Watching a film for me, waiting on a sofa in the lobby of the cinema, foreshadowed the following scene: a couple in the lobby, met with the one leaving him, threw an unflattering and flat comment about the film to their acquaintances. I'm not a fan of Shyamalan's paintings, but for my taste, it's the best thing you've ever done. My nature, with a pronounced external reference. In general, I was skeptical. But let's be clear.
The film has a solid cast, chic scenes, keeps in suspense and gives emotions. But if you want incredible action and go see the likes of Marvel or DC, you won’t. The movie is a little different when you think about it. In my opinion, the author wants to show everyone and say that all of us – too doubtful of ourselves, sat on the needle of trends, other people’s opinions, seeking approval from completely strangers or vice versa too confident – have overstated the requirements for everything and everything that surrounds us, forgot about human potential and look at everything too ordinary. I think this picture is an attempt to show the ordinary through the eyes of us nine-year-olds. Trying to show 'heroes among us' Remind everyone of their inner potential. In general, the film is worth its money and time, a great picture in my opinion.
Well, as a bonus - after 'split' and a long wait for something like this, look at the acting of the prototype Billy Milligan is a pleasure.
I liked the movie 7 out of 10. It is worth going and watching the movie, without waiting for the release of the DVD. You won't regret it.
The film ' Glass' is a sequel to two previous rather successful projects directed by M. Night Shyamalan: 'Unbreakable' and 'Split'. Such a potentially ambitious crossover excites the viewer familiar with ' Universe', the desire to know how can exist in one story David Dunn, Mr. Glass and, let’s call it so, ' Kevin and Co', and ignorant viewers could well hook active advertising and the famous cast.
But is the movie really worth watching?
About the plot
It’s based on the idea of what happens if you mix the main characters of two successful films into one and make them speculate about the probability that they are superheroes. Can there be a superpower only intellect, a peculiarity of the body, or a mental illness supported by a firm and unshakable faith? Sounds super ambitious, doesn't it? Not exactly.
Despite all the respect for Shyamalan and love for his two previous works (especially 'Splita'), such an idea needs a very good and careful study, which was not given to the full extent. The film seems raw, the characters are not fully understood, their actions are attracted, and some decisions are irrational.
Overall, the film is a bit of a drag. After a bright and lively start, the film loses momentum and does not gain more of this pace, which is not very good for the viewer’s perception of the climax (and in general, it regularly happens recently).
Although, perhaps, all this is not so significant, and pales against the background of the main mistake: any mention of the comics and their canons looks like an attempt to justify the meager fantasy and banality of the film with a reference to ' It's not us, it's comics & #39; After that, it seems that it would be worth removing the superhero concept from the film and leaving such people, such events and such a psychiatric hospital.
About characters
We have already had the privilege to get to know the characters, to learn their history, character, goals, so that in this film they ... did not get any development.
All the progress in the inner world of these characters ended in the fact that we revealed their relationship to faith (very carefully walking on the blade, so as not to throw spoilers, although I want to explain more specifically).
David Dunn continues to reflect, Mr. Glass continues to be a cool and spectacular superbrain, and the statement that we will be told about all 24 personalities was blown away. Even the old people we knew from Split were somehow crumpled, and the wonderful Denis was barely allowed to run around the screen with a couple of signature phrases and a short monologue about his attitude to what was happening ... obviously, just to be. As a result, the entire team of dissociative identity disorder is pouted as always by the beautiful Hedwig with Patricia (who, perhaps, was best worked out in opposition to her image in Split). It’s also a good thing that the Beast didn’t take all the screen time, as the most pessimistic of us assumed, but by itself he became... not what he was, to put it mildly. Although the beginnings of the idea of how some individuals protect others, and this is their primary task, were, and were really good, but again did not receive development.
In fact, for motives and history, these characters have such a bright Hollywood superhero coloration that any minute you can expect Hugh Jackman to come running with a bare torso and save everyone. However, the mere fact that neither 'heroes' nor 'villains' are given exactly positive or negative characteristics makes them less porcelain, and the viewer even begins to believe that such people can exist (which is fundamentally important for this film).
About actors
Perhaps, the question of whether there is something really perfect in this film can only be answered: ' cast '.
Old Bruce, who, by the way, is no longer forty, is still able to impress a good actor, a colorful man and a real hard nut & #39;.
As far as Samuel Leroy Jackson is concerned, it’s like he’s getting better. Whether his character received more emotional scenes, or the actor of dubbing received an acting education, but someone clearly got something, making Mr. Glass really impressive and very interesting emotionally.
Now for the main star of this movie. I, of course, love and adore this actor and, in general, the decision to go to Glass was made only because of his incredible work in Split, but this time I tried to be open-minded about him and his performance. And yet he punched me into a tear. To say that James McAvoy is very close in this film is to say nothing. But he seems to have learned to look more at the business side of such projects and not play much more than he is asked to. As always, he very accurately and delicately conveys the characteristics of the behavior, character and feelings of his characters. Everyone: women, children, men, and animals, which once again distinguishes him as a diverse actor. And facial wrinkles, more and more protruding over the years, make his game even brighter and more unique, so that when James comes on stage, the hall (I’m talking only about what I paid attention to) literally falls silent and magnetizes to the screens. Very bright and charismatic actor.
The only caste member to overshadow the picture a bit is Kristen Stewart's successor in Twilight - Anya Taylor Joy. This girl in the first part showed that she plays well with her eyes and intonation, but her porcelain face looks like she is trying to play, but a Lilliput was attached to her head, which pulls her face on itself, not allowing her eyebrows to move, her lips to curve and, in general, making her a pretty girl, but the actress is not quite the same level as her colleagues. In general, it was possible to give it to appear for a tick, but why give a big role in the film is decidedly not to understand.
In general, a team of three incredible and long-known actors led by James McAvoy, who is not jokingly starting the hall, make this film much better, and the new ones in the cast also very well coped. And, of course, Anya Taylor Joy, she's so cool, yeah.
In general, the film will tell you about how Shyamalan decided to create something like Marvel, mixing in one cocktail mental disorder, high IQ and hard bones with solid moral foundations, and even added a bit of classical laustoria, abstract morality and cool men in capes (literally and figuratively). And the film is perhaps worth watching, just to understand what it is when a superhero is just not quite an ordinary person.
6.5 out of 10
Well, the plot may not be very, but actors are good.
Yesterday I watched Split - one of the masterpieces of cinema, but now not about that. A real pleasure when watching the last film in this series delivers acting, which will brighten up even the most unwritten script (which can not be said about Russian cinema). McAvoy still masterfully transforms into each of the personalities, about the dominant Patricia, Dennis and Hedwig should make a separate film.
In my opinion, the film logically sums up and completes the story of 3 superheroes living among us, revealing the feelings of their friends and family. The film tells about the essence of superpowers and makes you believe in yourself and your hidden potential. What is missing ' Glass '? First, we are unlikely to trace the evolution in the character of the characters, the main change occurred with Cassie and Kevin in the very ' Split' (' Invulnerable' did not look, alas or no, I do not know). On the other hand, the role and history of the Black Clover and its connection with the government and the police are completely unexplained.
Let me say a few words about women’s roles. Sarah Paulson apparently finally found fame after endless roles in American Horror Story', so appears in every modern film. She is a good actress, but nothing more, too restrained. Anya Taylor-Joy is cute with a baby face, but coped with the role as well as in 'Split'.
So what do we end up with? All the stories are told, lessons learned, such a little even a good ending, not quite compatible with the genre of the thriller.
7.7 out of 10
Well, the film ' Glass', as the end of the conditionally superhero trilogy Shyamalan, came out, in my opinion, ambiguous, but quite good. The cavalry and almost frozen slowness of the story contrasts with the theme of supernatural abilities, which one viewer will find curious, and the other simply boring.
I liked that the director did not have a goal to make the film genre: it is neither the usual superhero fiction, nor a thriller, nor drama or satire. Only elements of these genres can be traced in the picture. I would describe the film as a postmodern film parable about the human belief in himself and his abilities against imaginary ideas, as well as the importance of letting go of complexes. I thought so. That is, the line between comics and reality is blurred here not so much for the plot movement, but to create a certain metaphorical concept. Therefore, the film is quite hermetic and almost static plot: within the framework of the narrative, the development of direct action is most of the time replaced by the study of already existing events, which is quite suitable for a given plot situation, but periodically looks somewhat pretentious and tortured. Nevertheless, thanks to the editing, colorful main characters and atmospheric visualization, the film is able to keep the attention, especially if the viewer trusts the director with his desire to tell a story outside the box. And characters manage to pass their arches through dialogues and point scenes of action, although not too powerful, because the prerequisites for their internal changes are dictated for the most part orally, but still. Particularly note the key line of Mr. Glass (Jackson) and the tragic Horde (McAvoy). The latter is associated with the most dynamic and emotional scenes, and the actor laid out accordingly, for the second time talentedly playing the plurality of personality. Glass pleasantly surprised that you can not tell without spoilers. And Dunn in the performance of Willis impressed least of all of the trio, the character is clearly not pressed. The secondary characters do not differ in depth, but somehow shade motives and ideas in the context of the disclosure of the main trinity, and for that thank you.
