Talking about this film should avoid any spoilers. Therefore, the plot details will be avoided at all. Combining multiple characters into one universe was a good idea, and Night Shyamalan did it perfectly. Realities 'Split' and 'Invulnerable' in this film converge to create a similar conceptual paradox: non-trivial characters, unexpected turns, a slight tightness in the middle of the tape and turning the whole ending. The similarity with the reality of Marvel or DC is only nominal – a completely different, more multidimensional, psychological development of the characters.
In reality, Shyamalan focuses not on the superpowers of the heroes, but on their human shortcomings, injuries, and indeed they are more like patients in a psychiatric hospital than the brave heirs of James Bond. Moreover, it seemed to me that Shyamalan was still a little restrained, focusing on the attention of the viewer and trying not to overload him with details. But even the proposed version of the film caused some confusion to the audience, who admire every next film about Venom or Aquaman. Expecting the final fight between ' Invulnerable' Bruce Willis and ' Beast' James McAvoy, the audience received something different, unexpected and undoubtedly more prescient. And this can be called one word - Glass. The outcome of this battle would have been known in advance.
So, this film reminded me of the earliest works of Shyamalan, when he was a young and rapidly gaining momentum author placed in Hollywood his ' road maps' author's cinema, receiving super-profits. Obviously, the experience of the master does not allow him to arrange all the details in one of his tapes. That’s why it seems so egregious understatement ' Glass'. And this understatement looks like the only drawback of the tape. This is the beginning of a new franchise.
I am very surprised by some reviews, or rather - criticism of the film about ' Glass'. What did you expect, gentlemen? This is not ' Marvel' with its colorfulness, abundance of characters, a brief mention of their biography and an incredible number of battle scenes. This is not 'DC' with their gloom (although what now, after the loss of Snyder, after 'Aquaman' and before 'Shazam', gloomy), thoughtful plot (though what, after 'Justice League', plot). This is M. Night Shyamalan!
To understand what to expect, you need to reconsider 'The Sixth Sense', 'The Mysterious Forest' and 'Invulnerable' (the latter is generally necessary - a prequel after all).
From this film you should not expect an abundance of action and drive, cool fighting scenes and wide shots with hundreds of characters. But here you are waiting for the thoughtfulness of the plot, the great play of the cast (it is worth mentioning D. McAvoy, who is still in ' Split' was great, but here - he played even cooler!), the disclosure of the characters (despite the fact that this is the third film in the series, and the stories of the two characters have already been revealed, still in this film you will learn something new about each of them), a super-cool game with light and color correction (it is worth looking at the trailers), and, of course, a chic twist at the end (although you can expect more from the author');
It’s not 'Marvel' and 'DC' but it may be the beginning of a new universe. . .
What is the power of superheroes? Is this a real miracle or are these just symptoms?
I went to the movie with high expectations. All because before that I saw and 'Split' and 'Invulnerable' (the first film is especially vividly remembered and left a very good impression). Both of these films gave me a wonderful idea. The idea that superheroes are not only red capes, leather tights, a burning laser from the eyes, incredible gene mutations, etc., but can also be the result of strong self-belief. This concept was particularly well discussed by a psychiatrist in 'split'.
After watching modern conveyor films and series about superheroes, the soul often becomes dreary, the impressions after them are often empty, like a mirage, but it was this idea of the director that lit a spark of hope. It seemed to me that with this move M. Shyamalan & #39; will revive & #39; superheroics, will raise it to a completely different level. And in the end, he turned somewhere wrong.
The first part of the film is good, because the clash of characters is so interesting, and as McAvoy flaunts, well, just talent, not for nothing everyone praises. And, here, the second part of the film - the viewer's attention does not rest on anything, only on the director's favorite plot twists.
I personally thought that Shyamalan was too clever in the film, he so desperately wanted to blur the boundaries between fantasy and reality that he did not notice how by the end of the film he overloaded the viewer with information.
How did the story of a man with a disorder ' multiple personality' turn into a non-history about heroes?
It's terrible. Simple, primitive, with violations of all logic and lack of meaning. Split is a story about a mental disorder. I got hooked, excited. Fresh and new. Glass, what's the story? Comics? The birth of a new universe? Then why bother with people with mental disorders? Just show the birth of heroes. Or is it a hint that all heroes are crazy?
Syndrome ' multiple personality' is a serious illness. Of course, not all personalities are positive. There are negatives. But to emphasize not that the negative personality, and the beast – it seems to me too much.
From fantastic stories, no one really expects reliability. But Split wasn't a hero movie, it wasn't a new universe movie. There were a lot of exact details that kept the structure of the film.
Why Glass drastically changed the genre is unclear. A lot of inaccuracies, inconsistencies, blunders... It feels like the director has changed. But no, it's the same.
We went out into the light, but the lights were gone.
McAvoy did the previous part of the trilogy, it was because of his performance that I went for the third. And then he continued to play, to do what he's great at. His character, the Horde, releases different personalities even more often than in the previous part. And all in one double, in a continuous stream. That's great. It's fascinating. That's impressive. This from the very beginning of the film makes you smile and wait with interest for the continuation ... but the continuation is neither of these things.
When Willis, Invulnerable, comes into play, it becomes frankly boring. He plays the same character as the first movie, with the same character (nothing has changed in 19 years) and the same cockroaches. But nothing.
Jackson. 'Name - Mister, Surname - Glass...' His character is interesting, he brings an element of non-triviality to the film, at least some interest in the plot. And Samuel's performance on top, of course, could not be otherwise ... but... Something is missing.
The plot of the film is so primitive and trivial that there are no words. Such a number of flaws, mistakes, illogicality and simply delirium is not expected in the final film of the trilogy. But no, it's a mess. An unguarded hospital in which two superpowered people are placed. In the guard in shifts, one is not even a guard, but just a slug orderly and 'automatics' which is not automatic at all, but works only by pressing a button. This is in 2019... I just don't have words about it. Meanwhile, the plot of the film is tied to this. It doesn’t stop at all ' why couldn’t it be all right? Why not write the script at the previous level? ! 39;
The film takes place in 7'locations'. Either the director wanted to approach the atmosphere of the first film, or the budget was regretted, but it is also distracting and striking. I may be used to large-scale superhero blockbusters involving half the planet and the cosmos, but I think it would be possible to diversify what is happening on the screen.
And here we come to the biggest drawback of the film - boredom. The movie is frankly boring. The action takes place for 2 hours, but about 80% of this time we see dialogue, and stretched and frankly weak. Atmosphericity these dialogues do not add, but to force yourself not to be distracted from the film every minute is more difficult. And if it weren't for McAvoy... In short, the pseudo-pathosity of dialogue and the number of clichés put, in my opinion, an end to the film.
The ending of the film is a separate case. So finish the whole trilogy... Don't know, don't know. ..
Maybe I expected more after watching the previous part. Maybe it was something else, personal, I don’t know. But in the end, the film is not worth the money and time.
5 out of 10
"Glass" - the final film of 2019 from the fantastic trilogy "Invulnerable" directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Previously, it included such works as "Invulnerable"(2000) and "Split"(2016). This trilogy has been called the "first author's superhero universe" for its differences from traditional fantasy franchises. Its main features are the basis on the real world and the originality of the project as a whole (does not come from the material of comics). Also distinguishing feature of the trilogy is that it was created by one person, unlike other superhero franchises.
In Glass, three characters converge in one story - David Dunn, popularly nicknamed The Observer(Bruce Willis), Mr. Glass(Samuel L. Jackson) and Kevin Crumb(James McAvoy). The action takes place three weeks after the events of Split. They find themselves in the same psychiatric clinic, Raven Hill Memorial, where they were placed by the authorities for treatment for “fantastic obsessions.”
For their therapy is taken by Dr. Elly Staple (Sarah Paulson). She is given three days to work with such special patients. During this period, she must cure them, otherwise they face prison. But she did not consider the possibility that villains can unite.
(hereinafter - No SPOILERS). OR HOW IT HAS BEEN.
Of all the three main characters of “Glass”, Kevin is best represented in action. Here, more attention is paid to the diversity of his personalities, and how in a split second one replaced the other. This happened thanks to the joint work of Shyamalan and McAvoy, in which each individual person was worked out. One of them was written off by James from the actress Saoirse Ronan, with whom they starred together in the film Atonement. James’s co-star, Samuel L. Jackson, was very impressed with the way he masterfully portrayed a person with multiple personality disorder.
