glass”, decided to go down a frankly dubious path and led to a lot of tragic consequences only in order to identify a real superhero who had to feel his power and act without waiting for a special invitation. Price's morals are ambiguous, many people have died at his hands, but he does not consider himself an insidious criminal or villain. He is a cunning manipulator who knows psychology and believes that the discovery of David Dunn is far from the end of his story. The story of Mr. “Glass” continues and now his thoughts are also occupied by the Beast, the meeting with which led to unexpected, frightening and at the same time exciting mysteries that sooner or later will be solved.
No less rebus for the audience than the heroes of “Invulnerable” and “Split” can be confidently called M. Night Shyamalan, definitely a talented director who can at one moment rise to the top of fame, and then just as quickly fall into the deepest crevice, almost drowning under the weight of a crushing psyche. Presenting the audience of David Dunn and Elijah Price in the cult heroic thriller Invulnerable in 2000, Shyamalan felt the winner for the second time after the Sixth Sense, having managed to intrigue the audience with a somewhat meditative, but at the same time extraordinary and at the same time revolutionary spectacle, preceding the era of superheroes that flooded the Dream Factory. In the future, Shyamalan made many artistic mistakes, tried to conquer expensive Hollywood blockbusters that almost cost him his career, and then again returned to modest, concise and at the same time capacious and striking stories that did not require a large budget to occupy all our imagination. Having felt the ground for a triumphant return to the “Visit”, then Shyamalan put “Split”, marked by the outstanding performance of James McAvoy, who may not have had the opportunity to play absolutely all 24 personalities conceived by the director, but the work was done truly unforgettable. And despite the fact that “Invulnerable” and “Split” at first had no connection with each other, Shyamalan believed that both stories deserve to unite and thereby demonstrate to the public an extraordinary plot, a priori unable to pass the attention of a familiar viewer with the originals.
The events presented in Glass take us to a psychiatric clinic, where the invulnerable David Dunn (Willis), the many-faced Kevin (McAvoy) and the genius Price (Jackson) enter. Once under the care of Dr. Staple (Sarah Paulson), the heroes and villains must undergo a course of therapy that should reveal all the injuries of their controversial psyche, but when such extraordinary personalities are nearby, everything can go completely wrong. Dunn, Kevin and Price have had enough time to get used to their roles and are now preparing to make a move that no one expects of them. The time for games of hide-and-seek has passed, it is time to act with much greater courage, and the consequences of what is happening will have a truly unforgettable character.
Inventing such extraordinary characters as David Dunn, Elijah Price and Kevin, M. Night Shyamalan was obliged to combine them all in a single coherent story so that none of them was lost against the background of the others, and at the same time, their characters should have room for further psychological development. And although the director sometimes pays too much attention to completely unnecessary explanatory lectures, which essentially repeat the retelling of past films, and especially the precepts of Elijah Price from “Invulnerable”, it must be admitted that “Glass” copes with the tasks to a greater extent. Continuing to explore the territory of comics, which beckoned since the very beginnings of his career, Shyamalan looks at them through the prism of existing reality and tries not to go beyond the boundaries established by him, showing us the true miracles that can happen to people who are not so ordinary, although you can not tell. Glass can inspire us, inspire us to believe in the incredible, which we sometimes lack. And in this you can see the greatest value of the film, which has a lot of small logical flaws hiding under the global concept of the plot. Of course, in some aspects of the story, the director took a risk, replacing the locality of the narrative with much more global motifs, but again Shyamalan competently brings us to the true meaning of his creation, from which “Glass” must be viewed up to the very last scene, which can change the idea of what was before and what everything boils down to.
The leading actors served their director with excellent service, in the close company of which the quite appropriate Sarah Paulson was stuck. Shyamalan generously gives each character attention and tries to do everything so that no one falls out of his fascinating mosaic. And even Bruce Willis, who increasingly appears in dubious projects, managed to arouse sympathy and regret, since his character is essentially a symbol of what we should strive for and even become even better. And this is another reason that "Glass" in spite of everything happened.
When I went to the movie “Glass”, I already put it in third place in advance, as the reviews of friends were not the most positive. But, as always, there are so many “reviews”.
The main fear that can be present in anticipation of the continuation is the incoherence of the paintings. This failure did not occur in the third part.