The climax, with all its locality and external absurdity, eventually shoots accurately and feels fresh, which bribed me. The final ' here are the turns in Shyamalan' inscribed in the concept of the entire trilogy is quite logical and even functional regarding the understanding of the author's idea, but the presentation of some of the twists seemed a little clumsy, you could do a little more elegant.
Impression, which left ' Glass', contradictory, but close to positive. I liked the fact that the superhero story is told in an unusual cinematic language, but whether such a vision is close to me, I am not sure, since the suspended state of the narrative for almost the entire timekeeping was confused, which made the film seem empty. Still, on the way there were some interesting thoughts, artistic decisions and actions of the characters. The film itself does not look as original and balanced as the previous two films of the series, but it became a moderately worthy point of intersection of their plots and ended the trilogy with a strange, but overall exhaustive finale, leaving room for thought.
6.5 out of 10
There are a great many superhero movies, there are two mighty universes, Marvel and DC, there is a new trend of supervillain movies, and there is M. Knight Shyamalan decided to adapt his world into a fantastic idea about people with outstanding abilities, descended like a sign from the pages of comics.
The film "Glass" - the final part of the trilogy, unfolds in the same universe as in the films "Invulnerable" and "Split".
In the new film, the invulnerable David Dunn (Bruce Willis) is on the trail of the kidnapper of teenage girls. As you know, from the previous film, Kevin Crumb (James McAvoy) suffers from a clinical disorder, and contains twenty-four personalities, one of which bears the name "Beast" and has incredible powers. As a result of the fight of two superhumans, both end up in a psychiatric hospital, a unique ward organized for special personalities who imagine themselves superheroes. The company of new visitors is a third patient with a belief in his own higher intelligence and, presumably, with megalomania – Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson).
An excellent cast of heroes (and actors like them) for a suitable thriller, with this temptation I ran to the premiere in the movie, but something went wrong ..., and what exactly, now we will try to figure out.
I don’t know what could be worse than putting three of the most talented actors of our time in a ridiculous plot. From the illogical nature of what is happening on the screen, the eyes roll 180 degrees. So many curts in the direction of McAvoy, after the release of the film "Split", the volume is comparable to the epic "War and Peace". And I boldly, but honestly, say that in the film "Glass" he is the best that is. Instant transformations into contradictory personalities, differing in gender, age, nation, orientation. The change of masks is a real pleasure to watch, for a minute the actor, as if his skin changes images, he admires, surprises, frightens, makes him empathize. And falling in love with his acting talent. Such work takes the epithet of “professionalism”.
But the boundaries of the plot and its twists do not allow you to fully enjoy the high game of James McAvoy, as the fog puts on colleagues in the film. I think that Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis are laid out, but the intricacies of what is happening (true - they do not exist) do not make the orchestra sound convincing.
But the narrow script framework does not reveal not only the talents of the acting game. The very position of superhumans in the asylum is very pompous and illusory. The closure of space limits not only the image, but also the breadth of action. I am sure that many viewers have experienced: when you feel slight tremors of tension, you wait for an exciting outcome, but the action that spirals the breath does not happen.
Is there a gap in the hopelessness of failure? Definitely there's something in the final, something should be there, but the approach to it is so squalid it leaves no taste. Speaking of the finale, I mean the conclusion, the result to which this movie brought the universe. As a fatal pessimist, I am drawn to the disappointing future of smooth humanity.
Unfortunately, I cannot give recommendations for viewing, to convince that "Glass" the best work of Shyamalan (according to my instinct, one of the worst) would be false.
While the memories are fresh, I want to share my impressions for some reason (usually not).
Director M. Night Shyamalan really decided to create his own universe (#Invulnerable#Split#Glass) on a par with Marvel and DC, but in fact the word ' on a par ' does not quite describe what happened in the end.
Many will say that there is too much thought and dialogue, but not enough action. As my friend rightly noted, this movie is an arthouse among the superhero sagas, and, in my opinion, it is (but not only!) that catches me. Maybe (yes for sure, I answer), it is really worth learning to see superheroes not only in bright and stylish (or not so) tights, apt phrases and hyperbolized superpowers. Maybe they're among us. Perhaps they are, we are.
I can’t say exactly what I value first: acting, cinematography, or the work of a composer. For me, everything here (absolutely everything) is equal. And everyone's equal. There are no clichés (which I so dislike in superhero tapes), no right-wingers, no guilty and no greats. There's feelings. This is reality. Here is something that every viewer can love and hate in himself (just dig deeper and everything becomes visible). The performance of the actors does not deserve a separate assessment, because we (I hope we) already know that McAvoy, Jackson, Willis and Paulson are some of the best who could happen to this picture (especially McAvoy?).
Cinema, of course, for an amateur, but I certainly advise it to watch especially sophisticated, because for many it reveals something that lies deep in the soul, in the personality.
8 out of 10
January 17 in the world box office began the screening of the mystical thriller Manoj Nellatt Shyamalan – “Glass”, which is a continuation of the films “Unbreakable” and “Split”. This picture was a rather expected product of the beginning of 2019 among ordinary viewers, closer to the premiere, the film was criticized, the film simply mired in negative reviews. Unfortunately, this time the film critics defeated this film for good reason.
In a nutshell, an absolute idiot who doesn't know why she saw the light of day. The slurred and dull plot, no denouement, a lot of clichés that were used disgustingly, stupid twists in the plot and the behavior of the characters sometimes just caused bewilderment. There is no tension in the film or concern for the characters, because such stupidity on the screen is happening, you can not imagine. In this film, it is difficult even to highlight something good, of course, some things the authors managed to do fun, but for all the timing of successful moments is damn little. And acting does not save the situation against the background of all that is happening, and casting and acting out roles is the best thing in this film, it is a pity that the characters in the film are so incompetent. Even the serious ways in which they try to convey the story to the viewer, well, just ridiculous.
To sum up, it’s sad that after the chic thriller Split, which was tastefully made and a pretty good drama Unbreakable, we get the final chapter so stupid and empty.
I cannot call myself a lover of Shyamalan’s paintings. But how much I respect him! And on his new painting, I just couldn't help but go. So please watch and love - x/f ' Glass '. In fact, the free continuation of the Shyamalan paintings ' Invincible' and 'Split' So the final battle of the three main characters is coming. Mr. Glass (S. L. Jackson), the Beast (J. McAvoy) and the Warden (Bruce Willis). A mad genius, a monster maniac with many personalities and a guardian and protector of people from criminals will converge in a severe battle. But first they will have to manage to get to each other.
This picture is like a mixture of 'Guardians' Zack Snyder, ' Flying Over the Cuckoo's Nest' Foreman and the typical gloomy inexpensive comic-fighter. And a little more 'The Matrix'. All this is abundantly watered on top of the curry, that is, the signature Shyamalan style. And the director and screenwriter himself has traditionally already starred in a cameo. I will also say that before viewing ' Glass' it is worth refreshing the memory of the previous two paintings.
As for heroes... Beast-'The Horde'... A fighter angel, a real monster. You don't feel sorry for that. Despite the... Mr. Glass... Pity him. Nothing can justify killing innocent people. These two characters are clearly on the dark side. But Mr. Dunn, in the brilliant performance of Bruce Willis (whose good performance we missed so much)... That's a real hero! And it is symbolic that he will be rotten by the pseudo-human System and try to morally destroy the psychiatrist. In fact, this is a direct allusion to the current feminized pseudo-humanist West, with its totalitarian liberalism and distrust of the normal strong white man. The heir to the ancient Indian culture Shyamalan could easily let his "Olympic treshka" in his pocket. But the main problem of the film is the harsh and even cruel drama about people and superhumans. Bringing both evil and good. In the pop version, we saw something similar in the paintings about the people of X, in the older version - in ' Logan'. Here N.S. was able to rise almost to the heights of the parable.
And in the end it was a great heavy film. The film is massive, but not for everyone. A film about superheroes - but without pop costumes and syrup pathos. The film is as down to earth and even scary in places. A film sobering and thought-provoking. A film with a great ending.