A little more strange is the case with the Beast. Along with the dialogues that he is able to conduct mainly with Mr. Glass, there is a lot of growl in his communication. (OK, we already knew it was the Beast!)
The situation is slightly worse with two other heroes, David Dunn and Mr. Glass. Their characters are certainly revealed to a certain extent. But not in what is necessary in order for the viewer to navigate them properly. We're shown flashbacks that give us directions to think about what led to their disorders. But even with them there is still something incomprehensible. In this situation, it will be even more difficult for someone who is not familiar with the previous films of the trilogy.
David Dunn exists in Glass by natural laws (conventions), without which the genre does not function. In his actions, the action component gives way to internal drama and feelings about his self-determination. Bruce Willis certainly manages this side of his character.
Mr. Glass is the undisputed megabrain of the Trinity. He skillfully uses his mind to fool everyone around him by pretending to be incapable. At the same time, he is good at moral pressure on Kevin, which is bearing fruit.
In "Glass" there are 3 minor characters - the son of David, Joseph (Spencer Trit Clark), the mother of Mr. Glass (Charlane Woodard) and the victim of Kevin, Casey (Ana Taylor-Joy). Sometimes it is not clear how they affect the main characters. Take them away and the story will not suffer.
Casey is the one who asks the most questions. She developed a kind of Stockholm syndrome towards Kevin. The motivation for her actions is unclear. “What the hell did you think you could save him?” At some stage, Casey begins to seriously annoy.
The hospital atmosphere is outrageous. It is too simple for such complex characters to exist. Everything is so careless and unpretentious that the heroes simply have nothing to overcome. The viewer may not worry about them in this regard. I really wanted to see difficult conditions here, such that it took my breath away and thought: How will they get out of this shit? But it wasn't. No hospital security. There are almost no staff in it, except for a few narrow-minded orderlies. (The performer of the role of the orderly Pierce, Luke Kirby, we could especially remember the role of stand-up comedian Lenny Bruce in the series "The Incredible Mrs. Maisel").
They might as well have been put on chairs in a clean field and said, We have put you in custody. You can’t get away from it and then leave it to yourself. And then wonder, where did the patients go?
The only thing that a little washed the viewer’s eyes was the methods of influencing patients. Kevin had hypnotic lanterns that blocked the aggression of his personalities. David has streams of water that are activated throughout the room during aggressive attacks.
The way the film unfolds to the very end (it is more difficult to say, because spoilers will follow), shows the striking difference between Glass (and the Invulnerable trilogy in general) and traditional samples of this genre. There are no external forces against which guys of perfect appearance in shiny underwear over tights should fight. All the conditions here are real. And here the villains are not cosmic giants, but the prejudices of society.
Sometimes we are too afraid to know the truth about what we do not understand and what surpasses us. It is much easier for us to hide from reality than to do something about it. This prevents us from showing ourselves without fear, real.
6 out of 10
I left the theater thinking it was a bad movie. I watched the whole movie thinking about what the hell it was. I usually watch the first 10-15 seconds of the trailer to see if it’s worth watching the movie and not highlighting the highlights of the movie. So here for 10 seconds it was clear that you do not need to go to the movies. I wanted to rethink all these superhero ideas. It didn't work.
There are only a few characters in the movie, all the other characters are just empty-headed dummies, starting from the employees of a psychiatric hospital who enter the ward to the violent patients and almost hugging them and ending with cops who absolutely do not resist letting themselves be scattered and calmly lying waiting for their fate.
The plot is pulled by the ears and creates only the impression that the screenwriter tried to somehow push the main characters. Ani Taylor-Joy’s Stockholm syndrome, Jackson’s rampant anger, Sarah Paulson’s attempt to convince the characters of their non-uniqueness as a psychiatrist all create a sense of unreality.
Attempting to build up tension during the film leads to nothing at the end. Until the very end, you want to believe that the final battle on the skyscraper is about to happen, but no – everything ends before even having time to start. Having pushed each other several times, they all suffer alone. It's clear it's not Marvel and not even the DC universe and mahacha, with half the city's destruction I didn't expect. But then it was possible not to crack the whole film about the skyscraper and the battle that will happen there in front of thousands of people.
So until the end of the film, it is not clear why the characters are so eager to draw attention to the fact that there are superheroes from the comics. What does that give them? Why they want everyone to know is not clear. I have to make a story out of something. And that's fine.
Only surprised the finale. More precisely, the explanation of the plot sucked from the finger. Surprised by his boundless delusions, putting a bold point in this, so well started trilogy. The film did not position itself as a superhero, in the understanding of the mass audience, cinema. And on philosophical reasoning, on the theme “there are heroes in each of us”, it does not pull because of a pile of empty chatter and a sense of unreality of what is happening.
The glass is open. The new creation of M. Knight "This is a turn!" Shyamalan. A man who created a good "Sixth Sense" and a good "Invulnerable", who had the curious idea that in reality there can be superhumans, that they can either not recognize the gift in themselves, or believe in themselves and know it, and then decide how to dispose of them, and where the hero is always the villain. The second is the opposite of the first and they often know each other. Although it was sometimes hard to watch the film because of the things that I don’t like in Shyamalan’s films: the pretentious manner of shooting, as if shouting “Look how I can!”, the drawn-out scenes and dialogues (sometimes the characters are stupidly silent or say platitudes or the same thing), but then in general M. Knight knew what he was doing. Unfortunately, starting with "Signs" and ending with "After our era" added a stupid and banal story, served on serious jerseys, bad acting, wild boredom (exactly excellent sleeping pills) and incompetent action (especially in "Lord of the elements", for which I would Shyamalanu separately expressed a couple of "gentle" words). I missed the visit, but Split did not. I wouldn’t call it the director’s triumphant return, but it was a step forward. Pretentious shooting was less, despite the stupidity was interesting and even a little tense to watch (even the desire to sleep was not annoying), the actors’ play was not annoying (except for Ani Taylor-Joy, who almost the whole film walked with one face), and the idea of a dude with a bunch of personalities is interesting. That's just why it was necessary to make them 24 pieces, if normal showed about 5, and the remaining 2-3 lazily showed for a minute or two, and make the Beast a super-being? The last one was for Shyamalan to say, "Oh, how did I do this?" What, did not expect? and made a crossover "Split" and "Invulnerable", because there is a MCU, and what is it worse than them? Which he did in "Glass."
Kevin Crumb and David Dunn continue to do what they did in Split and Unbreakable respectively. One day they accidentally encounter and after a scuffle find themselves in a psychiatric hospital, in which David’s enemy Elijah Price is located. All three are being treated.
The plot has almost the same theme as the one in Invulnerable, and Shyamalan’s attempt to sow doubt that Mr. Glass, Invulnerable and Crumb have superpowers, and in fact they are ordinary people with an unhealthy psyche. It didn’t work for me, because in past movies they showed and said that superpowers are in the universe of these movies, and they are real. And where without the strangeness and stupidity (especially this is M. Knight): why the dudes from the mental hospital came to Dunn only now, although everyone knows about his heroes for a long time? Why is Casey so normal about Kevin after he was at Split (he is clearly not healthy, it is better to stay away from them, if he throws something out)? Why can Kevin find his own mind without having to give his full name (or does he have feelings for Casey?) Then I don't really believe in them? Why are there so few hospital guards and paramedics? And the first and no weapons, and one of the second is conducted on the request of patients (not afraid that something might go wrong), so the second in general only at one moment realized that Elijah was leaving his cell. How did Elijah even do that? There are still questions about the final twist, which I will not spoil, but I want to.
The only one that was interesting to watch was Kevin, thanks to James McAvoy, who played great again. The rest of the actors almost the whole movie go with sour pussy. There is no tension (of which there is not much, but there was in Split) in Glass, there is less interest in Mr. Glass's speeches (and this is mainly what was in Invulnerable), drawn-out (when a redhead tries to convince superhumans that they are just people) or extra scenes (the orderly's dialogue with the guard, or who was the latter? Laziness to remember), even more pretentious shooting, because of which in the first battle of David and Kevin my head hurt, and the action itself, where the characters only do what grab and throw each other.
