I’d just say it out loud. I was thrilled by Glass and I consider it the best part of the Eastrail 177 Trilogy.
Glass (2019 Film) Synopsis
19 years after the Eastrail 177 tragedy, and three weeks after the events of Split, David Dunn and Kevin Wendell Crumb are ambushed during a confrontation and imprisoned at Raven Hill Memorial Psychiatric Hospital. There, and together with Elijah Price i.e. Dunn’s nemesis from Unbreakable, they undergo psychiatric treatment headed by Dr. Ellie Staple, a specialist in delusions of superhero grandeur. Staple’s humane and persuasive approach steadily gains ground, and before long, Dunn and the many personalities of Crumb are questioning whether they are indeed super humans. All comes to an end when it becomes clear that not everyone is bothered with the treatment. Ellie Staple herself is also being manipulated without her knowing.
Yeah. Repeat. I loved Glass and I think it’s superior to Unbreakable and Split.
Yes, superior to Unbreakable. Which had a brilliant premise but was really drawn out and plodding.
Superior too to Split. Mostly because James McAvoy’s mastery of the personalities in Glass is twice, thrice as mesmerising compared to his performance in Split.
Yeah … I thoroughly enjoyed Glass. For its camerawork, its sets, its acting, and its story. And so I’m dismayed, also baffled, by the dislikes rained onto it. Many of which involving the ending.
Regarding that, the most common complaints condemn the ending as “lame,” “flat,” “rushed,” etc. One slightly more elaborate review I’ve read even decried the climax as a contradictory reversion to standard comic book tropes.
Now, I respect differing views and tastes and all that, but I’ll still say I fail to understand these criticisms, particularly the one about reversion. The Eastrail trilogy is a deconstruction of the superhero myth. But a deconstruction isn’t necessarily a devastation or a rejection, is it?
If the “twist” is a contradicting reversion, what about the whole super power upon transformation to Beast bit? Or the reluctant hero backstory of David Dunn? Or maybe I should put it this way. So that I don’t come across as critiquing the criticism, instead of reviewing the movie. The consistent message I get throughout the trilogy is that Night Shyamalan isn’t rejecting comic book tropes. He’s reimagining/reworking them from a grimmer, more realistic (to him) point of view.
In that sense, the finale felt to me to be a sensible summary of what has been discussed so far. It’s a little lacking in bangs and fireworks, yes. A certain sense of grandeur was markedly absent too.
But lazy, illogical, or convenient? Not at all to me. I’d go to the extent of saying I feel it’s the only way the story could end. Anything more would probably send the tale spinning into ludicrous grounds.