Bravo, Mr. Shyamalan! Bravo and thank you.
// James McAvoy definitely deserves 'Oscar' But alas. .
American director of Indian origin Manoj Nelliattu Shyamalan, in wide cinematic circles known more as M. Night Shyamallan, is an entertaining person in his own way. Having declared himself with several magnificent films in the thriller genre - "Signs", "Sixth Sense", "Mysterious Forest" - he could become a legend during his lifetime, but managed to devalue his own directorial contribution several times with a series of failed works - "Girl from the Water", "Phenomenon" and "Lord of the Elements" today are unlikely to find a large fan base.
The last film in Knight’s career, which made himself talk, was “Split” – a free interpretation of Daniel Keyes’ novel “The Mysterious Story of Billy Milligan” about a young man Kevin Crumb (James McAvoy), suffering from an acute identity disorder. According to the director, “Split” was conceived by him for a long time, as part of the general story, started back in 2000 with a tape called “Invulnerable”. At the box office, “Invulnerable” was almost imperceptible, despite the fact that the main role in the film was performed by the then well-known and beloved by many Bruce Willis. Today, it is believed that Invulnerable anticipated the fashion for superheroics and came out a little earlier than it should. Knight Shyamalan managed to dissect the then still emerging genre, which today brings millions of green presidents to Hollywood studios. The box office of Shyamalan chamber superheroics was so modest that it was not necessary to dream of filming the trilogy conceived by the director, but after 16 years, when the guys in tights became a noticeable and significant element of mass culture in cinema, the enterprising Indian returned to his old dream. Surprisingly, Split, which takes place in the same cinematic universe as Invulnerable, is not a superhero. Shyamalan here plays on the already mastered and beloved field of the thriller, and does it with his own ingenuity. And only the last scene makes a beautiful and unexpected gesture of the early work of the director, hinting at the relationship between the characters of Bruce Willis and James McAvoy.
The third part was only a matter of time. The unexpected success of Split untied Shyamalan’s hands and allowed him to finally unite the characters of his two paintings in a common story, push the conventional Hero and the traditional Villain with their foreheads in a large-scale confrontation. As a result, "Glass" was born.
In the world of David Dunn and Kevin Crumb, three weeks have passed since the incident at the zoo, when the villain Horde killed three people and escaped, leaving the only girl alive - Casey Cook (Anya Taylor Joy). David Dunn, along with his grown-up son Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark), patrols the streets of Philadelphia, hoping to track down the Horde, and when it does, the hero and villain are captured and placed in a psychiatric hospital under the supervision of Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson), specializing in people who believe that they are superheroes. Along with David and Kevin in the same clinic, Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) is serving time - a brilliant terrorist in a fragile body affected by imperfect osteogenesis, which makes bones in the body brittle. Price has already encountered David, in whom he sees a true superman. But now that the clinic has a man with many personalities, one of which is the supernatural Beast, Elijah Price realizes that this is his chance to tell people about superheroes again. Even if you have to enlist the support of the monster and raise the ears of the whole city.
The degree of waiting for the final chapter of the Shyamalan film universe was great. The clashes of David and Kevin some waited with no less enthusiasm than the last “Avengers”, and therefore it was impossible to make a mistake. At stake again was the director’s reputation, which could not be tarnished after the success of Split. But M. Night Shyamalan probably wouldn’t be himself if he had made two good films in a row. And if "Unbreakable" and "Split" in something ahead of their time, then "Glass" became a belated greeting from the 2000s.
It would seem that all the attributes inherent in Shyamalan are in place – a leisurely narrative, a viscous atmosphere, interesting visual solutions and a minimum of computer graphics, however, during the viewing, the idea arises that something in all this formula does not work. It seems that the director was so carried away by his own idea and desire to dig into the psychology of superheroes that he completely missed the plot and surrendered to the conventions and artistic assumptions, thanks to which the characters are all in one place and what happens. But Shyamalan makes the main mistake when he tries to devalue everything he invented in previous films through psychoanalysis, they say, you guys have all this in your head, you are not invulnerable at all and you do not know how to crawl on walls. And – here are the miracles of Freud! – the heroes obediently believe that they really do not know how to do anything, forget that until recently threw tables, tore chains and broke through concrete walls with their bare hands, and then sadly reflect alone with themselves. It is clear that the director wanted to create a certain internal conflict, but why make it so clumsy, head-on, exposing the characters as complete imbeciles on the cue of a cute psychiatrist who dislikes comics?
The second weakness of “Glass” is again the director’s misunderstanding of what he wants to shoot. If “Invulnerable” is a genre movie at the junction of thriller and drama with a note of the notorious superheroic, and “Split” is almost a horror, then “Glass” tries to be located immediately everywhere, but, as a result, does not find a place at all anywhere. For a superhero, the picture is too leisurely and sins with a slurred boring action, for a thriller there is not enough suspense, and for a horror - a frightening atmosphere, which the Beast created in Split. This is despite the fact that McAvoy himself and all his personalities are in place, and the Scotsman plays with no less skill than in Split, and sometimes even jumps above his head.
In general, the cast of “Glass” is probably the main advantage of the average tape as a whole. The already mentioned performance of McAvoy is interesting to watch, pleases Sam Jackson with charisma as an ambitious cripple with the habits of a megalomaniac, Sarah Paulson tries to be convincing. And only Bruce Willis seems to have nothing to play, and he came to the set for fun, but to shake the old days. Looking at all these wonderful actors, involuntarily waiting for some miracle or a cool action on the screen, but, unfortunately, the syndrome of inflated expectation works again, and the viewer gets a slurred puff and a bitter aftertaste from the unfulfilled potential.
Summarizing all the above, I would like to urge you not to spoil the impressions of the first two parts of the trilogy, if they fell to your liking, and just ignore “Glass”, as a phenomenon. The epic clash of the sides in Shyamalan still failed, and there are very few believers in his directorial talent. In the end, a certain understatement of “Invulnerable” and “Split” has always been good, and the finale, which devalues the good that demonstrated both of these paintings, you definitely do not need.
6 out of 10
If you think at one point, starting to doubt: "Aren't we being deceived?", then the idea of the director succeeded.
The first thing to say is that the structure of the film resembles the previous Split. A long main part that makes you think, they say, when the denouement will be. But it will only seem boring if you expect a movie like the one made by Marvel and Disi in advance of the word “superhero.”
Shyamalan obviously wants action not on the screen, but in the mind of the viewer, and now he raises the problem one by one: the Stockholm syndrome Casey Cook (which by the end of the film left me wondering whether she really contributed to the capture of the character McAvoy or still sincerely did not count on such an end), the question of faith, persuasion and self-persuasion, the problem of an obsession that has been languishing in my head for almost two decades.
At first, the film is misleading, showing the confrontation of a typical antihero and a hero (a hero of unwillingness, as the character of Sarah Paulson rightly notes somewhere in the middle of the film), which should not harbor any other reasons at all, but one and only - there is a superhero, and there is a supervillain who still kidnaps girls.
If you think at one point, beginning to doubt: “Are we not deceived?”, then the idea of the director succeeded.
What I like about Shyamalan is his “letting” actors play, the camera is often too close to their faces, leaving no other options than acting. Sarah Paulson in this film makes you fall in love with yourself, McAvoy does not cease to surprise, and various angles that make us feel in the place of one of the characters appeal to delight.
By the end of the film, it becomes clear that the film is not about the confrontation between Kevin and David, but about the confrontation of people with superpowers and a secret organization. And then it becomes clear why the plot of the universe stretches for a long fifteen years: to confirm Elijah’s theory about the possibility of not only existence, but also the creation of special people, it took time for the Beast to become.
Summing up, we can say that the film will leave a positive impression on those who will look for meaning on the surface, and begin to think a little.
The film ' Glass' turned out not unambiguous, with a lot of unnecessary and a lot of twists for the sake of the twists themselves, and the stupidest ending I have seen this year.
To begin with, the message of the film is more or less good, if I may say so. But here's a question for the creators: ' Aren't we living in a superhero universe?' If so, I will be glad and not surprised that after watching the new film by M. Night Shyamalan will show themselves to the light, as the film crew wanted.
