‘Glass’ Movie Review: A Nutty Ride With M. Night Shyamalan

This is a simply brilliant film. It makes a very specific, very powerful and brutal point which is: **SPOILERS** The world we live in would never, ever permit superhumans to exist. Not only that, but the world we live in systematically crucifies and destroys survivors, no matter how powerfully they may overcome their circumstances. That is the entire point of the film. That the average filmgoer is able to sit through an entire two hour M. Night film and miss the whole of the point that the writer/director is bludgeoning you over the head with is simply proof of how stupid our society has become.... and, coincidentally, proof of the premise of the film itself.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know if it was addressed, but the MG pin on "M"r. "G"lass' cravat is like the initials superheroes and villains put on their chests in the comics. It's his brand, and symbol of power.

Surprisingly enjoyable movie given all the negative reviews. Glad I went to see it for myself.

When a film has such an achingly bad script, the promoters would be smart to leave all dialog out of the movie trailers. "What...have...you...done........Elijah?" Cringe!

The review reads like it is deliberately structured to mimic M. Night Shyamalan's films. It starts out leading one to believe "Glass" is decent, then progressively realize it isn't actually very good, and then by the end understand that it's actually very bad. To say that Shyamalan needs help separating "his A material from his B, C and D ideas," is overly generous. Shyamalan’s "ideas" are all basically timeworn D tropes. Shyamalan's true skill lies in his realization that you can make it difficult to see how bad your ideas are if you can keep everything off-kilter and out of focus longer than just about anyone else around. Shyamalan’s strategy is essentially the same as dealing with an audience which has various levels of myopathy. He metaphorically steals their glasses and then gives them a good shake every few minutes. By the time most can actually focus and realize that what they've been watching is a total mess, the movie is nearly over. Finally, it is strange to say "David Dunn (Bruce Willis), discovers his modest powers in middle age. (He can bench press serious weight)." It makes little sense considering the entire premise of "Unbreakable," and who in fact is unbreakable. Who knows, perhaps it is meant to mimic Shyamalan's penchant for understatement. (That, by the way, was intended to be irony).

Excellent cast, direction and suspense. We all enjoyed this movie. We do not understand why these so called reporters and/or critics are so critical, miserable and bad mouthing this movie?? Great entertaining movie. People should go and see and decide by themselves, not what these critics are reporting negatively.

I'm sure that M.N.S. is a nice guy (most great filmmakers, Welles, Kubrick, Bergman(?) were not.....) But his films are all complete farces ... He DID happen to hit upon some kind of formula , which I'm trying to figure out.........at least he is not too prolific, so his cinematic scams are evenly paced......

In as much as I was not allowed to post on the Rohingya article--it was closed almost same hour it hit my computer--I will add my thoughts to this film sequel of Unbreakable which I did like. Superheroes must act under cover as media rules the world; just keep the power that enables constant repetition for decades, even a generation, and your interests win. The US interests in the Rohingya were the fact that they could be used much like the Philippine tribe that was rebelling just as the earthquake erased their base. No US military base as planned there, so of course they were disappointed when And Su Kai eliminated the potential US military base on her coast line. Good Luck super heroes, under cover and under reported!

i found the movie quite fascinating, raw and confusing at time. It seems as if the producers and director was not able to find that sweet stop between super hero movie and psycho maniac thriller movie. Although the cinematography and the mood and tone of the movie were on point it still couldn't distract from the nutty plot plot line. Despite everything else, I enjoyed how raw the movie was with their characters, seeming that though they might have what some people call "supernatural" powers; they are still human being just like you and I.

I enjoyed the movie and the twist ending. Definitely didn't see that coming. No reveal though - go see it. Worth the admission and a popcorn.

I've always thought Unbreakable was Shyamalan's best film (along with the underrated Signs) but life is way too short for sequels. I'd rather watch the original film again.

The movie is a lot worse than Manohla Dargis thinks it is, not only because, unfortunately for Shyamalan, everything he does is compared to The Sixth Sense, but also because, even for unfortunate for Shyamalan, he makes everything trying to replicate The Sixth Sense. Where the internal logic of The Sixth Sense is rigorous and inevitable, everything in Glass is obviously contrived, seen right on the surface, up to the very end, where the characters themselves have to announce to the audience the very twists and reveals. Yes, a small budget is a problem and glaring when the announced theme is: Super Heros in a Final Confrontation to the Death. What we got, without benefit of CGI, is 2 actors grappling with each another, home-made-wrestling-video style. Close up shots of McAvoy's bulging traps are almost believable that he could be a beast, but as soon as the camera pulls away for a full body shot next to other bodies around him, well, he's smaller than the guards he's fighting. And no shot of Bruce Willis is convincing that he has super human strength.

Just saw this and enjoyed it, perhaps even more than I expected. It definitely helps to have a refresher night of Unbreakable and Split beforehand, as there are many nice continuity references, and the trilogy holds together exceptionally well in its essential message/premise. Apparently some reviews are criticizing the final act. Honestly, it went the way it had to and should have gone. This is not an Avengers movie (and I do love those!), this is a basically an indie-film playing with hero tropes. I think it did a fine job. I will say that the final 20 minutes had no shortage of surprises (at least for me).

I love all his movies! I like the way he makes me think about things in a different way. I like movies and to be entertained and he never lets me down. I will definitely see 'Glass' and make my own opinion. Thank you anyway for all of yours!

