Glass 2019

A força do homem é limitada, mas indefinida. Em Vidro M. Night Shyamalan usa o seu poder de direção para criar um universo bem próximo do nosso onde mostra a sua obsessão por história em quadrinhos e heróis.

Um escritor sempre colocar os seus maiores desejos, anseios e sonhos nos seus personagens.
Inicialmente eu pensei que Elijah Price fosse o próprio Shyamalan, alguém que é o crânio por trás de toda a trama e o fascinado por buscar e revelar os heróis que existe ocultos em cada um de nós, mesmo que para isso tenha que provocar um descarrilamento de trem, explodir um prédio ou lotar uma sala de cinema. Mas agora eu chego à conclusão de que ele é todos e todos são frutos da personalidade dele. O seu melhor trabalho não poderia ter origem melhor do que seus desejos: Elijah Price, seus maiores medos: Dr. Ellie Staple, a explicação da sua existência: David Dunn, a sua força para vencer os problemas da vida mesmo quando parece que os seus ossos são de vidro: Kevin Wendell Crumb, e ela, que não importa em que estado ele esteja, o faz remover os seus pés do chão e levitar em uma liberdade inexplicável que não pode ser comparada a nenhum poder, o mantendo sóbrio e na luz: Casey Cooke.

A trilogia fecha o ciclo 19 anos depois, e mantém o nível como se fosse escrita e exibida no ano seguinte. Talvez precisasse de todo esse período, pois "A luz" parece ser o lugar ao sol desde o primeiro filme, esse é o alvo dos desejos de M. Night. Acredito que ela se resume no por vir ou em um novo tempo onde criaturas e homens podem ser vistos. Mostrar-se a luz em 2019, no instante que a humanidade está mais conectada do que nunca, não vejo momento melhor.

Admiro não ter modificado e adaptado o filme para agradar a grande massa, que querem heróis e vilões mais sanguinários, cenas lotadas de ação, muitos seres descartados e milhares de mortes onde não é derramada uma única lágrima de emoção.

Shyamalan sabe ser suave nos efeitos e evita exagerar na capacidade humana, ele quer que sejamos heróis, mas sem jamais deixarmos de ser humano.

The strength of man is limited, but indefinite. In Glass M. Night Shyamalan uses his directing power to create a universe very close to ours where he shows his obsession with comics and heroes.

A writer will always put his greatest desires, desires and dreams in his characters.
At first I thought that Elijah Price was Shyamalan himself, someone who is the skull behind the whole plot and fascinated by seeking and revealing the heroes that are hidden in each one of us, even if it has to cause a derailment. train, blow up a building or fill a movie theater. But now I come to the conclusion that he is everyone and everyone is the fruit of his personality. Your best work could not have originated better than your desires: Elijah Price, your greatest fears: Dr. Ellie Staple, the explanation of your existence: David Dunn, your strength to overcome life's problems even when it seems that your bones are glass: Kevin Wendell Crumb, and she, no matter what state he is in, makes him remove his feet from the ground and levitate in an inexplicable freedom that cannot be compared to any power, keeping him sober and in the light : Casey Cooke.

The trilogy closes the cycle 19 years later, and maintains the level as if it were written and aired the following year. Perhaps it needed this whole period, because "The light" seems to be the place in the sun since the first film, this is the target of M. Night's wishes. I believe it comes down to the time to come or a new time where creatures and men can be seen. To show the light in 2019, at the moment that humanity is more connected than ever, I see no better time.

I admire not having modified and adapted the film to please the great mass, who want more bloodthirsty heroes and villains, scenes full of action, many discarded beings and thousands of deaths where not a single tear of emotion is shed.

Shyamalan knows how to be soft in the effects and avoids exaggerating the human capacity, he wants us to be heroes, but without ever ceasing to be human.

[Sorry for the translation errors. Translated by Google Translator... Trakt don't no longer accepts Reviews in another language. ]

Well… this movie has absolutely broken me.