"Glass" is a movie, after which the soul was empty. The little that was interesting was in the previous films of Shyamalan's Cinematic Universe (and yes, "Glass" kind of ended the trilogy, but sequels might be), and the rest didn't work out stupidly. Not Shyamalan’s worst film, but unfortunately not one of his best. In the meantime, I'm going to believe I have superpowers.
Mm. Knight Shyamalan is a very strange director. Sometimes he makes very cool films ('The Sixth Sense', 'The Visit'), sometimes frankly terrible ('After our era', 'The Lord of the Elements'), and sometimes very ambiguous ('Phenomenon'). Released in 2016 'Split' also came out as a controversial film, which also unexpectedly created the Shyamalan cinema universe, linking it to 'Invulnerable' 2000. And here comes the third film of this franchise called 'Glass'. And he, I will tell you, suffers ' plurality' (just like Kevin Crumb). It’s both horrible and weird, but with good characters and an interesting idea.
Let's go straight!
The plot is very independent. If you haven’t watched 'Invulnerable' and 'Split', it will be very difficult for you to perceive what is happening and connect all the threads of the narrative into one. The film simultaneously wants to be a superhero blockbuster, like 'The Avengers' and a dramatic thriller, and an author's film (op-pa! again ' plurality' haha). In addition, the perception of the picture is very affected by the periods of release of all its parts. Shyamalan makes such references to 'Invulnerable' as if he was released literally yesterday, not in 2000, while not taking into account that the film with Bruce Willis failed miserably and only over time became considered good.
Actors. What's good about the movie is the acting. Old Bruce and charismatic Sam Jackson, despite the fact that it has been almost 20 years, enjoy playing their characters. James McAvoy tries hardest, playing a maniac with multiple personality disorder for the second time. The fact that he transforms from one person to another in a matter of seconds is definitely worth the praise and attention of the audience. Ehh, here he got with this image in another film to another director, it was possible to safely harvest various awards.
Camera photography and composition work do not have any of their features, sometimes not even particularly harmonizing, thereby not helping the picture at certain moments.
What I liked most was the idea of a superhero movie (in the era of Marvel and DS, they just became ' the scourge' of our culture), which Shyamalan is trying to convey through the character of Sarah Paulson. The main message is that superheroes are ordinary crazy people who do not have any abilities and just get into this or that situation. But the way the director presents it, and then the way he completely replays it, just destroys it and throws the original idea into the trash (fucking Shyamalan twists!).
So, ' Glass' this, just like its name, is a very fragile non-independent film with an interesting idea and good characters. It is worth a little pressure on him, asking a question, and the picture is completely broken into many incomprehensible fragments. And so the final twists do not work and the ending is very fresh.
P.s. What if several directors (good, bad and strange) also live inside Shyamalan? Hmm, then everything becomes clear.
I've never seen that look at things. There was something similar in 'Human X' but there was rather xenophobia towards mutants. In ' Glass ' everything is different.
From the picture you should not expect Marvel action as you do not need to expect from Schweps the taste of Coca-Cola. This is Shyamalan, and you have to go to the movie with the right attitude. This is a picture for thoughtful viewing.
In my opinion, this is a good conclusion to the trilogy. Each of the three main characters was shown in full. It is not forgotten that these are just people, although different from the rest. At some point you even doubt whether they are really so special or all of them ' superpower' far-fetched.
The contractions are not shown in the spirit of 'The Matrix'. These are, rather, ordinary domestic fights without cool angles and special effects with slomoushen. You don't need it. This is the style of the film, and it is cool in its own way.
This is the first movie in recent years that has knocked out my tears. After a proper immersion in the film, it will be impossible to leave the theater without a deeply left trace on the heart. A separate respect to the director for the fact that the role of Joseph Dunn (son of the hero Bruce Willis) is played by the same actor who played his son 19 years ago.
Someone says that Casey Cook (the girl from 'Split') in general in the film extra. I disagree, because the scenes with her help reveal the character of James McAvoy.
And, of course, to follow the studio acting James McAvoy - a separate pleasure.
10 out of 10
It is quite difficult to write a censored review of a favorite film after reading negative reviews of people. Yes, it always happens, I understand, but I will try.
In general, as you all know, this is the third part of the series, which began back in 2000. But do not forget that this is the third part with the title ' Glass' - the pseudonym of Elijah. But more on that later.
Of course, I do not recommend going to this film if you have no idea what the previous films were about, although, judging by the reviews of some people, even watching previous films did not help them much.
If we talk about the picture, the acting, it is incredibly good. Each character is well revealed, the motives of each are shown perfectly, it has long been so that each character you could understand, understand and respect. Magnificent work on the picture, amazing inserts from the 2000 film - this was generally masterpiece, although not a special meaning they carried, but to look at the footage of the 2000 film, at young actors - for this at least it is worth respecting this film and the idea that the screenwriter carried so long before the start of the superhero movie.
Yes, it is worth mentioning that the action in this film, which people love from the conveyor films of known universes, is not here, it is shown as much as necessary and exactly as much as it was in the previous two films. And it is at this moment that it is worth paying tribute to the director that he did not change his principles, but, as I said above, carried the whole main idea without vulgarizing it with the modern trend of fashion.
Back to the fact that the film is ' Glass', this film is a picture of this character, because he is the main character here, not David and Kevin. It was Elijah, his actions led to the logical apogee of this film, it was his motivation and idea he wanted to demonstrate to everyone. And the attentive viewer after each 'twist', after each reference there is an incredible feeling of sympathy for this picture. At some point I became a little dissatisfied with the introduction of secondary characters, the emphasis on them, but otherwise, as it turns out, it was impossible without them, everything was logical. Yes, this picture is holistic, it does not have special moments, dialogues, on which we can say that they are here to be stupid.
Bottom line: the film has a logical ending and a very strong thought, for which it is worth appreciating this picture, because this thought was the absolute conclusion of the films and the trilogy of the disclosure of the main characters.
I thought the movie was strong, and I even broke a tear at the end. I advise those people who appreciate films about superheroes for a part of realism, humanity, the development of the character taking into account his changes and the gloom of being without which it is impossible to become a strong personality, to become a superhero.
9 out of 10
I recently saw the trailer for the film 'Glass' and decided it was some kind of super movie, a la, superheroes from Shyamalan. The trailer looked solid. Later I found out that there are other 2 parts: 'Unbreakable' and 'Split'.
' Invulnerable' I really liked it. The acting and the plot were on top. 'Split' the film was also not bad, but there was something in it not very, perhaps the plot, and possibly the main character. Let's go back to the film called 'Glass'.
I'll tell you right away, I liked the movie.Now I'll tell you why, and we'll start with the plot.
The plot, it would seem, does not promise anything, but after watching the first 30-40 minutes of the film, I almost fell asleep, so it was boring, just a retelling of who is Split, Invulnerable and Glass. As soon as the middle of the film began, the plot somehow ' revived ' because in ' game ' Samuel Leroy Jackson entered. It's a great development, but what a poor guard in the hospital. Only 2-3 people protect the most dangerous people in the world. Are you serious?
A lot of people didn’t like the ending, but I don’t know what’s wrong with it. The ending is a confrontation between the main characters, it seemed to me good and beautifully shot, although there was no action. But what did you want? In the previous parts it was not, and no one complained.
The main characters.
I can note the acting of McAvoy, because he in the film such enchanting reincarnations gave that it was cool.
Jackson was also pleased, because in 'Invulnerable' I thought it was not enough.
Bruce Willis plays himself, but it didn’t bother me.
Secondary characters are worse spelled out, but they also exist, as if for a tick.
Story twists.
They were, and there was one chic twist that touches one of the main characters. For lovers of twists, they are.
Summing up, I can say one thing, as for me the film is a good conclusion to the trilogy of Shyamalan.
It is difficult for me to write this review, because I myself relate to fans of Shyamalan’s early work in the form of the Sixth Sense, the Mysterious Forest and the Invulnerable. I must say that the latter is one of my favorite films. It was regrettable to watch the director slide in recent years, creating uninteresting, tasteless and unideal pictures. When Split came out, I was hoping that Shyamalan had finally returned to his roots. The news of the upcoming premiere of Glass made me very happy. What I can't say about the movie itself that shattered my hope.