It is a pity that the director, aka the screenwriter, M. Night Shyamalan, could not fully reveal Daniel Keyes’ book “Multiple Minds of Billy Milligan” in the film “Split”. In the last part, the main character is revealed to the audience more.
Often, evil is not what we see as bad, but what hides under the mask of good. From the start, Elijah (Samuel L. Jackson) seems like a negative character. And all actions lead to that. It is only at the end of the film that his role is revealed. We see that the real evil is a woman psychologist who tried to convince the three superheroes that they are ordinary people. Self-belief helps us achieve success and make us even stronger. Sometimes we don’t even know what we’re capable of.
Faith in goodness and love can defeat evil. This is very well illustrated in the story of Kevin (James McAvoy) and Casey (Anja Taylor-Joy). She is the only one who has been able to make friends and feel the pain and suffering he endured as a child. Childhood injuries can make a big impact on your life and even change it.
Every hero, like an ordinary person, has fears. This is shown in the story of David (Bruce Willis). As a child, he was afraid of water, which made him vulnerable. And no superpower can help. Only a person can overcome fear and become stronger.
The invincible Bruce Willis, the fragile Samuel L. Jackson and the multifaceted James McAvoy. This is how I want to characterize the main characters. The beautiful play of each actor allows you to feel them and empathize with the whole film.
P.S. In my rating, Glass takes a confident second place, losing to the film Invulnerable.
I have quite an intimate relationship with the work of M. Knight. My dad showed me three of his films — The Sixth Sense, Signs, and Mysterious Forest — long before my idea of good and bad movies formed. They immediately earned my love for the originality of the stories, the atmosphere of intense mystery and, of course, the unusual final twists. And perhaps that’s why, even though the last two receive more criticism than praise, they will always be one of my favorites. “Invincible” I watched later and not so carefully. This film, praised by everyone, did not cause me any strong impressions. Just like Split, whose only admirable element, in my opinion, is the acting of James McAvoy.
This element successfully migrated to Glass, where some episodes exist clearly only so that McAvoy could show everyone how he can. Multiple personalities change one after another in less than a minute. And these are some of the best moments, although sometimes it seems that you could slow down. But Bruce Willis, whose acting work I don’t watch very much, has obviously lost all ability to portray any emotion in 19 years. But maybe it fits into the context of the movie. Although, as has been noted in many other reviews, when compared to Invulnerable, some footage from which appeared in the film as flashbacks, the difference is noticeable. He played much better there, and it certainly wasn’t superfluous.
Before the screening I heard a few reviews and they were very different, but everyone agreed that the ending was terrible. Well, then...
I liked most of the movie. Many reproach the first half of boredom and monotony. But I didn't think so. It was interesting to watch the interaction of the characters and the development of events in general. And Sarah Paulson's character, as they say, makes you think. In general, the story intrigued me, and I followed with passion what was happening. It wasn’t without a funny and unnecessary directorial cameo in the beginning, but knowing M. Knight, it would have been much more surprising if he hadn’t. It also looked pretty beautiful. There were some very cool shots. But again, knowledgeable people claim that in the same "Invulnerable" they were much more and they were much cooler. I don’t want to judge because I don’t remember.
But then it went to the slug. We all know that a film directed by M. Night Shyamalan cannot do without a final twist. And so, when the moment came and an unexpected but not too impressive detail was explained, I decided that the film was about to end. And I had some rather contradictory feelings: on the one hand, I didn't understand why the ending was so disappointing. On the other hand, I was glad I liked everything. But it wasn't.
Turns out one twist in a decent thriller isn't enough now. Like the post-credits scenes in a major Marvel movie, there should be several. And so, after the first was presented another, the most important. And then another one, the final one. And each subsequent plot twist was funnier and worse than the previous one. And the most defining of them, in my opinion, was so out of the concept of all the films of the trilogy that I was really angry. The icing on the cake was an unnecessary finale, which, according to the director’s assumption, apparently, was supposed to amaze with its grandeur, but I only gave impetus to quickly get out of the chair and leave the hall.
I don’t agree with many of the criticisms of Glass. I would write about it in more detail, but without spoilers it will be difficult to do, and the post is already long. Yes, there are shortcomings in the first half. But they could easily be forgiven if M. Knight's final was a success. But he failed in this task. And so I was very disappointed.