For context Unbreakable is one of my favourite movies of all time. Shyamalan was clearly ahead of the curve by deconstructing the standard comic book narrative only five months after the release of the first X-Men movie. The slow pace and highly intentional camera work make for a very entreating character study.

Split really caught me of guard back in 2017. James McAvoy’s performance being a highlight of the year and the reveal of David Dunn at the end lead to some great discussions about how the two stories would connect.

So now just two years after that revel but a whole nineteen years after Unbreakable Shyamalan brings us the concluding chapter to his comic book inspired trilogy.

Having seen the critical response before going in I wasn’t expecting much but for the first two thirds I really could not tell what the problem was. All of the performances were great. Bruce Willis coming of the back of years worth of disappointing performances seemed to actually care about his character. Samuel L. Jackson shows his ability to showcase a characters entire thought process with just the rise of an eyebrow and James McAvoy is so good at switching between personalities that moments in this film exist for the sole purpose of letting his show off.

The camera work kept me on edge the whole time, Shyamalan utilises every trick he has ever pulled of from hand-help tracking shots, point of view shots, panning shots reminiscent of his every work of Unbreakable and Signs and absolutely wonderful one takes that allow for McAvoy fully showcase the potential of his character(s). The more minor roles are also handled really well with Taylor-Joy returning as Casey Cooke adding to her wonderful performance from Split and Spencer Treat Clark making me question why he hasn’t had the chance to show just how great an actor he can be since his appearance in Unbreakable. Sarah Paulson is also far more important to this film than I had first presumed and her character has some great moments and aided by her subtle and purposeful performance.

But eventually you have to get the the finale. Without spoiling anything I am not a fan of the way this film concludes. To me it appears as if Shyamalan wanted a bigger reveal to justify the existence of the film and it just does not work.

The typically Shyamalan ending only serves to highlight some other issues I had with the film, particularly how underused the character of David Dunn was and how Shyamalan clearly cares more about the plot and characters in Split than Unbreakable begging the question of why this film had to exist and why It is called Glass when that character doesn’t do or say anything for about an hour of the movie.

Most of Glass is good, some of Glass is great but it never quite lives up to it’s full potential. Its worth seeing to round of the trilogy and maybe that ending will grow on me over time.

Great performances across the board and bold, unique direction but ultimately unsatisfying.

Initially, M. Night Shyamalan was a force to be reckoned with. This may all be ancient history, of course. Most folks no longer care enough about the man to fact check his history, but he really was perceived to be the next big thing. In fact, out of all of the films in his roster, the only movie that people loved so much they demanded a sequel to was Unbreakable, and now they finally have a real sequel. Sure, Split was a part of that as well, but in my books, it’s not a true sequel unless you continue the story following the original characters – and that’s what Glass finally does – but has M. Night let too much time pass?

As amazing as it is to see all of these characters finally occupy the same space together, I think Shyamalan lost his spark as far as his ability to tell a story goes. When a new M. Night Shyamalan film came out, people knew his films would be similar in tone, concept, cinematography, and visuals. Think about how many of his films feel dreamy, like a dark foreboding mystery that makes you cry out what is happening!? The way he solidified that idea was with great characters, symbolic imagery and elements (like water) and visuals (like light and color), soft-spoken dialogue, and a unique use of camerawork. It all came together to feel unlike anything else out there. Typically, his early work also ended with a massive twist-ending that changed the very way you watched the film, making an additional viewing that much more special in the long run.

The more films he made, the more of the aforementioned list he did away with. Whether or not he lost the things that made him special was on purpose or not is unknown, but the fact remains true: it’s not a well-oiled machine anymore. What remains in Glass are really great characters, and only one shot of great lighting and colors, but that’s where it stops feeling like M. Night Shyamalan. It’s not foreboding, it’s not soft-spoken, the camerawork isn’t really impressive, there’s not much focus on symbolic imagery, elements, or visuals. Actually, it’s kind of messy because I’m not sure Shyamalan knew how to write a movie with all of these characters and instead threw something together that wasn’t very solid. But we have lots to discuss. Let’s do it.