The main and only in my opinion, plus the picture, which can safely make the viewer sketch a couple of extra points, is without a doubt James McAvoy. In the previous film of the universe 'Split' he showed himself above all praise, thanks to which the film with a small budget broke a good box office. In ' Glass' he, like all three main characters, got less screen time. 'Each a little bit', says Shyamalan. But the trouble is that ' each a little' comes out of the problem of superfluous characters. Casey (Anja Taylor-Joy) didn't give up on the film at all. She acts dumb like a support group for Kevin and has absolutely no influence on the plot. The same goes for Elijah’s mother and David’s son. The only thing these three characters are involved in is a completely stupid ending that I can’t tell you about because of a huge spoiler.
The movie is very stupid. The whole beginning of the film Bruce Willis fights with the Beast, although every scene of their war with each other the language will not turn to call any action fight, but only a pathetic parody of it in the guilt of a small budget. And closer to the final, plot twists begin, which, well... to put it mildly, is a spectacle.
Whether to go to see ' Glass' in the cinema I do not know, the film is very stupid and boring, and besides, it does not represent any moral values. From the trailers it might seem that everything will be much better, but alas and ah.
It feels like a new look or a new hope to create a universe with superheroes made James McAvoy, who played in Split (2017, if I am not mistaken). The picture, to me, was well received by the world. As well as his play for several personalities living in the main character.
This gave hope for the creation of the third film, and which was to cross all 3 characters (Bruce Oreshek Willis, the evil from the first part of El Jackson and Mac Avoy).
Yes, only the writers and the director seemed to be delayed with immersion in this universe.
You didn't hear me! The film is 50% owned by the heroes.
In the rest, they are constantly discussing and discussing the possibility of the existence on earth of other similar personalities in which something supernatural has manifested itself.
These three are the starting points.
Yes, they interact with each other, but it pales (possibly the groundwork for the future) under the dialogue about more.
This is the presence or absence of other people with supernatural abilities.
If it weren’t for McAvoy’s character, I wouldn’t be watching anything. Bruce Willis plays a typical himself, but in years. The character of Samuel Jackson is a villain in a wheelchair, which is revealed in the second half, and then with a stretch.
But I confess, the theory of the emergence of the supernatural in man, presented interesting. One might think that people who find themselves in VERY stressful conditions reveal hidden internal reserves.
Also remembered in the addendum of justification of the film that the budget is only 20.
That's where I'll sum it up. Ask yourself the question:" What would happen if Split was removed??
The movie is called Glass, Not Split 2!
If we remove Jackson's character, it can easily be inserted into the frames with flashbacks from Invulnerable. And the liberator could be his mother (whether she is taking revenge, or pursuing some other goal), or Casey (Hoping in the victory of positive personalities inside Split) or the same Organization or the employee of the hospital.
If we remove the character of Willis, then it would be enough for the Beast to fight with medics, police, SWAT and other army men (I hope not the boss of the helicopter). After all, the Horde was acceptable ideology "They will soon know about us."
6 out of 10
David Dunn has been waging a war on crime for years as a street hero. And although David manages to hide his identity, rumors of his exploits spread with lightning speed. When the Invulnerable manages to catch the trail of the Beast, law officials intervene. However, justice is in no hurry to release the hero and villain, and the warring parties are the subject of study by science and medicine.
Michael Knight Shyamalan managed to make a truly amazing film. In recent years, which many critics and fans associate mainly with failures, the director managed not only to return to the pedestal, but also to show his skills with renewed vigor. In ' Glass ' everything is fine. If we take into account the script of the film, then from, at least, unpredictable and fascinating. Casting is perfect. The trio of excellent actors in leading roles is not the only trump card of the film. Of course, it is nice to see Willis, McAvoy and Jackson in one shot, but it is equally fascinating to watch the diversity of secondary characters. The mother of the villain, the victim of a maniac, the son of a hero - such a colorful team from different social groups in a good sense drives the viewer into a stupor. And even the most sophisticated film critic is unlikely to predict the outcome of the story.
A separate milestone in the creation of the masterpiece can be distinguished by operator work. Throughout the film, we dive directly into the scenes themselves and more than once feel ourselves in the role of a peeper or one of the characters. Beautiful scene monologue Elijah Price, when you can only see the strength of the hero, but it is impossible to read facial expressions. No less brilliant and realistic looks the episode of peeping from the window, when in the yard of the hospital there are heroes of the second plan.
The philosophical subtext of the picture is revealed at the very end, accompanied by a monumental musical orchestra. This effect of epicity leaves a deep impression of viewing, and the emotional aftertaste does not let go at least several hours.
Shyamalan managed to make one of the best films of his career. ' Glass' not just the final part of the trilogy about heroes and villains. It's more than that. ' Glass' this is the epic of the whole story with a much more powerful and profound meaning.
Before us is the sequel to two films that have a very significant time span. Nevertheless, the story of a hidden hero and a mad psychopath - the Beast still found its continuation in a peculiar ' crossover', Avengers for Aesthetes, so to speak. If no joke, I am glad that M. Knight did not turn his main (as it seems to me) brainchild into an outright mockery not only of himself, but also of previous films.
David Dunn leads the hero’s hidden life. He continues to patrol the streets, hoping to catch a certain Horde, abducting girls (the main character of Split). One day, David manages to catch a psychopath, but the unexpected arrival of the police takes them both to a mental hospital. The head doctor tries to convince the hero and villain that their abilities are nothing more than their own self-hypnosis. Perhaps she would have succeeded had it not been for Mr. Glass, who remains obsessed with bringing his comic book stories to life.
If we consider the film in a general context, we can say that it continues the idea of Invulnerable - the embodiment of superhero stamps in real life. Moreover, if there everything revolved around the idea ' an ordinary person discovers the abilities of the hero' but without excessive pathos and colorful costumes (but with drama), then here it acquires a kind of continuation. But the trick is that you don’t know it right away.
I was once again convinced that M. Knight was playing with the audience, mocking him. The first half is told (and very convincingly) one thing, and in the end, according to tradition, everything turns upside down. And it worked again.
On the other hand, there is a clear mockery of Marvel and others. The director takes all the stamps and shows them in a completely different way. Another thing is that the final fight without special effects and intense music, someone may perceive as a standard of incompetence. But I personally caught the taunt. Whether or not it is up to the viewer to decide.
Despite the protracted plot and a very difficult middle, in the end there is no feeling that the viewer simply waved a delicious bone. Still, the slow presentation of Shyamalan’s idea, coupled with amazing acting and eternal expectation of something like this (and it happens) contributed to a pleasant pastime.
And yet the film has flaws, and very serious ones. Both logical (a mental hospital with one nurse for the whole wing!), and other (discussion of which is a spoiler). But the feeling after viewing interrupts absolutely everything. When the credits come, you realize that you were part of a fun game, where there are no winners or losers - there are only feelings that Shyamalan gave you with his "multi-walkers" & #39; This ' falsification ' maps, these hidden conjectures, this illustration of human psychology make you think about what you see, decide something for yourself and find answers to all questions yourself.
And in general, it is rare now in the wide release of films where they force and empathize, and enjoy what is happening at the same time.
The acting is still flawless. Rarely in 'crossover' each character is given the same time. Bruce Willis, unfortunately, is not so young and rarely fights, but his drama and experiences are conveyed wonderfully. McAvoy is all the same versatile, except that for some reason, in a multipersonal body appears more baby Gadwick than cold Dennis or strange Patricia. But there was time for other ' characters ' which is undoubtedly pleasing (even if they showed them for a couple of seconds). And, the main guest, the old but insidious S. Jackson in the role of a criminal genius, who even a catholic mine turns out to be funny. What is interesting is that if in the first film and here he seemed excessively immoral, then what will the viewer think in the end?
One sadness - from the hopelessness and horror of Split, only memories remain.
' Glass' is the finale of a long story about superheroes in the real world, full of drama and everyday experiences. A logically complete story leaves behind a sense of accomplishment. Knight told us everything he wanted: about his superhero fantasies, the psychology of heroes and villains, and his opinion of Marvel. He said. Ambiguous, but a blow to the senses. And I took it.
8 out of 10
Glass was supposed to close the Shyamalan trilogy about superheroes and become an unforgettable finale in which all three characters would appear together, and the director would express his ideas to us. It was very confusing.
The first thing that spoils the viewing experience is the dynamism and structure of the film. It is rather slow, primarily because it lacks an obvious conflict, a clash of two sides on which to build the plot. There are initial sketches, there is a situation, or rather the place in which all three characters appeared. But the conflict itself, which would move the narrative is conditionally outlined only closer to the final of the tape. If you take Split, then the plot was driven by intrigue about the existence of the Beast. And because of this, everything looked quite harmonious and tense. There is no such thing in Glass, so it seems that the film is delayed, and timekeeping could be reduced.