This is a clear example of false expectations. A movie that was expected and discussed in advance. The result is a failure, the defeat of critics, low ratings of freshness, the contempt of the audience. You deserve it. Taking into account the mediocrity of the results obtained, a brief digest.
Oh. It's not good here. I completely agree that this is the most “unfair” director at the moment. Like a man who made such a wonderful scary pamphlet on all genres of cinema, like "The Visit" or a determined slightly wild Split, and suddenly gave it away. Although the same director shot Avatar. Not suddenly. I will not describe the film’s shortcomings here. It's made of them. The script is in the furnace; the actors’ play is a parody of themselves in other more successful films; the ubiquitous Sarah Paulson (for God’s sake, stop her); filmed poorly; logic is forgotten forever after the first 10 minutes; the line of Ani Taylor-Joy, who perfectly decorated Split, highlighting too much McAvoy, is meaningless. The director wanted to make a film about heroes, well, or monsters (who will disassemble them there), which of course is the same in essence, among us, and there were inept attempts at pseudo-comic screening. Well, it's like a film school student deciding to make his Batman movie. Crossovers from previous films are generally difficult to shoot, you need a really strong idea and a good editing. It is a shame that this film Shyamalan defamed the excellent Split. It can no longer be taken seriously. The shadow of Glass will hang over the director’s projects for a long time.
What sequel can there be after the good old movie Invincible released 19 years ago? Well, of course, a commercial film, in the form of a symbiosis of “Split” and “Invulnerable”. Why commercial? All because after the film I did not leave the feeling of daring deception, forcing me to watch a second-rate film with a high-quality picture, brilliant actors and a plot that should not have continued.
McAvoy played as cool as he did in split, perhaps he brought the whole stretched film to the level of “You can see”.
Willis got a less loud role and for the whole film he has at least dialogue, BUT this is not a crazy max where there is nothing to tell, but only you need to perceive a video sequence.
Samuel L. Jackson diluted this trio with his charisma and soulful mind.
All this looks from the side of an attempt to take revenge in a double size, but with a bang turned strained story, with the addition of a new ending and at least some deep meaning.
In general, I was satisfied with the performance of the actors, but for the second time I am sorry, I will not watch and I do not expect to continue.
The paintings separately “Split” and “Unbreakable” came out much better than their merger. And the sense is also individually much more.
I have almost everyone in the tape over the glass. Like, a movie about “three elderly men”, all just talking, you can fall asleep, and where the hell is the promised battle on a skyscraper?
What can I say? How many movies about superheroes, where in the finale was “battle on a skyscraper”. And Glass is one thing. Fragile. And also an oversized format. For his sake, Shyamalan even “befriended” sworn enemies – the Disney studio (they owned the rights to “Invulnerable”) and Universal (behind them “Split”). A rare case of (a) major (b) multi-budget (c) author's film. And with a swing at his own universe.
That's not how Shyamalan works. And evil is not too evil (at least half of the personalities of “Kevin” are just sweet), and the second evil is philosophical (the purple Mr. Glass committed his main villains in “Invulnerable”, and here almost the only villainy is a wave of his hand and the phrase “You know how difficult it was to find the right glass”?), and good is completely weak. Shyamalan himself explained this situation with the words of one of the heroes: if “Glass” is a comic, then this is not a “limited edition”, but the history of the creation of the world. So the representatives of each side sit quietly with cups of coffee in their hands and watch as with each repost the world becomes different. Isn't that great?
And if someone didn’t have enough fights in skyscrapers, review any Spider-Man. It is not glass and nothing will happen to it.
“Glass” directed by Shyamalan finally destroys the usual perception of the comic book, whether it is the DC Universe, or “Sin City” or “Spartans”, because it makes superheroes close to the viewer, placing them in the real world. And posing the question of the nature of abilities endowed in reality or are the fruit of imagination, finally puts his heroes on the same plane as the common man.
By the will of the director, a trio of heroes endowed with superpowers are brought together in one place - a psychiatric clinic. Here they fall under the supervision of the stern Ellie Stelp, who has her own goals and objectives, the meaning of which we will understand at the end of the film. Her fights with the Beast, the Overseer and Mr. Glass are the implementation of a cunning plan to disorganize and tame them. But our heroes have their abilities for a reason and in addition to their own showdowns and identifying the most important superhero, they are preparing a very cunning trap for Miss Stelp. In the meantime, the viewer needs to be patient in order to make a rational grain out of long dialogues. Not watched "Invulnerable" and "Split" this tape can immerse in misunderstanding, watching will summarize shown in them. The ending turned out to be destructive in content and in fact, like nails on a hat, the director hammers into the viewer his ideas on the existence of superheroes. "Mr. Glass" outperformed both the doctor and both superheroes, but as a result arranged more Dr. Stelp, although the latest episode gives thought that there will be a continuation of the franchise.