PEOPLE – 85% (17/20)
Acting – 3/4 | Characters – 4/4 | Casting – 4/4 | Importance – 3/4 | Chemistry – 3/4

Starting off with the People Category, you’ll notice that M. Night mostly did a great job here. There’s nothing wrong with the casting, characters, or honestly, acting. Pretty much every great thing in this category was borrowed from Split and Unbreakable but I digress. McAvoy is the pure definition of “range of acting” – so his performance impresses the most, and that is probably why it focuses a lot on his character, I just wish it focused more on the characters we haven’t seen in 19 years. I’d say there was definitely some great chemistry, just not everywhere it was needed, and because it is a bit of a sloppy story, I can’t say the characters hold much independent importance, but everyone does play a vital role into the general direction of the plot.

WRITING – 40% (4/10)
Dialogue – 1/2 | Balance – 0/2 | Story Depth – 0/2 | Originality – 1/2 | Interesting – 2/2

We jump straight from one great category to one bad…but what exactly is so bad about the writing in Glass? In general, everything. The first thing I realized while watching the film is there is no main character. There is no real protagonist or antagonist. You can discern the protagonist is Bruce Willis and the two antagonists are Samuel L. Jackson and James McAvoy from common knowledge, but the way the characters are focused on in the movie doesn’t quite feel that way – not from a movie vantage point…and honestly, I don’t think that was the intention. I don’t think M. Night knew how to write all the characters and their roles from a normal cinematic approach. Another problem was it was messy. You absolutely HAVE to watch the other movies to have any real idea on who these people are – it’s like the next scene in a movie, not an entirely different film – which means, as I’ll get into later, the introduction is weak. It has a hard time juggling between the characters and their relevance to the story. Because of that, you have no real story depth because it’s too busy trying to find footing elsewhere. Heck, even the dialogue was weak. Technically, it’s average, but you expect big memorable speeches from Samuel Jackson, and it never quite reaches that level. All-in-all, I’d say the writing was very weak.

BTS – 80% (8/10)
Visuals – 2/2 | Cinematography – 1/2 | Editing – 2/2 | Advertising – 2/2 | Music & Sound – 1/2

The approach taken behind-the-scenes was mostly done pretty well. I wouldn’t necessarily say as well as it used to be back in the early 2000’s, but still pretty good, generally speaking. The visuals are mostly normal, but there is one really cool shot where they use lighting and color in an impressive way, and I can’t ignore it, so that gets full points. Editing is also really good when they transition between modern shots filmed for this film mixed seamlessly with shots taken for the original film – so editing gets full points, but that’s it. As much as I loved the music in Unbreakable, I don’t think I can say the same for this film. It’s just fine for what it is, and the camerawork is as typical as it gets, which is very unlike M. Night Shyamalan.

NARRATIVE ARC – 80% (8/10)
Introduction – 1/2 | Inciting Incident – 2/2 | Obstacles – 1/2 | Climax – 2/2 | Resolution – 2/2

For the most part, the narrative structure in this film is fine. It has an issue fully introducing you to the characters, as it heavily relies on previous films to do that, but once they get that over with, everything is mostly fine. There’s not much of a central plot underneath it all, which doesn’t really help much, but there is an event early on that changes things, that is the inciting incident. There is a big culminating event towards the end that is easily seen as the climax, and it does calm down and return to a new sense of norm for a resolution.