The second is logic paintings. I constantly have questions about the rationality of some characters. Yes, this is a superhero movie, and there is a hero who climbs bare walls in his arms, but this does not refute the fact that the actions must be justified, otherwise it will be absurd or parody. I don’t like to talk about logic because everything is a metaphor, but here it is too striking.
The third reason is rather subjective - it is Shyamalan's manner. Very typical of his film. A shaky camera, constant close-ups with blurs - just too much, and it's tiring. As well as frankly stupid-sounding dialogues and some scenes that are unclear for what purpose added here. But there is also a signature final twist, which Shyamalan and famous.
However, it is impossible not to admit that this is an unusual superhero movie. This is not Marvel with millions in budget and the same type of stories. Shyamalan showed that the author’s picture of superheroes can be done at very low cost and it can be done unusually. And for that, thank you. There is always a choice.
And thank you for James McAvoy. Definitely beautiful.
By and large, it seems that Shyamalan has led us to the message that superheroes exist, and perhaps in each of us, depending on the strength of our beliefs. It seems like a weak insight for three films.
5 out of 10
Aristotle says that man cannot change the past. Strengthening his thesis, he cites the words of the tragic Agathon that the gods cannot do this either. Knight Shyamalan, blinding from what was a film about “gods” among people, outperformed everyone: tragicians with philosophers, and gods with people. With his “Glass” he managed to ruin two of his films at once, “Unbreakable” and “Split”. Shyamalan's new film is definitely bad.
Combining two bold dramatic stories about ordinary people who are not at all like everyone else, Shyamalan made a flat film about latent superheroes and the secret organization opposing them. “Glass” tries to give away a complicated story, but its every twist is obvious; it asks complex existential questions, the answers to which everyone already knows. At first glance, it is obvious that Dr. Staple cannot be trusted, and Mr. Glass always has a backup plan. Can childhood trauma serve as an unconditional justification for our actions? No, because every decision we make is here and now. Both the drama and the philosophy of “Glass” are so on the surface that at the end of the film you begin to fidget.
The "Glass" characters are just as flat. In this sense, and actors present something difficult. Bruce Willis, surprisingly, only gets better over the years, but his David Dunn is some half-done Doctor Manhattan. Samuel L. Jackson seems to be tired to vegetables of superhuman roles without superpowers. James McAvoy is good, of course, but his legion, compared to Split, has become a kind of meaningless correction class. And the relatives and friends of the main characters of the film performed by Ani Taylor-Joy, Spencer Trit Clark and Charlaine Woodard are generally some comic trio that accidentally wandered onto the set.
Why this movie is unclear. Shyamalan not only left the opportunity, but directly stated the desire to build a new superhero universe. No one is interested in this universe because it is two-dimensional. And the most unpleasant, after watching “Glass”, it will be impossible to review the generous ideas of “Invulnerable” and “Split”. If you don’t want to, you have to put them in a new context.
In 2016, M. Night Shyamalan released “Split” – a film about a kidnapper, in whose head fit 24 personalities. In the last frames of this film was shown Bruce Willis in the image of David Dunn - the main character of "Unbreakable" (2000) and "Split" was its kind of sequel. Now all the cards are open and at the box office “Glass” – the final part of the superhero trilogy Shyamalan.
Speaking of “superhero” you need to immediately make a reservation – in “Glass” there is no inherent in the genre of colorful, rich in graphics, action. The budget is only $ 20 million and you can see that at all stages, starting with the script, the film was developed with an eye to this factor. Sometimes camera tricks designed to save the budget are too obvious and striking, and the visual component as a whole does not try to be very inventive. Unless the main characters, according to the comic canons, received their colors (shown on the poster), which prevail in scenes with their participation.
Two years ago, Split did not make a strong impression on me. The only thing I remember in that movie was McAvoy. In the sequel, the actor continues to skillfully and convincingly transmit “light” to various personalities of Kevin Crumb. Unlike Split, it is not the only one that holds the viewer’s attention. He is supported by experienced Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, who returned to their characters from Invulnerable.
In addition to the strong cast in the film is an interesting plot. There are branded unexpected twists of Shyamalan. After a leisurely development of events, “Glass” gives a strong ending, an excellent conclusion to the story, started in 2000. Eastrail 177 Trilogy, as they call this series of films (after the name of the train, with the crash of which begins “Invulnerable”), allows you to look at the superhero genre from a new angle and this view seemed to me interesting, worthy of attention, and, importantly in our time of dominance of comic books, fresh. Many praised the recent Spider-Man: Through the Universes, including the message that anyone can be a hero. In “Glass”, in my opinion, this message is realized even better, but Shyamalan’s film critics are in no hurry to praise.
In “Glass” there is no superhero action in the usual sense, but there are excellent actors and plot twists. I advise you to watch this movie, but the size of the screen on which you do it is not important.
8 out of 10
Shyamalan is a very interesting director. He always has a rule he adheres to. And it plays 50/50 with him. Nice "Visit" and bad "Avatar." Bad on all counts "After our era" and controversial "Split". Whether lamenting luck or unrecognized genius. But you can't take one. A man can surprise. Hidden twists are his favorite.
And now the continuation of Split comes to light and the crossover does not understand where the universe of superheroes came from. No cloaks, red pants, sharp ears and tights. Invulnerable (Bruce Willis), Split (James McAvoy and his personalities) and new hero Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson). One is impossible to beat, the other has superhuman power, thanks to the splitting of consciousness is able to use much more percent of the brain and chemically changes the body. And a genius that will break from a simple pop on the shoulder.
Technically, the film is perfectly tailored. You don't even have to cling to it. But artistically... Shyamalan is true to himself. Something's missing. It is interesting to watch everyone, but screen time is not enough. The beginning of the journey of the beast in the face of McAvoy remains in the background. The unstoppable never realizes what he has forgotten. A Mr. Glass most of the time drools and only then comes into play.
But as for actors, James McAvoy still coolly operates multiple personalities, instantly rebuilding the image and character. Behavior and behavior. Great actor. Anya Taylor-Joy is just for the tick this time. What she is in the film, that she is not - nothing will change, in fact. It's just gonna stretch a little. There are moments of humor with her.
And when it seems that the director was again unlucky with the idea, then his famous twists come in, turning everything upside down. Like, “Wow!” but now there’s a gap. It's a very heterogeneous narrative. And again, they play with the audience. Is everything you saw true, or is it all fiction, and we have a bunch of crazy people who think they are heroes/villains.
Not a movie, but a dilemma. I didn’t get a lot of slack, just a little bit.
Mm. Knight Shyamalan made two good films that had nothing to do with each other, not only in the aspect of the plot, but also in their essence. Invulnerable is a detective drama exploring the phenomenon of superheroes and supervillains in comic books. Split is a psychological thriller about a maniac with dissociative identity disorder. In principle, I understand the idea of uniting their single universe - this is justified with the so-called development of the plot, but due to the forced combination of the incompatible - the overall film turned out to be noticeably weaker than each of the soloists.
James McAvoy is a brilliant actor who is why I want to give the film a positive rating. He is interesting at the beginning of the picture, when he plays a maniac on the loose - this is a direct continuation of the previous part. It is even more interesting in the middle, when he reveals the inner conflict of all his personalities against the background of external pressure. Good in the final, when he plays the Beast, including due to the dynamics and brutality, which I did not expect from the film for some pathetic $ 20 million. But with all the talent of James, he, unfortunately, still interferes with the environment.
Bruce Willis has aged a lot, but he’s still good in his image, I don’t have any complaints about him. The claim is that, like his grown-up son, he is practically useless for the film, because he has no place and, obviously, could not have any development potential in this world. Samuel L. Jackson and his inadequate mother were extremely annoying. In addition, they are the source of the absolute majority of plot holes, which can not be attributed to the genius of the character - only to the stupidity of his opponents, who in the plot are so stupid still, at least, should not, and, in general, can not.
With the rest of the characters it is even worse, I remember only two main characters, but I can not say anything good about both. Anya Taylor-Joy here is extremely ridiculously trying to imitate the Black Widow, calming the Hulk. She's important to the finale, but she lost all her charm long before he did. Sarah Paulson, in my opinion, simply does not fall into her image, not externally, not behaviorally. Charlize Theron in her place could make the picture much more fascinating, and here in the middle of the film many viewers left the hall because of boredom.
In principle, I understand all the negative reviews about the film, and I agree with a number of arguments of their authors, but not with the conclusion from them. If you leave in the middle of the plot - the impression will be disgusting, but the final picture saves the situation, because justifies almost all the plot problems of the narrative. I liked the inner philosophy, the motivation of the characters, which is impossible to understand until the finale, which is why I put a positive assessment, but was it worthwhile to cross out two interesting, extraordinary and completely independent films? . .