Incredibly protracted, boring, monotonous film with silly dialogue at the wrong time, aimed at making everyone chew everything up. The ridiculous arguments of a psychiatrist trying to prove to supers that they are not supers, but mentally ill. Perhaps this could create some intrigue, if the audience did not see the previous two films. After watching the trailer, I thought the mental hospital story was just the beginning of a bigger, more complex story. I was unpleasantly surprised that the mental hospital is the whole plot.
Of course, there are ' that's the twist ' that early Shyamalan loved so much. However, the director seems to have forgotten how to use this technique. Turning Glass is a cheap craft of the category ' I am your father' that does not add anything to the plot of the picture, does not force to rethink its story. It's a blank shot from Chekhov's gun that nobody hung on stage in the first act. It's a butler killer.
Is there anything good in the movie? Yeah, I guess. It has the style of the director: good work with color, long scenes on one frame, work with the camera and composition. People who like Shyamalan’s style are likely to enjoy the picture and some of the decisions. James McAvoy's performance is always great. It is a pity that it does not save the picture as a whole.
If Invulnerable was an incredibly promising start to a new superhero universe with drama and on ' serious shiv' where the heart of the story would be the emotional experiences of the characters and the difficulties that would have faced ' hero' in the real world, then Glass successfully buried this promising undertaking. The main twist of this film is that Shyamalan’s return never happened. Alas.
Pity those who go to "Glass", not looking before it "Split" and "Invulnerable". However, no, I don’t feel sorry for them at all – this swollen Marvel popcorn audience. It does not matter whether she admires thoughtlessly widescreen miracles, laughs at vulgar jokes or tries to find deep meaning and subtext in the intricacies of the plot. As it was, it seems, Kuttner: "We have taught them to slop, we even taught them to love these slops."
Who will now take the trouble to dig up Shyamalan’s 2000 film, and who will pay attention to the title credits that open this three-part drama? I insist on this definition of genre, especially in relation to the first film of the trilogy. And an encyclopedic reference about comics and their place in modern popular culture gives the main key to its reading.
Shyamalan from the beginning masks the seriousness of the topic with external attributes. Catastrophes, crimes with hundreds of victims, maniac schizophrenic, Bruce Willis The latter is the closest thing to pure drama. I can imagine how he read the script of Invulnerable, where the actual replica will hardly get a heel of pages. Or subscribed to the final frame Split with a single line. Yes, and in "Glass" he has a little text, frankly.
Meanwhile, one starting plan at the train window in Invulnerable speaks of the anguish of modern man, devoid of landmarks and values in a world of illusions, more than all the verbiage of any verbose superhero.
The director (who is also a writer and a traditional cameo) puts the trilogy where it should be – in the real world. Although in the reviews already flashed the word “universe”. No, guys, Shyamalan isn't from your world. He's from ours. That's what I'm talking about.
And if Zack Snyder, for example, in The Guardians or The Forbidden Reception brings the superhero comic to absurdistic heights, then Shyamalan finally lands it.
The construction of the frame, the movement of the camera, a lot of pleasant things to the eye and mind emphasize the main thing: the most urgent and acute conflict today is not a conflict of good and evil. Shyamalan tells us how important it is in this faceless gray world of the victorious mass cult, bright and brilliant, to find oneself. True heroism in a world of successful and successful mediocrity.
It is funny that many viewers went to this film with the hope of looking at the superhero entourage. And I even witnessed a certain number of people go to the end of the movie, about fifteen minutes before. However, the hall even became quieter and the epilogue of the picture was perfectly presented.
I personally loved all of Mr. Shyamalan’s films. Some a little more and some a little less. But this director is really able to shoot an ambiguous tape, often turning the plot by 180 degrees (suffice it to recall at least ' Mysterious Forest'). And to the cinema, to the session 'Glass', I went with the firm intention of getting my dose of psychology and brainstorming. Which is exactly what I did.
The fact is that 'Invulnerable', which suddenly turned out to be the first part of an equally sudden trilogy, completely plays the theme of autosuggestion and the causal demagoguery accompanying it. The themes of comics and superheroes were just the backbone of the plot. In 'Split' also intertwined social relationships of certain individuals who were a single whole at one time, and a hostile horde at another.
A' Glass' proves that nothing lasts forever. And that just because someone says you can't jump above your head doesn't mean you can't try. The plots of all three films became a single whole, because even the director’s cameo got its own story. After watching, I only regretted that there was no place for the continuation. That's from common sense. But the director perfectly proved that the norm is not what the vast majority leans towards, but what happens by itself.
For every action there is a reaction. Each fire is accompanied by smoke.
I’ve heard about this trilogy of films, but until recently I’ve never tried to watch them. Simultaneously with the premiere ' Glass', I watched the first two, and then went to the cinema for a sequel, because the trailer interested me. Alas, the film disappointed me, although I can not say that it is completely bad. Everything in order.
For which I would like to praise the film - for acting in key roles. Samuel L. Jackson very plausibly played a drugged disabled person with a nervous tic. James McAvoy played magnificently, in fact, he was given most of the timekeeping. And even Bruce Willis isn't annoying. It's just that Bruce's role in the film is very modest - rarely shown, and the character doesn't stand out much - a surprisingly simple and honest guy with no cockroaches in his head. But the few secondary roles did worse. Anya Taylor-Joy especially stood out in this regard, who surprisingly well played a complete lack of emotion. Seriously, she didn't flinch a muscle in the whole movie, like she was a stone sculpture.
In fact, since we are talking about a few secondary roles, we will talk about them. This is one of the key problems of the film. So, in the hospital, where they contain especially dangerous psychopaths, able to bend steel with their bare hands and turn over cars full of people, not counting the chief psychiatrist, only 2 people work. No, I understand the budget of the film is very modest, by Hollywood standards, but... seriously? Just two nurses who work in shifts and look after absolutely all the patients alone? At the same time, the film found a place for such characters as Casey from Split and David’s son, who... in general, do not play any role in the plot. Both characters for most of the film only ineptly build surprised and shocked faces, but waste screen time. Because in the manner typical for this series of films, the camera likes to hang for 5 minutes, showing the faces of the characters in close-up.
Unfortunately, there are many such nuances. Supporting actors are few and often their role is extremely insignificant. Would it seem that this is so important in the film, which aims to reveal the inner essence of the characters? Perhaps this would be true for a perfectly chamber film if all its action did not extend beyond the cameras into which the key characters are planted. But this is not the case, the chamber film remains very short-lived and the acute shortage of actors leads to logical jambs. In a huge hospital there should be a lot of staff, but it is not, as there are no other patients (or rather, according to the scenario, they are, but show their maximum in the form of silhouettes in the windows). Especially dangerous serial psychopaths-maniac killers are treated here, but there is no security (or rather, according to the script, it seems to be the same, but in fact it is not in the film). The police force is 2-3 people for the whole city. And so on. The film feels too empty.
In addition to a modest number of actors, adds emptiness to the picture and the lack of a strong plot core. Here, three heroes are caught and put in a mental hospital. I expected that all three characters would have a confrontation with the attending physician, that they would somehow challenge his arguments, prove their point of view, even if doubts settled in them and they were not too sure of their rightness. But, no, the characters very quickly agree with all the arguments of the doctor and retreat into themselves. There is no confrontation, not even a dispute with oneself about what is true and what is not. So what's the point of this movie? This is not clear.
Back to the pluses, I can say that some scenes are very well staged. In places, the film resembles a very good thriller, sometimes catches up with horror. The feeling of danger from the Beast is transmitted even through the screen. Also, the action scenes in the film, albeit few, but I liked them. They may lack momentum, but they are well-positioned.
In the end, in my opinion, the key problem was the unworked scenario. Perhaps when creating the film was underestimated costs, could not shoot some scenes, could not hire more supporting actors – decided to leave as is, without changing anything. Because of this, the script breaks down, there is always something missing in it, and no docking is striking. However, I do not regret the time spent watching the movie. There was something to see in the movie. And despite the disappointment, I can’t say that I was completely unhappy with the film.
This is some rare set of nonsense, pathos, far-fetched plot twists and useless characters. With such a cast, to make a completely empty and meaningless film - one must still try.
