For over 20 years, M. Night Shyamalan has been one of the most inconsistent directors in Hollywood. Despite taking the world by storm in 1999 with The Sixth Sense, I never became one those who praised the film or the man behind the camera. As a matter of fact, I’ve always found it overrated and while understanding the hype, to this day I find the film rather dull.
It wasn’t until a year later when I became a fan of M. Night with the release of Unbreakable. A film, that brought a real-life application to superpowers, heroes, and villains. It can be looked at as a natural precursor to modern superhero filmmaking. Along with showcasing the juxtaposition of hero and villain beautifully, Unbreakable is one of the first superhero films to include a sympathetic villain. While Mr. Glass has done horrendous things, we, as cinephiles can understand and see how the man justified his actions. Mr. Glass moved away from the twirling mustache villain and added multiple layers to the character.
Safe to say after Unbreakable, I was quite intrigued by the filmmaker. Unfortunately, what followed were years of inconsistency that stem from good to ok, to downright some of the 2000’s worst films. Despite reclaiming interest with 2017’s Split, Glass captures the inconsistency M. Night Shyamalan has mastered over the past 20 years.
This time around, the two stories become intertwined as David Dunn now runs his own home security store while moonlighting as a brutal vigilante in a green poncho and is now referred to as “The Overseer” by online fans. He takes down criminals with the help of his son, Joseph. Similarly to Batman and Oracle, Joseph acts as his eyes while Dunn walks the streets looking for his next takedown.
After tracking down and fighting with Kevin Crumb (James McAvoy reprising his role from Split), both men are placed in Raven Hill, a psychiatric hospital. Dr. Ellie Staple, a doctor who specializes in what she calls “a very particular illusion of grandeur… those who believe they are superheroes”, begins her supervision of them. Joining the duo in treatment is Mr. Glass, who considers himself a criminal mastermind.
It’s hard to imagine that a simplistic straight forward plot could become convoluted. However, the film continues M. Night’s exercise in mediocrity. In Glass, despite each characters interesting backstory, Shyamalan chooses to focus on each of these “superheroes” in terms of their powers, their points of vulnerability, and their motives without ever focusing on their inner lives. This lack of focus removes any sense of emotion during the film’s conclusion.
Speaking of the film’s conclusion, M. Night Shyamalan is well known for his plot twists. Since his twist in The Sixth Sense, his films are focused and driven by the eventual twist. Note to M. Night – when the audience expects it, is it really considered a twist? This time around, M. Night’s twist angered me to the point where it completely took away any of the great moments I felt were there in the film. This time around, M. Night’s twist decides to bring to light a concept unmentioned in the two previous films and in a WTF moment completely takes the focus from our leading trio. It’s moments like these that adds merit to my statement regarding Shyamalan’s 20-year tenure as Hollywood’s most inconsistent director.
Despite Shyamalan’s directorial efforts, West Dylan Thordson’s score should be commended and praised as one of Glass’s bright spots. Along with Thordson, James McAvoy continues to show why he is one of today’s finest actors. His portrayal of 23 different personalities is a marvel to watch and just added to my frustration to the film’s sub-par nature and conclusion. James McAvoy deserved better.
The conclusion of the Glass trilogy is not shattering the mold. As a matter of fact, Glass should be a staple of how not to conclude a trilogy and how a film’s ending and unnecessary twist can change an entire opinion of not just a film, but its predecessors.