I'll start from afar. The film ' Invulnerable' is a great movie in every way. This is a complete story that touches on important topics and does not need to be continued. I can confidently say that this is the rare case where the film was ahead of its time. In 2000, the topic of people with superpowers was not so interesting to the mass audience. However, the years passed, and 16 years later, when the superhero genre became most popular, the film ' Split' was released, which, with the light hand of M. Night Shyamalan, becomes a continuation of the universe ' Invulnerable'. And after the release of 'Split', which turned out to be very good, I was looking forward to 'Glass' which was to unite the heroes we already loved in one film. But did Shyamalan manage not to spoil (as he likes to do) the end of the trilogy 19 years ago?
And frankly, to speak a lot about this picture, there is no desire. This film had just incredible ambitions, which later resulted in simply incomprehensible nonsense of a madman, posing as 'Smart Psychological Thriller'. But the most insulting thing that Shyamalan could shoot well, even throughout the film, I noticed how he, for example, played with light, saying that green represents heroes, and purple on the contrary, villains. But all this simply pales in the background of a complete misunderstanding of what the author wanted to say. Watching the second half of the movie is very unbearable, I just didn’t understand what was happening. It seems that Shyamalan just garnered, throwing into the plot just went all over the plot twists. Well, to a pile, there is just a sea of logical holes, inconsistencies and contradictions to itself. Shyamalan overtook himself this time.
In total, we have a film remarkable only for the play of the main three: James McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Sam L. Jackson. Neither sane plot, nor even cheerful action (all fights end with the usual grabs and twitches of each other), there is no. The whole movie gets boring and leaner every minute. And by the end, the whole film turns into a UG, putting an end to the question of my credibility with M. Night Shyamalan.
4 out of 10
The first trailers for the new film by M. Night Shyamalan inspired me to take a fresh look at the film ' Invulnerable'. The idea that all of David Dunn’s #39 superpowers were just a combination of Elijah’s rather interesting and compelling theory, hyperbolizing and hoaxing, coincidences, childhood fears and David’s own traumas, seemed very interesting to me. I really wanted to be convinced in the new film that all three characters are just sick and crazy people with megalomania, each of whom at some point in his life had some tragic or traumatic events. From 'Split' to this was added an equally interesting theory about broken people and retribution. But unfortunately or fortunately, Shyamalan surprised me. Until the very last act, the viewer, as I wanted, tried to convince that the characters are mentally ill. For this, there were quite convincing arguments and explanations of the psychotherapist, but the conflicts and doubts of the characters did not reach a high point. The action quite smoothly moved to Act 3, where to the classic confrontation of the hero and the villain, M. N. Shyamalan added a third, neutral side, which gives final and irrevocable importance to everything that happened in the trilogy.
But still the main disappointment after watching the trailer was that the film, although it is called ' Glass', will not be about the personality of Elijah. Alas.
It is also worth noting the cast and acting. James McAvoy is really good. The rest of the film has nothing to say. The picture is pleasant, and especially the color, good camera work, sound and musical components, unlike the recognizable theme from the first film, unfortunately, remained somewhere in the background. I also got tired of Hadwig’s gags, which were too much. I wanted to see more of the other people. But again, among the set of personalities presented by Kevin himself, conflicts and doubts did not reach the highest point of tension, although by the end all this will not matter.
Overall, I liked the film. And this is perhaps the most interesting and adequate ' superhero universe' and in general a kind of study on the theme of classical images of heroes and villains, where not the last importance is attached primarily to the personality of a person. This, of course, mostly applies to 'Invulnerable'.
Expectations weren’t bad for the third final film, Glass, because Unbreakable and even more so Split (one of Knight’s best films to me) made an impression. "Glass" also left a very good aftertaste.
The events of the tape begin with the moment at which Split ended. Kevin Wendell Crumb - A man in which several personalities coexist (stated 24 pieces, but no more than 8-10 are traced), among which, the most dangerous and luminary is the Beast, Elijah Price - Fragile Man - Mr. Glass, as well as "Invulnerable", superman David Dunn are locked in a psychiatric hospital. Dr. Ellie Staple tries to convince patients that they are not superheroes at all, but just ordinary mortals. Their “superpowers” act as defense mechanisms for them, thanks to which they cope with psychological trauma. The main action of the picture focuses on three main persons. Each of them has its own position and view of the world. They are not divided into bad or good, each will have their own different, personal demonstrative qualities, they act as they see fit, but agree with them, not everyone will.
The acting here is an important part of the film, due to which the entire narrative is built. Mr. Glass looks paralyzed until the middle of the film, blinking his eyes day and night. Immobility and inactivity are only bait for the entire staff of the mental hospital. With the help of rapprochement with the "Beast", "Fragile man" still decides to leave the walls of the clinic, continuing to dream of his desire, to declare such supermen. Sam Jackson played the iconic character at the proper level. David Dunn for himself, presents himself as a guardian of order, calculating with his son bad faces, by means of divination (touching a person and seeing negative actions in him), punishing them. But still hiding from the local police. Finding Kevin Crumb, the Beast, resists him with a superpower given to him many years ago, after a train crash. In general, David Dunn is true to his beliefs and sincerely tries to convey to Ellie Staple in what way his abilities are manifested thanks to the efforts of Elijah Price and that he is not a threat to people. I am ready to offer a serious resistance to the Beast again, no matter what. The image "Invulnerable" Bruce Willis turned out to be a credit. James McAvoy’s performance was excellent this time. Again, a master class of a person is shown, in which several different personalities fit. The most striking, as in Split, is Hedwig, who is 9 years old. And here, he will find interesting phrases: "I had a girlfriend, we kissed", "Hey careful, I'll go, and he's the Beast is not", "Class, come closer, I'll see you". Kevin Wendell Crumb is a very lost soul, caused by the abuse of his mother and the disappearance of his father. It appears mainly at the right moments. Patricia is one of the important persons, the High Priestess, in the opinion of Ellie Staple, directs all the others, conveying her thoughts to everyone, before the appearance of the Beast. - the most dangerous entity. It appears often and takes revenge on its own criteria. Climbing the Beast on the walls, and its nimble movements are excellent horror elements. There are such as the familiar Dennis, the designer Barry, someone from Spain who is afraid Norm, the guy Luke from the district - but they do not have much time. Psychiatrist Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson came out convincing in this role), although she convinces the main characters that they are only fantasies, at the climax, begins to see with her own eyes what they are, but still makes her impressive contribution, but for her, not everything is so simple. Anya Taylor-Joy and Spencer Trit Clark (Invulnerable, Gladiator, Mysterious River) - well embodied Casey Cook and Joseph Dunn, but still, the four listed above, revealed much more, but in General claims to them no.
"Glass" - American thriller 2019 from M. Night Shyamalan with elements of horror, fiction. The film was a success, far from a masterpiece, but it is a worthy completion of the trilogy that the director planned. I liked how successfully the director was able to include flashbacks, scenes from “Invulnerable” associated with David, Elijah, the joint David and Joseph, as well as new ones with Kevin’s past. The finale of the story suggests in faith, in faith that there may be more.
7.5 out of 10
After watching this movie, the thought immediately arises: ' How much in life depends on what we have in our heads and on what environment we live in' As shown to us by numerous films about superheroes, negative characters are not born, they become because of certain situations, and in fact in life it is.
Psychology played an important role in the film. She plays one of the key parts of the film. What can you do with your beliefs? We are told from an early age what the world is like, by what rules you need to play, what you can do and what you can’t do, all our desires, all our dreams – all this we saw somewhere. We were shaped by the people around us, the movies we watched, the situations we went through. The main characters became strong in certain areas after a series of events that greatly affected their lives, they went through pain, suffering and trials.
A new superhero pitch to my liking, a down-to-earth version of a superhero movie, M. Night Shyamalan shows us what a film completely opposite to the Avengers could be. After all, already quite tired of recurring plots, with each film MARVEL increases the scientific and technological progress, and sometimes you think where next? In this film, the possibilities are shown modestly, but this does not make the film worse, and even vice versa.
James McAvoy has reached a new level, it feels like I haven’t seen any previous movies with him, because in this film he amazed me with his acting, his character, I’m sure that without dubbing, in the original, it looks even more impressive.
Quality cinema, which dilutes monotonous films, which increasingly began to show on our screens, a fresh look at superheroes, which I like.
9 out of 10
The animals stood at the door, they were shot, they died.