ENTERTAINMENT – 60% (6/10)
Rewatchability – 1/2 | Fun Experience – 2/2 | Impulse to Buy or Own – 1/2 | Impulse to Talk about or Recommend – 1/2 | Riveting – 1/2

As mentioned beforehand, this was an anticipated film with a group of characters you’ve been dying to see for nearly two decades, of course it’s entertaining. It’s entertaining without really trying to be for the most part. I would definitely rewatch this movie, but I’d probably only do that as a series rewatch, if a friend popped it in, or if I caught it live on TV. Half points. I did have a good time watching the film in general, so that gets full points. I do have an impulse to own it, so I’d add it as a wish list item, but I probably wouldn’t buy it myself. I also think there’s plenty to discuss about the film, but I don’t really feel like recommending it. Finally, I think there is enough in the movie that’s important enough to make you feel like you can’t pause it, but that’s not always the case, so that gets half points.

SPECIALTY – 75% (30/40)
Unbreakable Franchise – 5/10 | Sequel – 10/10 | M. Night Shyamalan – 5/10 | Halfway Decent – 10/10

Finally, what do you expect to see from this film? Especially if you’re a fan of Unbreakable or M. Night Shyamalan? What is it that you actually want to see happen? That answer is different for everyone, but I think there are a few things that anybody would ask. Does it feel like it fits in well with Unbreakable? Yes and no. I think the characters fit in wonderfully, but it strangely feels more like a sequel to Split than Unbreakable, at least in tone and overall feel – so this gets half points. As a sequel, did people want to see it and did it add anything new? Yes and yes. Like I said before, in all of Shyamalan’s filmography, people wanted this film to be made – and does it add anything new? Absolutely – the inclusion of James McAvoy makes more sense than I originally thought – as Samuel L. Jackson is no physical match for Bruce Willis. Full points. As an M. Night Shyamalan film, I think it’s fine, but it doesn’t really feel like him, half points. Halfway Decent – did they make the movie they intended to make from the get go? I had to think on that for a while, but I think for the most part, it did, so that gets full points.

TOTAL SCORE – 73%

Glass is the final installment in the trilogy that began with Unbreakable in 2000 and continued with Split in 2017. The movie brings together the characters of David Dunn, Kevin Crumb, and Elijah Price/Mr. Glass, with the hope of providing a fitting finale to the series. However, despite the high expectations, Glass falls short in delivering a satisfying end. The movie suffers from a poor script with recycled beats, over-reliance on third-act twists, and subpar writing. The pacing is slow and lacks energy or momentum, and the performances are mixed, with Bruce Willis and Anya Taylor-Joy being underused and underwhelming. The movie has its moments, with some interesting scenes and good visuals, but overall it could have been much more. The director's superhero/comic book experiment has not paid off and the movie leaves the audience feeling underwhelmed and disappointed.

Glass es la última entrega de la trilogía que comenzó con Unbreakable en 2000 y continuó con Split en 2017. La película reúne a los personajes de David Dunn, Kevin Crumb y Elijah Price/Mr. Glass, con la esperanza de proporcionar un final apropiado para la serie. Sin embargo, a pesar de las altas expectativas, Glass se queda corto a la hora de ofrecer un final satisfactorio. La película adolece de un guión deficiente con ritmos reciclados, una dependencia excesiva de los giros del tercer acto y una escritura mediocre. El ritmo es lento y carece de energía o impulso, y las actuaciones son mixtas, con Bruce Willis y Anya Taylor-Joy infrautilizados y decepcionantes. La película tiene sus momentos, con algunas escenas interesantes y buenas imágenes, pero en general podría haber sido mucho más. El experimento del director con el superhéroe/cómic no ha valido la pena y la película deja a la audiencia sintiéndose decepcionada y decepcionada.

The premise for this trilogy is absolutely brilliant; the idea that in our world, our real world, comic books aren't just fiction, but based off of incredible people that do exist is brilliant.

In Unbreakable, Shyamalan presents this concept and proposes the idea of a superhero movie without the usual cheesiness of the genre, and he succeeds in its production, adding a shocking ending to complete one of the best superhero movies of all time.