McAvoy was criminally overlooked by the Oscars for his work in Split. It's too bad this sounds too convoluted for him to shine again, but then again when the Academy showers its praise on tired, regurgitated goods like A Star Is Born and The Green Book it shows it no longer can contemplate interesting hit-or-miss narratives by auteurs like Shyamalan.

"I see a plot dead on arrival."

Question not answered. Does one have to see or revisit "Unbreakable" and "The Split" to thoroughly enjoy "Glass".

Saw this movie last night on a big screen in Whittier, CA with a very receptive audience. I can't quibble too much with this review, but for me the movie was lots of fun. I have seen "Unbreakable" a number of times over the years and really enjoy it, but had not seen "Split," so working out the intereactions between the two films took a little doing on my part. Very nicely acted, with exceptional staging and pacing, in my view. Plus a nutty ending.

I don’t really understand why viewers are so hard on MNS. In these three films he has created a unique genre of immoderately endowed flawed and down to earth people (“superheroes”). Immoderately good and bad. Uncertain of there place or purpose in the world. The actors are at the top of their craft and certainly seem to believe in the worth of the project. I find these films thoroughly enjoyable and thought-provoking.

I know I'm not the only person on the planet who saw and didn't like The Sixth Sense, but sometimes it feels that way. I thought it was shallow and the "unexpected shock" ending was silly and unsurprising. Based on the publicity from his distributors for all of his subsequent films, if Mr. Shyamalan fits into a genre, it's "psychological horror with a twist," if such a genre exists. I haven't seen any of his other movies because of The Sixth Sense and the director's chosen genre. "Glass" seems even less appealing than his other works. He seems to want to toy with the audience. Instead, we're going to see "The Mule" from Mr. Clint Eastwood on Monday. At least he crafts good stories with interesting characters and tells them with maturity, style, and professionalism.

Weirdly, the verdict on this film doesn't come to the end of the review: It stinks. (Or is that a try at echoing Shyamalan's style?) Few directors have ever managed to build a career off their first film as Shyamalan has from "The Sixth Sense," which, on second viewing is mediocre at best (I'm no genius but I figured out what was going on halfway through my first viewing; it steals from the beginning of "Ghost"), and his subsequent films have made many viewers cringe. I figured out "The Village" from the trailer, so why bother seeing it? As Ms. Dargis says at the end, Shyamalan needs a cowriter on his screenplays or at least someone to reign in his ego.

According to McAvoy, that's his real body.

Much as I loved The Sixth Sense, Signs and Unbreakable I skipped Split (not my cup of tea) and will probably take a pass on Glass, too. One of the things that Shyamalan does and does well is draw the viewer in to the tension between and among his characters, which is what made Sixth Sense so spectacular. Same with Signs (a really beautiful and brilliant film in my opinion that never truly got the traction with the viewing public it deserved) and Unbreakable. That scene in which Dunn confronts and ultimately prevails against the murderous house intruder is as tension-filled and emotionally rewarding a piece of film as one could see.

Duly warned, but I think I'm going to see this movie anyway. The leads are all terrific actors, and I really loved "Unbreakable", it's my favorite Shyamalan movie. "Split" was OK too, mainly interesting to watch McAvoy do all those multiple personalities. So I just kind of have to see where he's going with this and how it all ends up, and I guess I'd see it in the theatre mostly to do my part to encourage Mr. Shyamalan to keep trying new things.

M. Night Shyamalan is a director whose every movie has to have a gimmick, or a twist ending, or both. He's a bit like O. Henry or Ambrose Bierce, but not as good as either. The Sixth Sense caught on because its ending surprised people and it offered something to talk about. I thought it was a good movie. I haven't liked anything he's done since, especially Split, which is incoherent and excessive. I have decided not to give him any more of my money, so I won't be seeing Glass. His films are unnecessrily busy, and it's a busyness without real purpose. He's creating games not movies.

The reviewer notes that this is the "Age of Comic Books" in American movie-making. That is so true. I just wish that audiences, by their ticket-purchasing practices, could inspire Hollywood not to make ONLY such movies, and create profit opportunities for movies that are challenging, and deal with real people and real life. While, occasionally, such movies do get produced, it would be nice if the fantasy/comic book movies were the few, and the thoughtful, deeper movies were the many, instead of being so predominantly the other way around.

Shyamalan has been judged harshly because after the "twist" at the end of "The Sixth Sense" he seemed to be judged only by how twisty his endings were. Actually, if you go into that movie expecting a twist, you figure it out well before the end, for there was no other possible twist. I don't mean that as a criticism of the movie, but praise. What is too often missed is what a movie craftsman he is. Every one of his movies has some of that, even the few big-budget ones over which he had less control. In this respect, craft, I think of moviemakers as different as Spielberg and Hitchcock. Shyamalan's is a career that will loom larger in retrospect than it seems now to the world at large. Of course I will see this one.

Ms. Dargis gives the failed movie more credit than it deserves. The screenplay is scattershot and thin of story and the film's long, dreary running time isn't sustained by anything that actually happens. There's a lot of repetition of ideas and even scenes and set-ups, the points of which we understand immediately. This is one of those movies in which characters do and say dumb things, things even the manic and weird folks in the film would never do or say if Shyamalan gave it all some deeper and more meaningful thought. Ms. Dargis also seems to have either missed the simple point of the film, or is purposely ignoring it, although why she'd ignore it, I don't know. "Glass" is basically about comic book heroes and the value of being part of the tradition of oral storytelling going back many centuries, even a thousand years. It's not an original premise. It's college literary analysis 101.