Glass (Film Review)

2019 Blinding Edge PicturesBlumhouse Productions
Written and Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: James McAvoy, Bruce Willis, Anya Taylor-Joy, Sarah Paulson, and Samuel L. Jackson
MPAA Rating: PG-13; Running Time: 129 Minutes
The Nicsperiment Score: 7/10

M. Night Shyamalan's quiet, moody superhero origin film, Unbreakable, resonated with me deeply nearly nineteen years ago. I've carried Bruce Willis's David Dunn, who can withstand massive physical trauma, sense when someone has committed evil, and has above-average strength, in my psyche ever since. Shyamalan's 2016's thriller, Split, introduced James McAvoy's the Horde, a group of distinct personalities living in one man's mind, one of whom can transform the host's body into a super-strong, animalistic beast. Split's closing twist reveals that not only does the Horde live in the same universe as Dunn, but that Dunn is aware of the Horde's existence, and is geared up to take him down.
Enter 2019's Glass, named after Samuel L Jackson's nemesis for Dunn from Unbreakable. Mr. Glass has bones a stiff breeze could break, but the evil-genius tinted mind of a supercomputer. He's been locked up in an insane asylum since Unbreakable's end, but after Dunn and the Horde are captured during a brutal showdown, they're tossed into that same asylum. All are tended by Sarah Paulson's Dr. Staple, a psychiatrist who apparently has experience dealing with grown men who think they are superheroes. Do our trio's powers really exist? Are they just slightly extraordinary common Joes?
Glass is the movie no one asked for when they said, and by "they," I include myself, "I'd like a sequel to Unbreakable." As soon as Unbreakable ended, I wanted to see a sequel where the now superhero-aware Dunn faced off against a worthy adversary, and duked it out in a big-budget smash. Apparently, this is what the majority of film critics wanted, as well. After all, they've been conditioned by the last 11 years of admittedly good, sometimes great Marvel films. That's how these movies work.
M. Night Shyamalan doesn't give a crap. He's had the idea and themes for this film in his head for years, and he's not afraid to go against the grain of critic and audience expectations.
If I'm not making myself clear, this isn't a movie where Dunn and the Horde go toe-to-toe for two hours. I'd love that film, but that film has been shown in theaters many dozen times over the last few decades. Shyamalan's admission that he has come to terms with the fact that he's best working as a director of smaller films should have made it clear that no such action smash would occur. Yes, Dunn and the Horde do fight on screen, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't love those scenes, but Shyamalan not only has philosophically loftier things in mind, but bigger goals than just deepening the ballad of David Dunn. After all, this movie is called Glass.
To a degree, I get the critical backlash. Few critics are complaining about the cinematography and lighting, which is atmospheric, distinct, and enrapturing, or in Shyamalan's framing, which subtly evokes comic panels, as do his camera movements. They're also not complaining about McAvoy's incredible performance, which features the lauded actor bouncing between seemingly a dozen distinct, believable characters a minute. Complaining about those things would be petty, and frankly, they're such huge pros in the film's column, they'd make respective negative critiques seem ridiculous.
Critics are going after the thing they always go for when they eviscerate a Shyamalan film, admittedly sometimes deservedly so: his writing. It's clear after watching 20 years of Shyamalan's work, that there are certain themes that are near and dear to his heart. He often makes his films' themes overt with shocking final twists in their plotting. In this regard, Glass is no different. And, yes, if one enters Glass with very concrete expectations of what Glass will be, the final act will feel like a betrayal.
The fact of the matter is, Shyamalan doesn't care what viewers or critics expectations are. He had his own vision and themes in mind for this film, and even though there is a clunkiness to some of their implementation in the final act, they don't tank the movie. It's quite clear from the amount of reviews I've seen listing Shyamalan's theme for Glass as "comic books are important," that those critics not only weren't paying attention to what actually happens in this film, but have either forgotten or not paid attention to the clear and deep passions Shyamalan has expressed in The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, Split, Lady in the Water (in my opinion, his nadir, though I skipped out on Avatar and After Earth) and even to some degree, The Visit (where they're inverted). The guy has always been hyper-focused on belief. Seemingly everything he's created builds toward that, and Glass is no different in this regard. Without unreasonable expectations, viewing the film on its own merits, even with the final act not quite seamlessly connecting, that thing is still powerfully broadcast.
There's another element to Shyamalan's films that I believe is responsible for the fact that 80% of his films have a higher audience rating than critical one, sometimes drastically so, including Glass. It's exemplified in a Glass scene meant to highlight why a security guard is often late. He's shown blabbing on at an overweight doorman about the importance of taking the right combination of vitamins. It's the kind of minutiae most of us have to deal with on an everyday basis. Most audience members have had a co-worker or acquaintance lecture us on whatever exercise or health regimen they're currently into. I've noticed in the theater that audiences (myself included) often have a delightful moment of recognition during these scenes--these aspects of our normal, everyday lives aren't often captured in this way. Perhaps thats why we're more likely to follow Shyamalan where his whimsy takes him--more often than not, he's grounded those loftier ambitions in reality. Then again, how often has a bitter film critic derided the Indian-born, Philly-raised, and still Philly-based Shyamalan as a populist? I don't doubt he takes that particular derision as a compliment.