In Split, the sobriety of the first instalment is replaced with the typical dramatics of the horror genre, still holding itself, however, due to the relative originality of combining it with the superhuman trope.

In Glass, the difference between the first two films of the trilogy becomes crystal clear and impossible to combine, making for a movie that is not only messy in its genre but also in its storytelling and plot, making the entire thing feel pretty pointless and forced. The grittiness and sombreness that made me love Unbreakable are, in Glass, completely destroyed to give way for dialogue, conflict and resolutions as cheesy as the cheapest possible blockbuster you can think of right now.

I can see how this is a story that needed to be told throughout three movies, but unfortunately Split and especially Glass spoiled the brilliance of Unbreakable, which will always work really well as a stand alone film, but will also forever be inevitably part of a not very good franchise.

Glass, is pretty ass.

Look, M. Night knows what to do with the camera, and the music's not half bad.
And to his credit, the dialogue isn't nowhere near as painful as it was in Split.
But that's about it.

We have one actor who's overdoing it to the extent where it becomes laughable, one actor who's phoning it in, and one actor who's actually pretty good, but stays silent for about 75% of the film.
We have a short first act that's okay, but nothing special.
We have a second act in which Sarah Paulson tries to convince everyone that superpowers aren't real.
Now why should that be interesting? We've seen Unbreakable and Split, so that's not a relevant discussion whatsoever.
Therefore, I was thinking: maybe it's more about her persuading the characters then?
Nope, the movie doesn't really do anything with it, and pretty much drops this plot point by the time that the third act starts.
And then there's the goddamn third act, where this movie just completely drops the ball.
First, we have Samuel L. Jackson pointing out how everything unfolds like a comic book.
Storytelling like this has been done to death, and especially in this movie, it doesn't feel authentic, or even fresh, anymore.
It feels like a means for Shyamalan to cover up for his own, as Deadpool would say, lazy writing.
Second, there's the big finale with the James McAvoy and Bruce Willis characters.
Think about the most unsatisfying ending you can imagine for these two characters, and you're probably pretty close to what actually happens.
Finally, as for the twists, there are a few. Most of them are not earned and feel lazy. However, there's one that worked for the story of the trilogy and brought it all together in a sense (SPOILER: talking about the twist that James McAvoy's dad was on the same train as Bruce Willis ).

3/10

"Everything extraordinary can be explained away and yet it is true."

Glass keeps the realistic superhero take from it's predecessors and respects the previously well-established characters with good representation. Seeing The Unbreakable, Mr. Glass and The Horde interact with each other truly feels like the peak of the franchise.

"What do we call you, sir?"
"Frist name, Mister. Last name, Glass."

McAvoy absolutely steals the show he once again nails body language, voice and mannerism to a crisp with every one of his characters. Jackson is a close second his character really shined in the second half. Willis on the other hand seemed like he was asleep the whole time, not sure why his character was sidelined he never really shows expressions or feelings. As much as I like Sarah Paulson, her character felt out of place and added an unnecessary subplot. Because of that the second act was pretty hard to get through. The third act is entertaining, epic and there's no room to get bored. The ending was fitting in a way but they did the characters so dirty.

Great soundtrack, messy pacing, cool action choreography, the story has some plot holes, unexpected plot twists, impressive use of colors and a dedicated theme on persistence of faith. While most of Glass was enjoyable, as the conclusion to the franchise it's disappointing. It juggles with too many ideas, focuses on some unnecessary subplots and lost it's superpower in it's conclusion.

Also, Shyamalan can't act!

“This was an origin story the whole time”.

Eastrail 177 trilogy, a franchise we didn’t expect to exist or needed, but M. Night Shyamalan surprise us once again with his twist and turns.