'Give us your consent to death' says Sarah Paulson, after waterboarding a citizen of the United States, who was imprisoned without trial in a mental hospital. That is, it is implied that without his consent she will say ' sorry, then we will not bother you anymore'? And this scene is the quintessence of all the stupidity, illogicality and ill-thought-outness of the film.
There is a feeling that the script for him was written overnight on his knee. If there was one at all: the dialogues are so bland that you fall asleep under them, the ending would not be bad if there was not an hour and a half of trampling in front of it. Why, why, we were shown about five minor characters and in the end did not really reveal any? And the central characters were taken out like dusty toys from an old box, shaken, broken and thrown out. And finished it all humanistic ' believe in yourself!'
Believe in yourself, Mr. Shyamalan, but do not forget to do your job somehow. For watching this movie, the audience should pay extra money, not vice versa.
Mm. Knight Shyamalan in 2000 directed 'Invulnerable', the film received positive ratings and ranks 20th in the top twenty films since 1992 according to Quentin Tarantino. In 2017, the film 'Split' was released; this is the sequel 'Invulnerable' however, in the plot it does not intersect with the first, except for the unexpected Willis comeo in the finale. In 2019, M. Night Shyamalan released the final, final trilogy of the universe of superheroes in real life, the film ' Glass'. And having asked the question ' Should I go to the movies?' I confidently went to the film Shyamalan.
We are waiting for the connection 'Invulnerable' and 'Split'. David Dunn continues his mission to protect, with his son Josephon. Kevin Crumble and 'The Horde' led by 'The Beast' continues hunting. Dunn's main mission is to find 'The Beast' and defuse it. Mr. Glass, sitting in a mental institution and dreams of continuing his business, namely to convince David and Kevin that they are super heroes. But he's getting in the way of Dr. Ellie Staple.
Bruce Willis (David Dunn) - I enjoyed seeing the actor on screen. He looks beautiful and is quite attracted to a man who can save the world. Unlike the first one, he no longer has that lost sight in the film. In helping people, David found himself. But he still does not consider himself a superhero.
James McAvoy (Cavin Crumble) - he has proven his talent, he is amazing. It is interesting to watch the actor play, in this film he has more personalities and he successfully tries to give each of them something unique so that the viewer can distinguish. I'm sure it's complicated. Thank you very much to the director that in this part, the actor portrayed all the personalities in one clothes, and not as in ' Split' changing the costume for each character, looks more realistic.
Samuel L. Jackson (Mr. Glass) - I disliked him in the first part, and he did not reveal his abilities to the fullest. I liked what his brain showed in this one. All the machinations were interesting, as was the character himself.
Thank you to the director and actors that the roles of secondary characters were performed by those who played in the first two parts, to look at how they grew up, and someone, unfortunately, aged interestingly.
I would like to mention the comeo M. Knight Shyamalan, which is more than funny, personally made me smile.
I looked in the reviews before going to the movies, but until I see myself, I do not draw conclusions. I didn’t expect anything good from this part, probably because 'Invulnerable' and 'Split' I was a little disappointed.
Let's start over. The beginning of the film is great, we see Kevin and remember what the hero did, then we see David Dunn. An exciting meeting between Kevin and David. And then the yearning began. We see scenes in which there is a lot of dialogue, a lot of complex phrases, in the style of Shyamalan, I honestly waited for the action to begin. But during these uninteresting scenes, the film was accompanied by upbeat music and moments of surprise that shook a little. And then, yes, action begins, exactly what was missing 'Invulnerable'.
In this film, we learned the stories of the characters and their motivations.
I liked the scenes of contractions, many close-ups, and in general the work of the operator.
I liked that the director inserted flashbacks so that we remembered the first film, because it was released in 2000.
I liked and didn’t like the ending at the same time. I like the second confusing part, it may not be perfect, but the idea is good.
Oh yes, remember in 'Phenomenon' Hot Dog jokes? In this movie you will find a scene with a similar joke.
I didn’t like the fact that the director put all genres into this film. Thank you for the scenes where there are jokes.
I can’t say I’m excited about the film, but I won’t call it a failure either.
I advise you to go and see that Shyamalan is still trying to do something that he did in the beginning.
Why did we do that?
- Who else is that?
"Guardians" Alan Moore
Cinema knows dozens of examples when powerfully started, continued with fire, and ended, alas, weak puff. The first film, Unbreakable, was very powerful. The second split, in my opinion, is even stronger. And I never expected that the third film would be such a cool quintessence of the entire trilogy.
Fantasies about human super-powers have existed in human culture ever since the time of Greek heroes and Russian epic heroes. Subconsciously, people have always felt their fragility and craved the ability to protect them from natural elements and enemies. In the twentieth century, these fantasies took the form of a cult of comic superheroes. At first, these heroes were aliens, then mutants, then trained warriors with a bunch of gadgets – people increasingly brought them closer to themselves real.
The Invulnerable trilogy – Split – Glass asks the question: What if superheroes were real? What if superpowers were a force that man developed in himself for some reason? After all, we all know that a tentacle boy can make an athlete if he trains – “It can be scientifically explained, but, nevertheless, it is a miracle.”
The first film of the trilogy shows us that super-heroes, like super-villains, are not born – they become. It is not the possession of unique abilities that will determine the purpose, but the choice where these abilities are directed. Superhuman power is subject to simple human decisions.
The second film "Split" shows an alternative path to the development of super-powers and becoming superhuman.
The third film brings all the characters together to show that every Hero always has doubts about whether he is a hero and whether he is doing the right thing. And that there is a dark and bright side to each.
Heroes and villains of this story
David Dunn. Guard.
Acting data Bruce Willis is rare, although his work in “Invulnerable” critics spoke highly, but love him not for this. And for the image of the hero of the people, which he once again showed. It’s a great example of people doing more than talking.
As Hero David Dunn wears a “mask” – this is shown by a deaf cloak, always hiding his face with a hood and turning off the lights when it appears. To do good, he prefers to hide in darkness.
Kevin Crump. Horde.
James McAvoy showed the level of acting "God." In "Split" he gave his all and created a unique character, in which every facet of his sub-personalities is made so authentic that you believe him to the very end. Not only did he not drop his character, which is not difficult to do in the sequels – well, everything has already been shown – but he raised the bar even higher, almost tripling the list of reincarnations. Even adding graphics on some of his guises does not overlap with brilliant acting.
His character is one of those villains who are heroes in their eyes. The cruelty of the Beast is justified by the words “purifying the world through pain.” At the same time, the people living in it are in conflict, because not all of them approve of such actions. And individuals who are "for" releasing the Beast are gradually ousting those who objected. At the head of all remains a child who in his inexperience is not able to distinguish evil from good.
Elijah Price. Mr. Glass.
Jackson here takes more charisma and appearance than acting. His Elijah is a classic villain, clearly aware of what evil is doing. But he does not create it out of pleasure, but out of conviction. He is a part of the power that eternally desires evil and eternally does good. This is the character who by the methods of Evil wants to bring to our world a piece of the highest Good.
Of all three heroes, Mr. The glass is the strongest. Fragile as glass outside, inside it is stronger than a diamond – no matter what happens to it, it does not break. And he has the most powerful abilities. High intelligence. High morale. High spirit. Over-control. He's a skilled manipulator. The greatest spiritual qualities in the service of the Dark Side.
Every villain hero has an assistant. The one who believes in him with all his heart, who helps him, and who will not let his work be forgotten. Dunn has a son, Elijah has a mother, and Kevin has his personality. Casey's ex-victim role for Kevin is different - she's his anchor with the real world. And each of these assistants believes in their hero to the end. And in a moment of doubt, instead of disbelief, they start looking for evidence. But not for themselves, their faith is unshakable for others. These three – mother, son and girl – are as important in the story as the main characters. Because to break through the steel doors of Vera’s camera, you need much more than physical strength.
In this film, its author M. Night Shyamalan left us a lot of hidden messages. And you can dig into these layers for a very, very long time. Signs and quotes here at every step.
But to say that in his trilogy Shyamalan simply collected a bunch of Easter eggs is wrong – all that will be familiar here from other stories is not borrowings, but interpretations used specifically to make the viewer recognize the characters and plots, so that they pop up in his memory, convincing him of the reality of the stories shown. The films repeatedly emphasize the fact that comics exaggeratedly tell about real events, and Shyamalan shows everyone familiar plots and ideas in the form of “how it could be in reality.” And this blows up the brain.
