Film Review: "Glass"

REVIEW: Shyamalan Plays With His Action Figures in Front of Us And We Try to Follow Along in trilogy-closing "Glass"

by J.T. Kolness

Be careful what you wish for, Unbreakable die-hards. Fans of the original Unbreakable by writer-director (and infamous trickster) M. Night Shyamalan are in for a roller-coaster ride of conflicted opinions as Shyamalan grabs his action figures he locked away in a toy chest 19 years ago and spins out a brand new tale as a conclusion to a trilogy we were unaware even existed until the end credits of Shyamalan's last film Split. That film gained worldwide audience attention, grossing almost $300 million on a $5 million budget. The fact that (spoiler) it secretly was tied to Shyamalan's under-appreciated superhero mystery from 2000 was just icing on the cake for fans of the director's early work. Now we are blessed and cursed with Glass, the melding of two movies and a long awaited return for the character of hero David Dunn/The Overseer (Bruce Willis) and mastermind Elijah Price/Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson). It may end up proving though that the fans that wanted this the most may end up being the ones that like it the least.

Dunn, as we remember from the original film, now works part-time as the Batman-like vigilante The Overseer alongside his Alfred in the form of his son, Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark, reprising his role from the original). Dunn has definitely aged, and Bruce Willis' cold line readings add a layer of unintentional rustiness to his worn-down but ever committed crime fighter. He is on the hunt for The Horde (James McAvoy, reprising his sensational multiple-man-show role from Split) who continues his evil streak of kidnapping innocent teens to feed his 23rd personality, the violent animal-like monster "The Beast". Dunn successfully foils the Horde's plans, but at the cost of winding up in a mental institution run by Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) and encountering a nearly-immobile and unresponsive Elijah Price, who has been locked up here since the first film concluded.

Shyamalan successfully reintroduces us to his brilliantly unsettling directorial flair that made him a top-tier filmmaker in his early days. He uses a lot with a little, framing his wide shots on single subjects, either to have James McAvoy creep into the opening shot like a swimming shark to a chilling effect or to focus on a character's facial reactions as they respond to conflicting new information about themselves. Shyamalan proves he never lost his touch with a camera lens, he just hadn't used it in a while (part of why some of his previous work felt lifeless and stale, After Earth for example). When given too much material and budget to work with, his work felt lazy and uninterested, but when given only a few materials at his disposal, his mind has the ability to perform like genius clockwork. Immediately drawing us in with long takes following the character of David Dunn from behind his head, sifting through a crowded sidewalk of people, as composer West Dylan Thordson's energetic percussion pieces speed our pulses, Shyamalan remembers what it's like to craft a scene that has our eyes, ears, and minds locked in on a moment in Hitchcockian suspense.

His script also has a handful of ideas that separate Glass from the usual fare and compress new layers of thought upon the traditional tropes of superhero culture. He carefully peels back the foundation of superhero storytelling and explores the ideas of false prophets and characters' beliefs in themselves. All of this adds an intriguing new contrasting modern commentary to the ideas presented in the original film, and making this a solid companion piece for most of its runtime.

Shyamalan's issues as a writer remain ever present though, unfortunately. His dialogue feels written without any real thought for improvement as though he wrote the film's quotes once and never went back for a thorough rewrite. Conversations feel stilted, characters monologue over-explaining the plot (to a literal effect, actually explaining the scenes they're in and what they mean as if audiences are stupid), and references to the previous films don't always feel necessary (especially a dreadful Shyamalan cameo at the beginning). He seems so concerened we won't understand his art, when in reality, what we don't understand is why he doesn't hire a separate screenwriter.

Stilted dialogue doesn't help the monotone Bruce Willis, who feels like he's just playing another version of himself rather than the character we met in Unbreakable. Willis feels like he wanted to be here, but when arrived on set ready to go, was just ready for his shoot days to end so he could go home and take a nap. Jackson, on the otherhand, gives everything he can to a shockingly limited role. Jackson has been vocal for his love of the character and it shows, but it takes until the last act of the film to really let his character be unleashed. McAvoy is back in full form as Kevin Wendell Crumb AKA "The Horde", shifting rapidly and impressively through his multiple personalities, giving the film it's only real honest moments of humor and seconds later being intimidating enough to have us grip our armrests in suspense. Perhaps the novelty has worn off a little compared to his shocking superstar turn in Split, but McAvoy still manages to be the best aspect of the film. Joining McAvoy again in a smaller role is Anya Taylor-Joy's Casey Cooke, effortlessly watchable with her sweet and earnest, doe-eyed presence. Less impressive is Spencer Treat Clarke and Glass' mother played by Charlayne Woodard, who just can't sell Shyamalan's expostition-heavy lines, both being the duds of a mostly good cast. Sarah Paulson does what she can, but while she gets plenty of on-camera time, her writer-director doesn't seem to be aware of the talent he wrote this waste of a role for.

Most of the script flaws in Glass can be forgiven throughout it's thoroughly engaging first two-thirds. But it's the last act that can't quite seem to get it right. Here is where Shyamalan dips into his worst tendencies, overloading his refreshingly simplistic story which so many "oh, but wait, there's more!" reveals that feel stacked like a leaning pile of uncooked pancakes. His main core idea is locked into place in this final act, and it's an intriguing one, perhaps working better on paper than on screen, but it also feels unearned as upon further thought after the film's conclusion, his story ideas just don't add up with one another. Unbreakable is not flawless in its writing either, but it had a simple point and made it efficiently, as did Split, whereas the point Glass attempts to make, Shyamalan's biggest attempt to flip the conventional genre on its head, feels lost in an ocean of underwhelming decisions. These decisions can dramatically affect your opinion on this film depending on how much you love Shyamalan's first film in this unique trilogy. For die-hard fans, Glass may feel like an insultingly big waste of good material, whereas casual viewers with less emotional attachment may not be as bothered and willing to take what Shyamalan gives them to chew on with far more optimism.

Regardless, every theater showing Glass will be filled with radically different audience reactions. The more optimistic David Dunns of the crowd may appreciate the bold direction taken with the franchise, the Elijah Prices may find the flaws too glaring and present, and the Kevin Crumbs will have too many conflicting thoughts and unsure of how they feel. At the very least, M. Night Shyamalan gave us a film that can start a universal conversation of opinions. I doubt many will leave the theatre will little on their mind afterwards, opinions good or bad.


“Glass,” a Universal Pictures release, is rated PG-13 for violence including some bloody images, thematic elements, and language. Running time: 110 minutes. Two and a half stars out of four.