After the unexpected hit of ‘Split’, people were warming up for Shyamalan’s follow up ‘Glass’, and the return of familiar faces like David Dunn, Kevin and Mr. Glass himself. By continuing with the grounded approach towards superheroes while making the fantasy aspects implanted into reality. And of course the unnatural dialogue, a usual trademark for Shyamalan. While I don’t think ‘Glass’ is as bad as people made it out to be, but not to say it’s perfect or great, just plenty of missed opportunities in an already solid conclusion.

M. Night Shyamalan manage to craft a trilogy that took him over a decade to make. If you keep in mind of how popular superheroes are now - this stands out from the rest, as being both compelling and meaningful. While Shyamalan is a 50/50 director, but I can tell there’s passion in everything he makes, even if it doesn’t work out and makes questionable decisions. His ego died along time ago and him going back to smaller budget movies is the right move. There’s plenty of long times, close ups and a clever way of structuring the films pace. We start with Dunn, then we follow Kevin, and finally Elijah. Coincidence?

The cinematography is solid with a beautiful mixture of colours and the music perfectly fits with the characters and story.

James McAvoy returns as Kevin, the man with crowded personalities with an extra set of new faces. It’s amazing how McAvoy can switch between the different characters and make it look so effortlessly, sometimes in a blink of an eye. A mixture of colorful personalities with comedic moments, but there are personalities that can be vicious and a force to be reckon with. So it comes to no surprise he’s the strongest element of this movie.

Now I joked in the past about Bruce Willis cold attitude towards his recent roles. I mean, just watch the ‘RED 2’ interview, it’s hilarious how he doesn't hide it. When Willis cares, he’s great, so it’s incredibly sad seeing him lose any care to not only in his performances, but in film choices. In 'Glass', Willis is stilted, but at the same time grounded in his reactions and facial expressions. There was a point midway through through where the film seemed to forget about Dunn. While not a come back role, but at least I see his interest in the story, character and director. By the way, I’m still a fan of him.

Samuel L. Jackson is great as the genius, yet wickedly evil Mr. Glass. Despite his disease (brittle bone disease) keeping him permanent in a wheelchair, but that doesn't stop him. It’s psychological manipulation that gives him power and makes him truly dangerous. There’s a great little moment in a scene (without spoilers) where he watches someone die right in front of him, and he leans forward and watches in amusement.

The other supporting cast are pretty good as well. Anya Taylor-Joy is good as always, but unfortunately doesn’t have anything to do here. I’m glad they brought back Spencer Treat Clark, who played David Dunn’s son in ‘Unbreakable’ and now working with his dad to track down and stop criminal activity. He really gives an emotional performance, especially towards the end. Sarah Paulson is fine in the movie, but I don’t like where her character goes in the third act, which goes into my issues.

As I said before, it’s a flawed movie. While I thought the second act was still pretty good, but was nowhere near as solid as the first act. I’ve got mixed feelings about the ending, because at first I like how bleak it is, basically saying in real life, the villains win. However, the twist itself gets so bizarre it leaves more holes in the story.

Overall rating: A clunky movie that will popularize audiences for along time, but at least didn’t play it safe like most superhero movies.

“It’s not so bad being in the light.”

The Five Faces of Glass

:heart_eyes:

Once again, the versatile James McAvoy is absolutely amazing as Kevin Crumb with split personalities, this time taking his performance to a whole another level and giving us new personalities to enjoy. It is a great joy to see McAvoy perform together with his co-stars.

Samuel L. Jackson plays a simple yet effective part and he feels a whole lot more villainous this time around. He is still as great as he was in Unbreakable (2000) 19 years earlier.

The climax is stylish and epic in believable ways and really lifts the film to another level. It's a great showdown but also a mix of the best elements from all films in the trilogy.

Kevin Crumb is the most fascinating character of the three protagonists, with the most painful experience and strongest emotional impact.

:smiley:

It is great to see how David Dunn's life and career has evolved and changed and how he gets entangled with the Beast from Split (2016).

Glass features great and quick reintroductions to the protagonists from the previous two movies. The early scenes immediately establish a natural blend of the two movies and Glass subsequently feels like a good combo of both.