Summing up, among the movies about heroes from comics, I put the Shyamalan trilogy on a par with “Guardians” and “Kick-Ass”, and I will review it more than once. I really hope that the film, as well as the work of its creator and actors, will be appreciated by viewers and critics.
I went to the movies for company. Preliminarily read the trailer, ratings and a couple of reviews of a negative nature. Everything was against him.
The film itself is a crossover. In it, director M. Night Shyamalan combines 2 of his previous works: 'Invulnerable' with Bruce Willis and S. Jackson and 'Split' James McAvoy. I didn't watch them. Moreover, I do not like the work of this director, they seem stretched and pretentious. Pretentiousness and this film is not deprived, but everything in order.
Which I didn't like.
The film begins in confusion, the scenes change each other at first glance without any structure.
I did not like the camera work in general, although in some places it was not bad.
So an invulnerable person has his own security agency (ah, how fresh).
Admittedly, the staff of the mental hospital themselves are complete psychos, the doctor is just a fool, security is zero. Yes, it would be difficult to get out of there, but the actions of employees are really confusing.
Behavior girlfriend ' Horde', which apparently overcame Stockholm syndrome, raises serious questions, but come on, the previous part did not watch. In general, almost all the characters of the film behave caricatured and absurd.
Shyamalan did not miss the opportunity to shove his cameo, in a rather humorous form, a la Stan Lee.
Another stupid ' secret organization' whose employees wear tattoos on their wrists (idiots) and gather in a cafe, hiding behind curtains.
Stupid plan ' Glass' which in the real world of information garbage and promotions for films is simply impossible.
What did you like?
James McAvoy as 'Hordes' Pulled the whole movie. Without the film for once, you could even watch in the original to fully appreciate the work done by the actor.
A psychiatrist tries to convince the characters that they are ordinary people. Played well, shown interesting, in these moments really imbued with sympathy for the film.
The lack of a typical action movie that is being shoved into every Hollywood movie these days (oh, it’s sick of it).
Interesting characters, their speeches, their actions. Maybe stupid, but interesting.
Result.
It’s a good movie, better than everyone talks about. If you are a movie fan, then in the absence of alternatives, I advise you to go to it.
7 out of 10
Brilliant! And the most striking thing about this film is that the message in the finale of this film, what we saw in action, in the real world, is how the critics met this film, if anyone does not know the film was defeated by critics, and it only confirms what Night Shyamalan wanted to show us, the stupidity of society and the complete unwillingness to think, the finale of the film explodes the brain, he turns everything upside down, on his head, in addition, like almost all Shyamalan's films. The meaning of this film is very difficult to tell without spoilers and people who are able to even slightly move the convolutions, it will no doubt understand, a film about the degradation of society and those who benefit from it, a film manifesto, a film that tries to open eyes to what we are and who is doing ' stupid' dummy. For comparison, the level of the message that the director wanted to convey to us is equal to the level of the message shown in the film by David Fincher & #39; Fight Club'. The challenge to the system, the awareness of our own delusion, the revolution of reason and power, the push to the evolutionary leap and overcoming the emotional barrier that the system has built for us. Shyamalan 19 years went to point the right way and 'Glass' this is the main twist of his life, his triumph and brilliant plan. I still have a lot of ideas that I would like to throw out here, but it can’t be done without spoilers, and spoiling Shyamalan’s movies is nonsense, be stronger, be smarter, be who you want to be, not who the system wants you to be.
What the hell did I look at? How is that possible, Shyamalan? Have you forgotten your movie The Sixth Sense? And the first part of the trilogy about his superheroes “Unbreakable”? Where's the mystery? Where's the mystery? Where's the great story? Where's the unexpected ending?! Don’t assume that the movie “Glass” has an unexpected ending! I am surprised by the difference between positive and negative reviews. Shit! It’s a pity that you can’t spoil... You have to warn about such idiotic things that happened in this film. There is no such thing as taste or color.
I liked the beginning of the movie. Everything went as it should, but something went wrong in the middle. What? Watch the movie and you will see how all the characters in the past parts become worthless and useless. And useless - this does not mean that in the film they do not affect the plot. They do. But their influence leads nowhere! All their importance, just - simply - flush down the toilet! Which I congratulate Shyamalan on. Where did his talent go?! With the sequels of Invulnerable, it was possible to repeat the success of Christopher Nolan with his Dark Knight! Did I say repeat? It could have been much better! But in fact, they decided to destroy the full potential of the first film. Very sorry.
Who liked the acting of James McAvoy in the movie “Split” – rejoice! He did a lot better in this movie! All the best scenes were made by him.
General impression: M. Night Shyamalan does not depart from his style, all the same shooting as in Invulnerable, Split. Heroes in reflections, large frames, the camera is sometimes static. We've seen it all. Can we do something new? Nope! Well, I agree, since this is a trilogy, then it should be kept in one style, which in principle Shyamalan manages to "hurrah". And the action takes place in one universe.
By the way, if you want to understand what’s what, and find out what kind of heroes with greater disclosure of characters, I highly recommend you to watch Invulnerable, Split. For in part 1 there are moments that are involved in the 3rd, and in the 2nd central characters: Casey and Kevin Crumb with his multiple personalities, which go in the sequel - "Glass".
Cinema timing is very long (2 hours!), so as not to get bored during this time, the director has made a lot of fading dynamics, where the characters are not revealed, but only shown to us superficially. A lot of muddled dialogue, which sometimes seemed improvised actors, sorry, well it looked frankly boring, and ridiculous! And how many unnecessary scenes in the film, but the tape can easily be cut in 2 times or at least throw out half an hour. But no, everything goes slowly in one location + everything is flavored with a disgusting ending, which turned out to be predictable, since this is the end of the trilogy, and it must be completed somehow. By the way, for those who have not watched 1-2 part of the tape, the finale will be a surprise, for me it is a frank hack from Shyamalan.
There are no great special effects, superheroes act like ordinary people, without any gleams and transformations. But there is a great game McAvoy, although why praises? We already know that the actor is wonderful, for this there are many other outstanding tapes with his participation, and the same “Split”.
So what is "glass"? This is the conclusion of a trilogy that, with its unremarkable script, has finally struck out the whole outcome. Although, the completion of one is the discovery of something else, which the director suggests at the end.
Mm. Knight Shyamalan, you specifically do not press for the first time, when watching your tapes, something is missing, it is no longer worth it to forgive.
P.S. Casey Cooke and Kevin Crumb reminded me of the Hulk and Natasha Romanoff.
And why did everyone scold this picture? "Glass" - a good, albeit sometimes uneven film. Yes, the plot can boast, for example, such stupidity as the lack of proper security and supervision in a specialized psychiatric hospital, where three people with outstanding superhuman abilities are kept. Yes, almost all the actions of Mr. Glass, written off on the genius of this character, are quite far-fetched. In general, in principle, 30 or 40 percent of the scenario can be safely broken into small pieces. What else is wrong? The characters, familiar to us from the previous two films of the trilogy, have their clearly calibrated goals and motivations and, as a result, a logical and sound ending to their storylines. Everything that has not been disclosed before is disclosed here, and there are no questions about the personal stories of the characters. The cast is delighted! Yes, Anya-Taylor John, Spencer Trit Clark and even old Bruce Willis look like low-emotional logs, but this does not prevent them from being good. Yes, and the main “two whales” of the tape certainly pay off this controversial moment with more and more. >Samuel L. Jackson is magnificent, his Mr. Glass is something unimaginable, brilliant and with his cockroaches in his head, and in places I understood him like no one else. James McAvoy and his 24 personalities in the same cranial box of the boy Kevin and do deserve some honorable award for such a scrupulous and subtle play of completely different personalities. The action, which has also been criticized by viewers, looks perfectly normal - the camera work delivers, and the delivery of fights is not bad. What-what? Are they just pushing each other and hurling at short distances? Well, how else should fight the most natural "Beast" and changed sixty years, never studied martial arts, the owner of brute male power? It seems logical!