Shyamalan, minimizing special effects, focused on the images and words of the characters. From this, acting has acquired a special meaning. In my opinion, Samuel Jackson (Mr. Glass), Bruce Willis (The Overseer), and of course James McAvoy (The Beast) did a great job, showing the nuances of the characters and images of their characters, which became the decoration of the film.
Of the shortcomings, I note some delay in the timing and secondary characters of the mother of Mr. Glass, the son of the Overseer and Casey, who did not really affect anything, one of them would be enough for the final scene.
The film takes place 19 years after the events of Invulnerable and a couple of years after the film Split. David Dunn (Bruce Willis) and his son Joseph (Spencer Treet Clark) opened a small salon in Philadelphia selling alarms and various kinds of security devices. Dunn remains invulnerable and fights local crime, bringing justice, appearing in the most unexpected places for bandits in a black raincoat. He has long been trying to track down the Beast (James McAvoy) who continues to kill innocent schoolgirls. Events develop in such a way that both of these characters find themselves in a clinic where Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) is being treated for a long time - a man with unusually fragile bones from birth. All three are monitored by an experienced doctor, Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson). How the confrontation between the Beast and the Invulnerable will end is the main intrigue of the picture.
The trilogy "Invulnerable" - "Split" - "Glass" is the first author's film trilogy, shot without the help of large corporations (Marvel, DC, Sony). In 2019, M. Night Shyamalan finally completed what he had planned back in 2000. Perhaps that is why the picture was thought out in detail. “Glass” really flashbacks resemble past events, and the plot develops rapidly. It’s nice that the director managed to persuade the actors from the first and second parts to play in the final chapter.
As for special effects and action, it is quite enough. The movie looks dynamic, the dialogue is quite non-trivial. General staff are depressed.
As for the cast, he is quite “star”. James McAvoy loves his character Kevin Vandel Crumb, as seen in his play. Just brilliantly, the actor conveys all his incarnations - from the strict Madame Patricia to the nine-year-old Hadwig. In the third part, we learn more about Kevin’s past and childhood. Bruce Willis has barely changed over the years. His character still looks so gloomy, tired of life man who wants justice. Samuel L. Jackson as Price is perhaps the most brilliant and cunning character, an intriguer and the main villain of the picture. Great role for an actor. Sarah Paulson has shown herself well in the role of a doctor, whose sweet smile also hides its secrets.
I hope that the director will not return to the characters of the trilogy, because the ending was very bright and logical. I would not want the director to spoil it with remakes, sequels, prequels, etc. I advise everyone who goes to the cinema to refresh the memory of the events of previous films, it will be useful, because then you will be able to better understand the events and get to know some of the characters. I recommend the movie to all fans of the best films of the director and those who love fantastic thrillers.
I got acquainted with the Shiamalan Cinematic Universe not so long ago. I only watched Unbreakable and Split this summer. But that didn’t stop me from loving both movies. “Glass” I was waiting for, and Elijah himself in “Unbreakable” I liked. Now I believe that the crossover of two great films, connected only by the post-credits scene in Split, turned out to be a lousy idea.
I’m not going to explain anything to anyone who hasn’t seen the last two movies. So let's move on to characters.
I haven’t seen much change in the solo films. I don't like Willis anymore, but I don't blame him. The film, which comes out 19 years later, is very difficult. One of the “engines” could become McAva again with a chic acting, but he could not surpass himself from Split. But Jackson has not changed, Mr. Glass has not changed, he is still the same mysterious “comic book expert” as in the distant 2000. There's a huge bunch of secondary characters that are just useless in the movie. They are only pulling the timing of the film, which is already very long and long. Well, also, Shyamalan did not forget to himself, in the film there are 2 cameos in different ways, it was funny to see.
At first, I didn’t understand why the film’s budget was so small. But it turned out that he was filmed in almost one location - this is a hospital. Okay, if the action in the movie was "cheap," but it's just not there. 80-90% of the film is dialogue. I wouldn't say it's bad if there was a normal scenario.