The music in this film conveys tension, excitement and sadness better than the previous films. The creepy parts with the Beast are properly scary and the heroic parts with Dunn feel really heroic.

Glass feels like an epic showdown between two iconic comic book characters, like Batman v Superman (2016) or Captain America: Civil War (2016), but is grounded in reality and also has a different depth. It is closer to the typical superhero film than the earlier two movies, however.

The best parts are the ones where the main trio share scenes together. Those are few and far between during the first half but really stack up towards the end.

There is something dramatically poetic and beautiful about the ending, a great way to tie everything together.

:neutral_face:

Sarah Paulson is a bit bland both in her performance and in character. She is an important link between the characters but never gets really interesting.

This time around, the editing and cinematography isn't all that interesting.

After the introduction the story slows down and barely moves away from its initial position. It mostly goes around in circles and only McAvoy and Willis keep it interesting.

The story is very contained and keeps walking down the same path all the time. It opens up the characters' past a bit more and questions the existence of superheroes but that's about it.

McAvoy and Jackson are so great together and really get to develop their characters in an interesting manner, that Willis kind of falls under their shadow and feels less interesting.

Anya Taylor-Joy from Split and Spencer Treat Clark from Unbreakable are around and do well with the little material they're given, but play a very superfluous role to the events of the film and mostly just serve to break the natural flow of events.

:frowning2:

David Dunn is underused throughout most of the movie and could have been utilized better.

Jackson does nothing for the first hour and then suddenly takes over the show. The entire first half of the film is pale and doesn't really build up to the finale very well.

:face_vomiting:

//

The Final Face: :smiley: // Good

I try not to get swayed by early buzz or social media reactions from film twitter leading up to a movie's release, but the early mixed to negative reaction to Glass actually set me up pretty well to enjoy the movie. I don't think it was necessarily lowered expectations because I was still looking forward to it, but I guess the buzz helped me buy into the main conceit of the middle part of the film. I don't want to get too much into it for the sake of spoilers, but I'm really not sure what people expected, especially people that call themselves big fans of Unbreakable. This is pretty much what should be expected as an Unbreakable sequel, with the tease of the big showdown, final battle and everything. This is a natural extension of the grounded superhero, but not in a Dark Knight kind of way, in an Unbreakable kind of way. There are definitely some things to be called out, some cringey dialogue, a bad M Night cameo and the fact that David could just close his eyes or walk backward to defeat the dreaded "hypnosis lights" but all that doesn't matter, because try as you might to SPLIT this GLASS, it is UNBREAKABLE (oof)

I’m coming at this movie from a different perspective than I usually would. This film is the culmination of unobtrusive trilogy (most of us had no idea we were engaging in a story in three parts until the very last scene of SPLIT). It is in this third piece where M Night Shyamalan earns our respect as a creator of worlds. While we were drawn (or repelled) to UNBREAKABLE or SPLIT as individual entities Shyamalan was laying out his unique take on Super Heroes and Villains. This third film finally reveals his perspective which culminates with his signature twist. As the dialogue frames it - this the realization of a comic book universe hidden in our real world, not a super world. I found his premise very interesting, complex yet simple. Now to the movie, itself: its stellar cast do not disappoint. Bruce Willis, James MacAvoy and Samuel L Jackson perfectly recreate their roles. Sarah Paulson perfectly calibrates her performance which leaves the latitude for the final reveal. Anya Taylor Joy (especially) and Spencer Treat Clark mature their characters and their performance beautifully. This trilogy always pulled to the dark lane, skirting Horror (which I think determined its audience and almost kept me from seeing SPLIT). I gave the first two instalments a 6 out of 10 each, but now, surprised by Shyamalan’s greater vision, I give this film an 8.5 (great with some brilliant creativity in its vision) out of 10. [Slow Burning, Dark, Superhero Thriller]