Criticism and comic theme thriller. But it was also involved in the main corner in "Invulnerable" 2000, where Mr. Glass just relied on it. Here this topic developed, overgrown not only with details, but also with funny references and banter, which I personally liked. Is the tape difficult to perceive? Nope! Is she boring or overloaded? Nope! The picture "Glass" surprisingly holds well, and its three final twists are not a failure, and you can really find fault with only one, but not three, calling them stupid! Watch the film carefully, think with your head and listen to no one but yourself!
7 out of 10
I didn’t plan to watch the film 'Split' and 'Glass' but I did. I would like to address two themes in this iconic trilogy. After all, there is also the first part of the film, preceding the story of the film 'Split'. But I was limited to two parts.
So the first theme, James McAvoy's unrivaled play. You believe in his 24 personalities from the first minute. From the nine-year-old boy Hadrick, who likes to fool around to the Beast, Dennis and amazingly played Patricia. In his disorder of multiple personalities believe from the first minutes, forgetting that we are playing a high-class actor. This leads to a second topic that I would like to devote more time to.
The second topic is the question that you involuntarily ask yourself after watching the film, where is the fine line between the norm and pathology and does it exist at all?
Let us recall the direction that developed in the 60s-70s of the last century - antipsychiatry. So the point of antipsychiatry was to draw the attention of citizens to the harsh working methods of psychiatrists and to question the biological component of all the diseases that psychiatrists struggle with. According to antipsychiatry, there are no sick people, there are people with a special thinking or vision of the world. The goal of antipsychiatry to this day remains - the destruction of clinical psychiatry in principle, the destruction of all clinical hospitals.
I am not sure that the director was referring to the current of antipsychiatry, but if he did, he was very convincing. When you watch a movie, you think about it, but what if they are superheroes? What if fighting their disease is unnecessary and it is not an ailment at all, but a feature of our heroes? After all, once our main character was an ordinary boy Kevin, but the Beast was born, with incredible physical strength and, please note, without any fiction, he flips cars and famously deals with three guards. But in resistance, we are put another position, the position of psychiatrists, that our heroes are not only sick, but also socially dangerous, they need emergency care and everything they do, there is a logical explanation. We recall the story of Kevin, a boy who suffered from an authoritarian mother. In connection with a sad experience, Kevin splits his personality into 24 separate personalities present in his mind, fighting for the light to appear to the world.
And now, I will try to answer my introduction about the reluctance to initially watch this film, the fact is that the hero of the film, who was born, is taken as a basis from a very entertaining and fascinating, and most importantly, the existing story of the book Daniel Keyes & #39; The Mysterious Story of Billy Milligan' This book asks us another question, is there any multiple personality disorder at all? To this day, there is heated debate and 50% of people do not believe in this disorder and claim that Billy Milligan had unrivaled acting abilities. James McAvoy, who managed to play a character with multiple personality disorder on ' excellent'. Is it possible to play 24 characters? Then it is possible that the disorder, which, according to psychiatrists, can be dangerous for society, is not at all dangerous, and this is just a wonderful game of a criminal and a fraudster?
Thus, whether the main director and screenwriter M. Night Shyamalan wanted it or not, but his film turned out to be a story about the continuation of the phenomenon of antipsychiatry, where we again wonder where the thin line between norm and pathology is going quite further, and does this most notorious line exist at all?
The film is recommended for viewing for those who like to set the tone for philosophical disputes in a large company and get to the truth.
I was shown by this picture that not always ' reluctance to watch the film' which became unwitting ' desire' is bad. Sometimes it is worth looking to discover a new thought, a new philosophical argument about the eternal. . .
They're not avengers. A movie you have to think about and then watch!
Recently, a huge number of so-called popcorn blockbusters have been released. Where they run, shoot, fight, beautiful special effects and in the end everything ends well. Hundreds of such films. Many viewers went to this film counting on about such a movie, and eventually stumbled upon a high-quality author's film in which to think! And then watch. The trailer for the film also misled many.
The first film - the central character - was invulnerable. The second film "split" - the central character - the beast, the third film, the central character - Glass.
Again, people who haven’t seen the first part about the invulnerable will swim in this movie, find no connections, and half will not understand. It’s like watching a movie after missing the first half hour. All of the above has led to much criticism. But, for the most part, I liked the movie. The other thing was that the scores varied dramatically, from the spirit - it's a masterpiece, to the grades - it was a terrible chatty movie. We wanted to see Marvel. But you watched Split, right? Have you seen the first part? Who's Marvel, wasn't even close? And if you didn't, it's doubly terrible and explains everything.
Excellent performance by Samuel L. Jackson and D. McAvoy. Bruce Willis is too wooden, but he also has a character like this - he was not particularly talkative in the first part. There is a lot of dialogue in the film, in the spirit of Tarantino’s films. There's a lot of focus on whether the characters' abilities are real, or whether it's actually a mental shift, at some point the characters themselves start to think they were wrong. There is uncertainty in the film until the end. And most of modern cinema is insanely typical, clichés where everything always ends the same way. It is not clear until the end of the film how it all ends. The movie definitely came to me.
If you have not seen the previous films that resulted in the trilogy, then your face will be either despondency or surprise mixed with feeling ' and so it was possible '.
It’s about Unbreakable 2000 and Split 2016 – all of these films are essential to understanding the latter.
If you are ready to experiment with genres and departures from the usual structure of films and narratives, then Shyamalan’s paintings you may like.
It is the typical plot of superheroics mixed with almost documentary presentation of some scenes and the deliberate absence of additional special effects, and the effect of "Dissolution" & #39; reality is achieved precisely by the overly vindicated qualities of individual characters with the help of pronounced fixation and disclosure of characters. It’s like the reverse spectrum of a story about mythology, as if you met Jesus and realized what kind of guy he is and what his minuses and pros are.
I think Shyamalan occupies a separate place between mass cinema, which tells about eternal values in eternal language and art house, which tries to understand new values. Shyamalan takes a familiar object and fixes it from some not popular side.
Therefore, the views on the work of this director are so diametrically opposed, since there is not a hint of liking, but just a big look at the development of the collective unconscious, modern mythology, the place of the miraculous in everyday life and the search for boundaries and places of transition, faith and the meaning of faith in a miracle and how much this miracle (magic) a person does himself.
If you consider the film separately, it certainly looks weak, but it is the same as you eat a cutlet without a side dish or vice versa. Conceptually, the film as part of the entire Shyamalan language looks quite organic and one can only welcome an attempt to use familiar material with an unpredictable prospect of its development.
This movie only lives with its viewer as long as he believes in a superhero.
6/10 Movie 8/10 Trilogy
When an indirect adaptation of a story about a young man with a split personality was released two years ago, the whole world was shocked by an unprecedented fever. Fans McEvoy were ready to sing the idol of the dithyramba. Director Shyamalan received flattering reviews from film critics and viewers, as well as many congratulations and recognition for his restored reputation, after a series of unsuccessful films. These and several other factors came together, after which the film was certainly a commercial success. In addition, at the end of the film, the director hinted at a direct continuation and connection with his work in 2000. And now, after a couple of years, and in the case of "Invulnerable" all nineteen, we have seen the continuation of these two paintings.
In addition to all that said, nothing new in the film we did not see. James as always on top, plays well and does not flirt. Behavior and gestures, his character is believed from the beginning, forgetting that it is just the actor performing the role. His speech and voice play. The film "Split" and "Glass" definitely deserves to be viewed in the original with subtitles, because in the dubbing you will not be able to feel its characters for real. True, in this film, at some point there is a feeling of oversaturation of the hero and it seems that the actor is just crooked in front of the camera, but this feeling quickly passes after a couple of humorous phrases of the character. Switching the narrative from serious drama to humor and back, does not let the viewer get bored and at the same time does not distract from the overall plot of the picture and the disclosure of characters.
Continuing the themes of the actors, Bruce Willis also showed nothing new. He played an invulnerable guy, just like in his previous work. Of course, someone will say that this film does not require superpowered acting and drama, and they will be right. But it is a pity that this neglect of the film does not save.
Unlike the previous part, the character of Jackson is assigned the main role. As in the previous part, he plays a brilliant villain. But the main difference in this part is that here his character becomes the culprit of the climax part and most of the plot is built on him. It is not difficult to guess the name of the painting.
Actress Sarah Paulson has long settled on American television. The roles in the series, in her performance, are memorable and vivid. I’m sure the choice of director for the role of a psychiatrist was not difficult. This role also turned out to be very bright, albeit not the most memorable in the career for the actress.