I'll support this movie. Before Shyamalan, no one in the cinema thought so seriously about the nature of superheroes, and especially about their birth. The film will seem stretched at first, but this is not the director’s mistake, but his vision of the situation in which we can take a closer look at the main characters. If we consciously go to Shyamalan’s movies, we must accept it.
It may also seem that the film is not about Glass at all, and it should be called Split 2, so much attention is paid to Kevin's personalities. And this is also quite justified, because at the end of the film, he is no less worried than the character of Willis. And yet this is a film about Glass, his plan, intellect are so amazing in the end that he no longer looks like an extra against the background of more colorful partners. Especially impressive is his final twist, showing that he is still much cooler than some third parties introduced into the plot. Of course, there are roughnesses in the plot, I am about the heroine from the first split, whose presence is not quite spelled out.
As for Kevin 'Split' himself, he still has tremendous potential as a character. The mystery of why one of the many personalities was occupied by such a dark and evil entity as the Beast, categorically requires its solution. Who he is, where he came from, his origin, whether he is related to our world, all this would certainly be interesting to see in the sequel.
P. C. I am grateful to the author that the film does not have that wacky humor that is unusually popular in recent superhero films. Humor is present in the film, but it is justified. After all, he is responsible for a rather funny Hedwig, whose appearance you expect with the same impatience as Dennis, and Patricia, and of course the Beast. At the exit received a strong gloomy old-school thriller that will not leave your head immediately after leaving the theater.
P.P.S. Sorry that the review was shorter than its title, and the title is not a spoiler at all.
"Glass" - Everything you believed in turned out to be fiction!
To date, in the career of the already well-known American director, screenwriter and producer of Indian origin Manoj Nelliyattu Shyamalan (better known as M. Night Shyamalan) there is an impressive number of independently written, produced and staged films, the lion’s share of which is based on the genre of the Mystical Thriller & #39; in which heartbreaking psychodrama often finds its place. Working mainly with safe-modest budgets, Shyamalan almost always managed not only to multiply the box office fees of many of his projects, but also to plunge the audience into the expectation of something incredibly intriguing and not so unambiguous from a particular story that it might seem at first glance.
Undoubtedly, the greatest success (as a director and screenwriter) overtook Shyamalan after the mystic-dramatic thriller & #39; The Sixth Sense & #39; (1999), which later became one of the triumphant in acting careers for its main performers Bruce Willis and Hayley Joel Osment (who played the same nine-year-old boy Cole). Shyamalan’s thriller marked the beginning of his creative tandem with the legendary Bruce Willis, who has since repeatedly driven the audience into ecstasy.
Released literally after the successful 'Sixth Sense', the first for Shyamalan film adaptation of superhero comics ' Invulnerable' (2000) gave, albeit modest (judging by box office), but still the start of the cult franchise about heroes, which, due to its specificity, all audiences stupefyed by predictability and special effects of Marvel and DC films, can calmly ' send home' In this, albeit superhero, but Shyamalan universe you will not meet pathetic heroes, will not be able to predict the epilogue, and certainly will not be able to count on a pleasant easy viewing. . .
The star duo of Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson (known for their phenomenality in Die Hard 3: Retribution 39 (1995)) only more attracted the attention of the audience (who at that time still passively perceived superhero films), and gave them the opportunity to plunge into the depths of Shyamalan’s large-scale idea, which in the future will remind the world of itself more than once. In fact, each film Shyamalan arranges the audience places hearty, sometimes cerebral, and sometimes in the aggregate assault, which may require repeated revision and thoughtful understanding of the entire author's idea.
Despite the almost 16-year gap, Shyamalan still dared to continue his interpretation of the superhero universe, and, traditionally occupying the chairs of four film figures at once (director, producer, screenwriter, episodic role), released a psychological horror ' Split' (2016), which left behind three key phenomena at once: first, gave the audience another qualitatively intimidating thriller with his remarkable suspense; 39; second, allowed the female audience's favorite James McAvoy to enter the actor's maximally successfully into the actor's /#39; Will's wild identity, which is not immediately left in the world in his own image (#39), / # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
The plot ' Glass' unfolds almost instantly after the events of its predecessor ' Split'. Kevin Wendell Crumb (McAvoy) continues to kidnap ' untraumatized people ' and feed them to his 24th personality in the person of the Beast, while periodically transforming into many of his other subpersonalities in the process. Meanwhile, while the already aged superhero David Dunn (Willis) is combing every corner of Philadelphia in search of Kevin, in parallel lynching criminal elements - Elijah Price, nicknamed ' Mr. Glass' (L. Jackson) continues to be a prisoner of a psychiatric clinic. On Kevin's trail, David eventually enters into a fight with the Beast, which is interrupted by police forces and psychiatrist Ellie Staple (Paulson). Having imprisoned David and Kevin in the same mental hospital along with Mr. Glass, the psychotherapist, by virtue of his specialization, touching on the past of each of them, will try to convince his three patients that they are superheroes.
First of all, I have to admit that even before watching, I didn’t quite know what I was expecting. Taking into account: (1) all the incredibly complex material Shyamalan combined in the whole story (try without flaws to combine three equally main and contradictory characters in one film), (2) in which each of the three interrelated chapters (' Invulnerable', 'Split' and 'Glass ') differs not only (3) impressive time gap on output, but also (4) proximity to different genres, (5) the story and fate of each of the key characters, as well as (6) an integral from the intrigue of Shya, to the unique ability to preserve the final performance and intrigue, all possible assumptions.
- ' Glass' M. Night Shyamalan for me was, unfortunately, no more than 'just normal'.
Indeed, it is impossible for me to say for sure what to expect from the completion of this trilogy:
1) To say that the problem in the script is to deceive yourself, because firstly, the original author of the entire film adaptation (writer and director) remained the same (in the person of Shyamalan), and secondly, just the same story in the end was able to cause interest, despite the sometimes boring measured pace of the film (albeit with an average timekeeping of 129 minutes), in which you wonder ' In which area of the chair should I stick my fifth point? '
2) To say that the cast has disappointed is to lie to yourself. The cool trio of Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson and James McAvoy, who continue to perfectly preserve and apply their versatile acting charisma in any situation, perfectly performed their roles;
(3) To question the greatness of the music of West composer Dylan Thordson (who also wrote the music for ' Split'), thanks to which the film was filled with an addictive suspense in the course of a slow-paced plot, is to throw a stone into the garden of all the talented composers of many horror films that would not be so emotionally tense and frightening;
(4) To ask the question 'Maybe M. Night Shyamalan himself did not quite understand what he was doing and what he wanted?' - is to stop at this version.
Deeply respected by me Shyamalan, in whose career there were both ups and downs, managed more than once to make fateful and fatal twists in his cinema, which, of course, sometimes succeeded, and sometimes not quite, which happened to me personally this time in ' Glass' To say that this film is as complicated as most of Shyamalan’s other films is to be right. To promise myself that I will revisit this franchise again and again is to save my hand from being cut off. To admit that he did not fully understand what he wanted to say in this review means to remain honest in the eyes of readers, and still retain at least some respect.
In 2016, Split surprised me not only as a great thriller with a great performance by James McAvoy, but primarily because it was in the same universe as 2000’s Invulnerable. “Invulnerable” long before “Batman” Nolan tried to reconcile superheroic and real life, but did not find understanding from the public.
And now on the screens comes “Glass” – the final part of the trilogy Shyamalan, in which face to face meet Bruce Willis – David Dunn (superhero nicknamed the Overseer), James McAvoy – Kevin Crump (supervillain Beast) and Samuel L. Jackson – Elijah Price (evil genius Mr. Glass)
The Beast (James McAvoy) kidnaps another victim. On his trail is the Overseer (Bruce Willis), their meeting ends in a psychiatric hospital, where Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson) has been detained for 16 years. In a mental hospital, Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) begins to assure our superheroes that their superpowers are just self-hypnosis caused by childhood trauma. It is here that the main question of the film arises - what is a superhero - a person by coincidence who has received superpowers, or a mental patient who believes that he has superpowers.
“Glass” turned out to be an excellent psychological thriller destructing superhero templates. If Nolan’s Batman gave the superhero story realism, Glass, on the contrary, gives ordinary people the features of superheroes. Plus, great acting – The Beast of James McAvoy scares and fills the screen with his animal energy and all this – thanks to acting and camera work. Looking at Samuel L. Jackson, you are amazed at his ability to appear in so many films and each time create a vivid and memorable image. Those who were waiting for a crazy action or something – this film is not about that.