What's wrong with the script? To be honest, I don't know. Something happened to Shyamalan. In the past two films of the universe was a great plot: “Invulnerable” worked on the cliché of comics, beautifully mocking them, and in “Split” was a great thriller-component, the film kept in suspense until the end. In Glass, there is none of this. It feels like in the last film, the director wanted to show us all his love for comics, he just forgot about the good plot. Yes, there are phrases of the characters, over which you can think (about the role of comics, superheroes among us, etc.), but they do not affect the general plot of the film, but just work on the fan service (I am waiting for GIFs with quotes from the film in the Geek public).
Shyamalan at Comic-Con Russia, promised that Glass is a new look at comic book movies. Indeed, he has completely gone into the psychology of heroes. I really liked this idea, and I am very disappointed that we have not seen a good implementation of this and probably will not see. It’s the end of the director’s universe, and so far I don’t see anyone doing anything like that.
On such a sad note, it looks like I will end. I'm just depressed right now. I was waiting for the posh end of the comic book universe of genius, but in the end, it just cracked like glass. This movie simply killed all the good memories of Split and Unbreakable. The inglorious end of the era of a talented but controversial director.
5 out of 10
The work of director M. N. Shyamalan is the third and final part in his “video essay” about superheroes of the real world. And his main problem is that he was 10 years late.
The relevance of the film has long sunk into existence.
The first film of the trilogy was released back in 2000, when comics were entertainment for children or "hycanut" adults. In fact, it was the first superhero movie released in the 21st century. The names of the main actors and the director himself, who recently released his magnificent film The Sixth Sense, have attracted viewers well. However, immediately pushed the “development” of the main character, the burden of the narrative and not the entertainment of the picture. As a result, the rental of the picture failed, and Shyamalan was no longer given money to continue.
And so, 19 years later, when comics are at the peak of its popularity, when so much is said about Heroes, the director wants to say and show why he made the first picture so uneven, wants to convey his idea to the end. It is very straightforward, ambiguous, and to some extent it has gone.
Shyamalan tells us that anyone can be a superhero, even an ordinary stadium guard. She showed it through the wild attempts of the main character of the first film, and we kind of agreed with him. But all of a sudden Glass tells us, it's all self-hypnosis, that there are no superpowers, it's all frontal lobe dysfunction. From that moment you start to understand that the film will argue with itself, and will end for us the same way it began.
And the idea that ordinary people are superheroes, that there are superheroes in our lives, that they have already told and shown among us dozens of times in these 19 years in a variety of manifestations, from blockbusters and comedies to dramas and psychological thrillers. Therefore, it is not clear why this continuation is necessary at all. Just repeat an old idea from the first movie?
The absurdity of what is happening.
For me, it was not clear what this film is. Most of the actions on screen made me laugh, not because they meant something funny, but because they were ridiculous. The most striking absurdity is the main antagonist Dr. Ellie Staple. Then she drives about the injuries of the frontal lobe, which give inhuman strength and invulnerability, then about the power of love, which should heal those injuries of the frontal lobe and Dissociative identity disorder.
Also in the film there is a huge amount of clichés from comic books. And I do not quite understand whether this absurdity and Paphosity of what is happening is a mockery of superheroics and comic books, or everything was done quite seriously. To be honest, it looks more like the second.
A great McEvoy in the hands of Shyamalan.
The main highlight of this film is naturally James McAvoy, who played Kevin Crumb, who suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder. But, to me, Shyamalan wasted this Hero. Instead of somehow organically showing at least half of the declared personalities of Kevin, and declared 24, we just do not show 19 moments, and completely careless, if only they were for a tick.
Other actors can not prove themselves because of the boredom of their characters.
The result was something incomprehensible and absurd.
It's kind of serious, but it's kind of serious. It seems that the actors are good, but their potential is not fully used. The characters seem to be deep, but they are shown in vain. It seems an interesting idea, but does not develop, and comes to its beginning.
But the author and about superheroes. Huh. . .
“Give free rein to your demons” is an interesting slogan, of course. . Emptiness
Of course, from such a director and screenwriter as M. Knight Shyamalan was expecting something unique and I was expecting a lot from this film. The creator of the film is an extraordinary person, talented and all his films are amazing. ''The Sixth Sense' - my favorite film, 'Split', 'Mysterious Forest' - one of my favorites.
