I should have known better. Finally riding high off the release of 2016’s “Split,” M. Night Shyamalan seemed to be amidst a career resurgence. “Glass” came out of nowhere, promising a thrilling conclusion to the surprising — and random — announcement of an “Unbreakable” trilogy.
The well-made trailers only served to raise expectations even more, as closet Shyamalan fans began to finally reveal themselves after decades of being hidden.
Everything seemed too good to be true.
Max Rothenberg | Argonaut
Unfortunately for these fans, soon they may have to go back into hiding once again.
Simply put, Shyamalan’s recent film takes away much of what made the previous two entertaining.
When the unbreakable David Dunn (Bruce Willis) — now a superhero known as the Overseer — finds and pursues Kevin Wendell Crumb/The Beast (James McAvoy), their scuffle results in a group trip to a mental institution.
This just so happens to be where evil mastermind and wheelchair-bound Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), the film’s titular character, has been held captive. Of course, Price is still obsessed with superheroes and the concept of good vs. evil, so this serves as the film’s jumping-off point.
Those two paragraphs likely won’t mean anything to a casual movie-goer, but rest assured, it sounds confusing even to me.
For those familiar with the previous entries, there is plenty of nostalgia to be had in these opening scenes. I was even momentarily pleased with Bruce Willis’s acting. But once the setting shifts to the inevitable superhero/villain meetup, the tone unexplainably does as well.
From this point on, a suspicious amount of talking takes place. Much of the dialogue comes from Sarah Paulson’s Dr. Staple, who serves no meaningful purpose aside from delivering one of the strangest and most unnecessary twist endings in cinema.
Twist endings are a Shyamalan staple. Yet, when we now come to expect something over the top during every Shyamalan film, these decisions lose much of their dramatic expect.
“The Sixth Sense,” “The Village,” “The Happening,” — the list goes on and on. In addition to what looks like an overreliance on the word “the,” these films also rely on some kind of crazy twist.
I can see what he was shooting for in “Glass” — an ending so unlikely it becomes engrained in cinema history.
Unfortunately, I don’t think this will quite happen. The film’s ending exists to derail not only the prior 90 minutes, but also any hope for a direct sequel.
If there’s one nugget of gold, it can be found in McAvoy’s award-winning performance. Playing the role of Crumb, a seemingly ordinary man with 24 different personalities, is no easy task. In the wrong hands, this character could be incredibly cringe-worthy and poorly received.
Yet McAvoy somehow manages to steal every scene — whether it’s 9-year-old Hedwig, Irish twins Ian and Mary Reynolds or historian Orwell — and keep this otherwise plain film afloat through incredibly nuanced facial expressions and dialogue delivery. He’s the star of the show, and the only character truly deserving of more sequels.
“Glass” lacks a cohesive identity and is plagued by confusing themes and messages. At times, it feels less like a comic-book film and more in line with a character drama. Dr. Staple’s goal is to convince each of the three they have no superpowers and instead are normal everyday people — a goal that shouldn’t be achievable or even possible.
Shyamalan’s goal was for the characters to feel grounded in reality, but the extent to which it’s done takes away from the entertainment.
Ultimately, “Glass” feels like a chore. Sure, it’s different than most films in the genre and there’s absolutely some shock value, but it falls short of meeting the hefty expectations many fans had.
And that may be the problem — we shouldn’t have had expectations in the first place.
Max Rothenberg can be reached at [email protected]