Glass is an excellent psychological thriller, with excellent acting work, an interesting plot and twisting the laws of the genre of superhero movies inside out. And we must pay tribute to the courage of Shyamalan - in 2019, in the time of continuous comic books, reboots, restarts, sequels - to make a really interesting and smart movie that allows actors to play - it is expensive.
This week, the film “Glass” was released, authored by one of the most controversial directors of our time – M. Night Shyamalan. “Glass” is a sequel to two of his films at once: the film “Unbreakable” and the film “Split”. The final part of the original trilogy again showed the viewer that Shyamalan can easily spoil a good idea.
The first problems begin, as usual, with the plot. It takes a very long time to wait. First we need to remember who the main characters are. We have already forgotten the existence of previous paintings. Most of its timekeeping "Glass" spends on verbal retelling of previous films. Shyamalan puts the pieces on the chessboard for a very long time. For what? In order to turn it around.
After watching it, it remains unclear what the film wanted to achieve. The first two paintings convinced us of one thing, in “Glass” unsuccessfully trying to convince the opposite. And then comes the famous Shyamalan “sudden turn”, which devalues the entire timekeeping of the film watched. What was this done for? Just for this sudden turn, hints of which have not been and will not be.
But there are pluses to the movie. Twenty-four as many. James McAvoy is great. He's the only one trying to get this movie out of the swamp. Playing all the personalities of your character was clearly hard. As usual, we were not shown all of them, and many were as a kind of cameo. But McAvoy tried to make these personalities memorable and recognizable. Literally during one scene, without editing, completely change your behavior, look, facial expressions, way of thinking and atmosphere. Bravo, no other words.
In the end, the film is disappointing. He had a lot of potential that he could not fulfill. The plot is boring, and the atmosphere of the film is constantly crumbling. The only thing worth watching this movie for is the acting of James McAvoy. And as much as the authors want to convince us that this is the beginning of something new, we know that this is the end.
I’m not trying to convince fans or fans of this series. It’s more of an attempt to bring a different perspective, the view of a man who naively didn’t take the film as a sequel because he got on it quite spontaneously, without knowing the existence of the previous two parts. However, this picture left me with very positive emotions and impressions.
No spoilers. In short, actors play normally. The nominally very powerful cast in the faces of James McAvoy, Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson needs no introduction. Bruce Willis has been playing himself for decades. Jackson doesn't do anything extraordinary either. McAvoy's game is harder to judge, you have to listen to in the original. But in general, the incarnations are quite on the level, as are the roles of Sarah Johnson and Ani Taylor-Joy. Operator, sound and installation components do not stand out. Except that I remember the attractive color palette of the film. In my opinion, the film does not bring originality to this world, and is not a contender for an exemplary superhero or fantastic movie.
How did the movie get green, you ask? Here's what. I'm really hooked on Dr. Ellie. It is about the meaning of childhood, about childhood trauma and its impact on later life, and even more about the importance and power of faith. I can even say that this topic is on the topic of the popular scientism. In the film, there is a kind of opposition of the scientific in the person of Dr. Ellie with the fantastic in the person of Mr. Glass and two other superheroes, which holds interest up to a certain point. Which one, I promised not to say. I was personally impressed by the psychological implications. Didn't the critics appreciate it? I don't understand, honestly.
It is also worth saying that there are many conditional shortcomings. In addition to those mentioned at the beginning of the review, unnatural cliche dialogues were still striking. The film is unlikely to be the best in the series, the first part of which was shot at the junction of millennials. Let’s watch the movie from different points of view, look for psychological and philosophical subtexts, and not just compare the plot of the film with textbooks on scripting skills and conventional laws of the genre. And sometimes I think it's better to give up "high-intellectual" criticism, instead of just enjoying the emotions, looking at the world with children's eyes. What about the movie? It is probably not very logical, exemplary or original. But there is definitely something to get pleasure and mental lift, but only if you skilfully and consciously close your eyes to shortcomings. I wish everyone development and good mood!
Glass is Knight Shyamalan’s third film in his superhero world, after Unbreakable and Split.
In 2017, after the escape of the hero James McAvoy from the zoo, there was a post-credits scene where Bruce Willis appeared. reminded everyone of the 2000 picture, hinting that Mr. Shyamalan is trending and you need to shoot a movie universe about superheroes. So the third part was born, which united the characters: David Dunn aka Batman - super strong, wears a cloak, hides in the shadows and beats villains with his bare hands, the second - super smart Mr. Glass aka Professor X, and the third - local Billy Milligan can turn into the Beast.
19 years after the events of the first picture, Oreshko liked to go and punish evil guys, and his main goal was McAvoy, and quickly finds him thanks to his son. At this point, the Horde had already found the maidens who had not known suffering, and made the Beast wait. In the "epic" fight, both fall out of the window, where they are waiting for the police with a psychiatrist. They are taken to the hospital Arkham, behind the scenes also arrives Glass and begins... incredible longing, slowly told in two hours story. The rest of the minute we are waiting for talk that they are not heroes, they just have problems in the frontal lobe of the brain.
“Glass” is filmed in the genre of a thriller, a detective, which makes the viewer think, piece the picture together, without missing details, but this is his main problem. There are many logical holes in the film, many things defy logic, and some actions take place somewhere behind the scenes. There are many things that make you grab your head. Instead of enjoying the film, you are constantly distracted, it becomes difficult and uninteresting to watch.
Having a small number of visual effects, a lame plot, many blunders, inconsistencies with the previous parts, completely lack of action, lack of hero development, acting does not save. Looking at Jackson and Willis is nice, but they have nothing to play. “Glass” was not the finale of the trilogy, but rather the sequel to “Split”. On the screen McAvoy more than the rest, but the character is no longer catchy. Compared to him, he is more twisted, the change of personalities occurs at the speed of the Flash, and the appearance at any convenient moment of the Beast is boring, although he was the main intrigue and smoothly caught up with fear.
Knowing Shyamalan, you expect a great twist and emotion-shaking suspense in the cinema, but in the end we get a lack of atmosphere, an absurd and ridiculous ending.
In general, the film is unnecessary, inexpressive, ill-conceived and looks like a series of cheap series than the final part of the trilogy. Instead of good previous tapes here, the output turned out dull, empty, drawn-out, frankly bad scenes, changing one after another and little connected by a single plot.
Shyamalan doesn't have action films. So why do those waiting for action go to his new paintings?
He doesn't have typical superheroes and hasn't, his movies are about another. So why expect a new Deadpool or Superman from Glass?
My favorite film by this director is Mysterious Forest. The glass is weaker, I thought. The Beast and its characters are fully revealed in the previous film. Fantasy ended, where to develop the character is not clear, and he became bland.
But Dunn (Bruce Willis) is great here. We haven’t seen it in a long time, and the character has evolved. It's so nice to see Dunn in a cloak and his son with these freckles and cilia and strange eyes, as if aliens or demons lived in them. It is a rare case when a grown-up boy artist has hardly changed.
I know a lot of people who can’t think original. They are easily suggestible. I can predict what they will say and how they will react. Shyamalan also cares about this topic, and he expressed it in the new film with his artistic means. As Ethan Hawke’s character said in Regression, some of the characters in Glass might say, “That’s the worst part – we believed it.” It is easier to believe in something unreal than in reality. Have you noticed how people love fairy tales and pink glasses, and how angry they are when they tell the truth?
Another topic that is close to me and this director – believe in yourself, do not be afraid of anything, but do not do good, then you will not get it. The system cannot be defeated if you are at least a hundred times smart, strong and unpredictable.
Shyamalan always appears in movies because it is his personal thing. I don't think it's a desire to be recognizable or a tribute to his ambition. If it were, he would have organized a big photo shoot at the autumn Comedian Kone, rather than leaving in brooding, giving only a few autographs. Knight seemed to me a person introverted, self-absorbed, sad, but pleasant, with positive energy.
Were you bored in the movie? Nope. But I can imagine the reaction of a person who didn't get enough sleep, worked hard, came to the cinema - and there's silence, half an hour Mr. Glass is watching the camera. A few “boos” were missing to wake people up. “The Devil” of the same director is more tense, but he is shorter.
Wonderful acting work of Ani and Sarah - it seemed that they themselves - maniacs, however, it is so, but in a different sense.
James was always taken on the role of sluts, so that he was a punching bag from Angelina Jolie, then someone else, and suddenly – a full-fledged superhero, an amazing job.
The film is very solid, it is not sucked out of the finger. Shyamalan said that long ago he conceived it, and not now just for the sake of fashion for the trilogy. It wasn’t an attempt to create your own Cinematic Universe, because everyone does. No, it's an old dream that's only now been able to take shape.