Timothy Johnson
Lantern Staff
Glass, directed by M. Night Shyamalan, is a movie that has so much good contained within it, but ultimately leaves the moviegoer confused. Glass opens with a punch, giving moviegoers a chance to see Kevin Crumb (James McAvoy) and David Dunn (Bruce Willis), or as he is also called, The Overseer, to fight it out. In the second act, the characters are held at a mental hospital that focuses on research. It is here that Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) tenaciously attempts to convince Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), Dunn and Crumb (The Hoard, which are all of the identities who are loyal to the Beast) that who they are is nothing more than any of the strongest people around. She specializes in people who believe they are superheroes. It is throughout this second act that it slowly builds up with excellent directing to the finale. The first two acts were very well done, along with most of the third act.
The confusion over Glass is caused by the path Shyamalan chooses to take for the ending. Shyamalan takes Glass in a direction that is not consistent with what moviegoers will see in a typical Marvel movie showdown, but neither was it ever meant to feel like a Marvel movie. If the moviegoer comes into this movie expecting some massive showdown between The Hoard (James McAvoy) and Dunn (Bruce Willis), they will likely be disappointed. The way Glass ends hits the moviegoer in the face and then continues on, hoping they adjust to it. In other words, the new direction is unapologetically embraced.
The theme of this film in many ways is what it really means to be a monster. Is the true monster The Hoard or Crumb’s mother, who abused him?
The acting in this movie was phenomenal by James McAvoy and Samuel L. Jackson. Bruce Willis was decent, but did not shine much throughout the movie. Unfortunately, Sarah Paulson’s acting felt very wooden throughout the entirety of Glass. She seemed to successfully display different emotions in her tone of voice, but her eyes displayed no change at all and her facial expressions displayed a haplessly minimal amount of emotion when her voice indicated otherwise.
For Glass to be properly enjoyed, it would be recommendable to see it a second time, for the moviegoer will no longer have any false pretenses on where the movie is heading, giving them a new scope from which to view Glass. However, despite this new perspective, the ending still does not work. It was done before it had time to sufficiently earn its stay. If the ending had been expanded a little more, Glass would probably be a seven-star film. However, with the issues revolving around the ending, I can only give it six and a half stars.