The actors in this film are as unique as the director himself. Both Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson and Sarah Paulson and James McAvoy are brilliant actors and my favorites. The actors are amazing with their play... taking on the soul. And from such a set a brilliant director and actors - of course we expected something amazing imagination. I had too much hope and that was a big disappointment.
The first and most important problem of the film is, of course, the script.
Shyamalan decided to combine the incompatible and this is not only about writing the script, and other things that I will write about later. So Shyamalan’s fantasy took on incredibly grandiose dimensions and he decided to swing at several famous maniac heroes, combining them in one film and plot. The idea is vain and utopian at the same time. Of course, a brilliant mind requires brilliant solutions and unconventional moves, but not so much. . Don't mix the immiscible. . Do not mix pickles with sauerkraut, although both are delicious. . . But together. ..
Each film from which the characters of this film are taken is unique, both as personalities and as characters. But when they were in the same movie and in the same plot, each of them was lost.
This is the main problem of the script in my opinion. And then the story itself. The writer tried to present the difficult and magnificent inner world of the maniac, full of contradictions, pain, whose origins in childhood. . He tried to portray maniacs as victims, with a very beautiful and difficult inner world. Which I think is also reckless and not quite right to do. We do not need to paint maniacs as poor, with a beautiful soul and unhappy, then moral freaks and so they will remain. Don’t make us feel sorry for them, they won’t feel sorry for us when they meet us in a dark alley. And someone else will want to imitate these freaks, because they are almost heroes in the film. . .
Of the pluses of the film here of course the game of our unique and inimitable. . . Of course, it’s nice to watch them play... only what they say and do leaves much to be desired. And you keep waiting and waiting in the course of the movie, when at least the action begins, but you never wait. .
And plus the movie is the ending. The end of the film is unexpected, even interesting. There is another 10 minutes of action..at the end of the film.
Deep idea - pity the maniacs and look into their soul, because they are not like everyone else. That's not a good idea for me. . I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't get it. Maybe that’s not the idea of the director?
Not a bad thriller, sometimes interesting.. yes, there is intrigue, but you can think a little.. but. . .
It is a pity of course, but surpass 'Split' his creation 'Glass' Shyamalan couldn't. I'm not talking about Six. Our expectations were not met. And I hope he understands his mistakes and why the film didn’t quite work. And will still please us with cool scripts and films and plots.
Just out of respect for such great actors and their work:
6 out of 10
It is clear that since ' Glass' entered the comic book field, then the demand for it is corresponding. It is possible that someone expected to see a rather downhill movie with a bunch of engines, and, obviously, was not ready for the heroes hovering in the astral projection, who like to speculate for ' a cup of tea' about being. In fact, to expect for 20 million dollars large-scale destruction, ah, very ordinary venture (although the movie fulfills its budget by 100%).
Contrary to popular belief, the film is integral, and organically fits into the overall outline of the entire trilogy, completing the stories of the central characters. Cinema is very meditative and requires maximum immersion, does not spare fans of action, and even more so stands apart compared to classic comic projects (it is understandable, but, it has so much emphasis!). Shyamalan seems to be playing with the viewer: 90% of the timekeeping consists of an elegant dialogue film, diluted with a galaxy of catchy scenes under heartbreaking trills, which again and again lead to the final block, where the cunning Hindu does the same thing that Ari Astaire did last year in his "Reincarnation" & #39; In both cases, the final slices look rough, someone will call them even thrashy or drainy, but how immediately changes the dynamics of the narrative! It was as if another movie had gone off.
Here are some here draw parallels tape with Snyder, someone even manages to Christopher Nolan & #39; glue & #39; But I am convinced that the director, through the ideas embedded in the film, brought to the masses thoughts, forms about good men and villains, hovering in ... ' Gone With Ghosts' Miyazaki (an unexpected reference, yes). Therefore, each of the heroes ' Glass' (like ' Invulnerable' and ' Split') seems not to be an alien from another planet, but a kind of portrait of an inhabitant, leading an eternal battle every day for the right to be identical and unique.
The third part of the unexpected trilogy. We can do without going to the cinema, because nothing outstanding was shown to us. If the distant 'Invulnerable' was very good, though in some places boring, and 'Split' really caught his atmosphere and magnificent game McAvoy, the film ' Glass' turned out to be a very dubious and confused project.