After the previous work of the director, many viewers may have high hopes for his new film, I will say immediately they will be disappointed. The film has no action, no powerful pitch, and it is not surprising in contrast to its previous parts. The new part is a repetition of the past parts with a brief explanation of some points. M. Night Shyamalan, as a person insanely talented and creative, wanted to show how movies with a hint of a blockbuster can be made without huge fees and special effects. He's a great visualizer. Perfectly plays with color and characters, builds his theories and comes up with riddles for the viewer. Creates traps and warms up with unexpected twists in the plot. In fact, the film "Glass" can serve as an excellent theme for analyzing the images of the characters and the style of the director. For example, each hero is assigned a specific color responsible for his mood and outlook. And in the case of images and similarity of blockbusters about superheroes, the Beast (character McAvoy) is a saber-toothed from the comic about the X-Men, David Dunn (Bruce Willis) is a wolverine, the same invulnerable and they have a saber-toothed conflict, and Elijah Prince (Samuel L. Jackson) is Professor X, from the same universe about mutants, only here he is also in his mind. Do you find anything similar? After watching, you will have something to discuss.
In defense of the film, I can say that despite all the shortcomings, I still liked it. It is boring, it has little action and not interesting dialogues, but it is very competently built and logically leads to the main idea. At the end, when all the cards are opened, the pieces of the puzzle stand together.
Perhaps in contrast to "Split" the film does not celebrate the delight of the audience, but the fact that he contributed to the cinema is not to be denied.
In the final series of the author's cinema universe, the potential of the crossover "Unbreakable" and "Split" goes to a steep peak.
By his own admission, the idea of creating a cinematic universe Shyamalan hatched at the dawn of “zero”, when neither Marvel nor DC even thought about it. The first swallow was supposed to be Invulnerable (2000), where even in the very juice Bruce Willis and the already venerable Samuel L. Jackson played out the opposition of antipodes: the first could survive in terrible disasters without a single scratch, and the bones of the second were fragile, like the logic of election promises. The author, by that time filmed a worthy “Sixth Sense” (1999), shifted the focus of the struggle of opposites from action to verbal passages in order to turn the tape into a mystical thriller, in the image and likeness of his previous work. Either the idea was not fully worked out, or the public was not yet ready for such a presentation of superheroes, but Invulnerable failed at the box office, forcing Shyamalan to postpone his cinematic universe as much as 16 years, until the final credits of Split (2016), when the viewer suddenly learns that the action of the James McAvoy benefit film unfolds in the world of the heroes Willis and Jackson.
On the charisma of the main character of "Split" with a budget of $ 9 million. The United States has already paid off 31 times in the world cinema distribution, collecting a harvest of 278 million evergreen currency. Therefore, the director decided not to delay with the third series and already in January 2019 brought the title characters - David Dunn (Bruce Willis, Invulnerable), Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson, Mr. Glass) and Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy, Horde) - as part of the final film "Glass".
Having made a single mixture of failed and successful projects, the author ventured to name his new creation by the name of the hero from the film-loser, but puts the character on the captain’s bridge, through whose efforts the cinema universe has gained a second wind. "Glass", in fact, is a direct sequel to "Split", where the bet in the open is on the charisma and pumped torso of James McAvoy. His game is beyond praise and rests only on the curved frame of the script, as well as the need to give screen time to other persons involved. Bruce Willis already seems to be “feeding” and is removed, more out of habit than with the aim of declaring himself in a new way. His hero is just as strong, just as gray. Being the only positive person in the trinity, he does not provoke any sympathy or desire to follow his fate.
The character of Samuel L. Jackson is a disenfranchised slave of a scripted move from nineteen years ago. That move did not justify itself at all, but observing the logic of the universe requires re-immersing it in the desolate image of a sociopath obsessed with the idea of a superhero. Therefore, the viewer, eager to see the actor in the image of “Django Special”, “The Hateful Eight”, “Kingsman” or at least Nick Fury, can safely pass by the cinema hall with the screening of “Glass”, because Shyamalan’s screenwriting skills were not enough to create an interesting villain.
Mm. Knight oppresses his 2000 line on "heroes among us." Playing on the field of Mr. Glass, he puts the viewer on the beads of Tarantin long dialogues and visually pinches the audience with close-up plans of the interlocutors, which, looking at the camera, convey their objective thoughts. Through the efforts of the main trio and the new introduced character performed by Sarah Paulson (Bird Box, Ocean's 8 Friends), the plot is as if Aunt Kashtanka runs from one owner to another and can not understand what is hidden behind the superhero. Real superpowers or a confluence of circumstances in which mentally ill people find themselves. It may seem that the Indian American offers an alternative to Marvel’s mundane view of superpower. But this view rests on the shallow water, on which the script logic floats, and also reeks of secondary, since a similar idea of “everyday heroism” has already been played out in the depressive “Defendant” (2009) with Woody Harlson and a more colorful parody of comics – the Kipz dilogy.
Glass, like Split, is a James McAvoy film. If you take it as a sequel, where two sad characters were added to the main character and not thinking too much about the logic of what is happening, focus on the Scottish actor’s game, then you can come out of the cinema more satisfied than with a serious attempt to link three different films into a single canvas.
The early works of M. Night Shyamalan – “The Sixth Sense”, “Mysterious Forest”, “Signs” – for their period looked interesting. Times have changed, but the director has not. Years have passed in decades, and Shyamalan still continues to stencil the “Sixth Sense”.
And the stencil wears out.
This is the final part of the so-called Eastrail 177 Trilogy. This story began in the distant 2000 cult film "Invulnerable", after the release of that tape on the screen, no one could think that many years later we will see an unexpected continuation, psychological horror "Split", they, although not directly related to each other, are links in one cinematic chain. Now on our screens came the final part of the franchise, which brings all the main storylines to one point and gives an unexpected answer to the questions posed.
Behind the whole series of films is an incredibly gifted, but not stable director and screenwriter. Knight Shyamalan. The film has ambiguous and absolutely polar assessments of critics and viewers, some consider it an undoubted success, others a failure. However, it is impossible not to agree that this is a truly unique view of the world of superheroes. Knight Shyamalan created a completely authorial series of films, with his original vision of the superhero genre. The author confronts the main characters of the franchise in the walls of a psychiatric clinic, where their path to the final denouement begins. As in the previous works of the director, we observe the fusion of several genre trends. Here it is a superhero film, and a psychological thriller, and drama, and mysticism with a detective.
The main meaning is the deconstruction of the traditional genre of superhero films. Unlike most similar works, this story unfolds in an environment close to the real picture of the world. It is an ordinary world, without miracles, but in which there is room for irrational events. Among ordinary people, there are extraordinary personalities, whose abilities may well be perceived as a manifestation of super abilities. Knight Shyamalan masterfully destroys the myth of superheroes, but only to create a new one. The rise of a superhero, the rise of a supervillain, and the final encounter are all major chapters in comic books. Using a standard comic book design, he nonetheless flips typical patterns. This is a completely different approach.
The film has flaws and some quite significant ones. Throughout the screen time, the director plays with the viewer, who, like the main characters, turns out to be a patient of the clinic and begins to doubt what is happening, but this concept could not be brought to the end. But most of all I was disappointed by the finale, it doesn’t match the high level of the first half of the film and was a disappointment to me. The overall impression is good, but if the final denouement was more thoughtful, then the assessment would be higher.
Bruce Willis is great in the image of David Dunn, he is also the Overseer. His character is incredibly cool in his raincoat. Tired but fair guardian of the city of Philadelphia. James McAvoy continues to break away in the image of Kevin Crumb, he is also Horde, a person with many personalities in his head. Well, the stunning Samuel L. Jackson again shines with a unique charisma as the main guide in the world of comics Elige Price, aka Mr. Glass. All three show acting skills of the highest level, without resorting to special drama.
Glass is the final part of the author’s universe, completely rethinking the traditional canons of the superhero genre. The author reveals the theme of the formation of unusual people in realism. Thus combining human drama, psychological thriller and detective with elements of fiction. I loved the film in almost everything except the finale. There is no dynamics and action, but there is an interesting story that is very interesting to watch. Enjoy your visit.