Specifically, this part had potential, realistic superhero theme in my opinion, began to develop interestingly. How much could be ' sculpt' of these insanely charismatic Heroes, it would seem that there is everything, and no pleasure.
So the beginning was intriguing. The plot imperceptibly brings all three characters together and now they are in a psychiatric hospital, and then, sorry, complete nonsense begins. Banal, sometimes confused dialogues, a lot of illogical and seemingly simple things. For example, there is no protection, or one person (well, as much as possible) and many such inconsistencies.
The action almost takes place in one location, which also brings boredom. The logic of the surviving girl (Anya Taylor-Joy) is striking, she was added just to be. Sarah Paulson (who often plays this kind of character) and does not cause any sympathy, if in 'Split' that woman really believe the psychiatrist, then here - cardboard image. Quite often flashbacks to past parts appear, which causes nostalgia.
To the actors of the main roles no claims, all sustained. David Dunn (Bruce Willis) has become much more confident, he really can be mistaken for a superhero, less close to life. James McAvoy is still crooked on camera, in a good way, although there is no such admiration as from the first time, since we are already familiar with his game. Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson) will show his power of mental activity. But I was sincere and painfully hurt for their story in this part of the trilogy, to plot such a thing for such a banal and extremely unfortunate outcome. This is a crime! Why?! After all, a business card, a certain highlight in the films Shyamalan is an unexpected ending. In ' Glass' it is, but such a weak plot move that willy-nilly begin to guess and how it is presented leaves a feeling of disappointment. The whole movie is a huge twist for a twist. Throughout the entire timekeeping, and it is there for 2 hours, we are let down, pulled and pulled to some interesting outcome, in fact there is nothing and will not be. At the climax of the film, we are clearly hinted at something new, the beginning of the end. No Shyamalan, better to shoot again something like 'Visit'. Pictures at the level 'Sixth sense' clearly not seen. It didn't work. You can close your eyes to all this misunderstanding and enjoy the most innocuous of personalities, the lover of dancing Hedwig, the blessing of access to ' light ' he has plenty.
5 out of 10
Yes, the first reaction of a progressive and not by the years of a smart audience was in many ways categorical: from now on, again, the incompetent director M. Night Shyamalan after such successful "Visit" and "Split" suddenly managed to get into such a slime that they forgot about "Lord of the elements" and "After our era". It's too much, not guys. It seems (no), many viewers are so much used to modern comic books that any new creation, remotely or partially touching on the topic of picture books, are ready to explore to the bone under the magnifier not in favor of creation. Or to harm.
It's a normal movie. Watch and watch with interest events that, at first glance, the dog laughed. There was a battle between the Invincible and the Beast. Every passing comic has this. Is there anything atypical you want? You just have to understand that all the expected hype with the great confrontation against the backdrop of a burning pontifical building is just a clear trick to understand one thing: these three may be superheroes, but they do not fly, teleport, do not destroy everything around them. Getting out of the cells wouldn't have gone far. They're just the first ones.
First time. Agree, it is amusing to observe the fragile illusion that comics never lied. There are superhumans in the world, comics have only embellished everything. Suddenly, the long-dormant belief that you are not like all the idiots around you takes on a new dimension. You have to wake up and get out of your comfort zone. Perhaps M. Night Shyamalan should be censured only for the appearance of a group of certain people. A-la is a necessary detail, although quite predictable. But he develops conflict where it is needed most: in the most beloved heroes.
And if you look closely, then, probably for the first time, M. Night Shyamalan did not seek to create a “this day” ending. Such an outcome was expected, and it rightly ended without artificially stretching the primary story. Here you are not another variation on the sad childhood and the harsh real Batman or the teenage problems of Peter Parker, who has added white fluid. It is not that the audience wants to present an idea darker and more realistic. The drunk is such that an original and watchable film with a claim to superheroic.
Now, we think, to consider "Invulnerable" terribly boring film almost a maveton. It was not becoming a hero, but accepting himself as he is, as almost the entire film showed. Split also represented a new character who had great opportunities to win the delight of the audience. Of course, it seemed that in "Glass" should happen mahachi of the year, but the script did not follow the lead of geeks and fans of comics, who do not get tired of enjoying the same events in different variations. M. Night Shyamalan showed that there is and will be another movie.