Glass

Good: The acting across the board from the main cast: James McAvoy, Samuel L. Jackson, and Bruce Willis are great. However, like in "Split" McAvoy is definitely the standout portraying so many personalities one after the other is fascinating to watch. Although the setup is great and intriguing, it feels glossed over to get to the main plot. Shyamalan's direction with camera angles and shots also standout and help capture the scenes along with the color scheme as seen in the other movies. I appreciate the overall theme of the movie and the message Shymalan is trying to tell, but suffers in the end and pacing...

Bad: As a film that started off with "Unbreakable" and supposed to be the long awaited sequel to it, Bruce Willis' character does not have much depth and is more on the sidelines. There is a lot of talking and some parts definitely drag making the film feel longer than it actually is, however even with this not much seems to develop and happen.

Overall: The film is getting bashed way too hard by the critics, but overrated by the audience. The film's tone is more like "Unbreakable" than "Split" with more talking and a few action scenes here and there.

3.5/5

I can describe Glass as an entertaining experience, but not solid enough to be an appropriate closure of the Unbreakable-Split-Glass trilogy.

While I can see what Mr Shyamalan wanted to do, I don't think he managed to deliver with the characters and the plot the necessary complexity to answer all the questions the audience raised in the previous two movies. Many things have been left unanswered especially about Kevin, while David Dunn is just a shadow that doesn't do much in the movie.

The real star in this movie is supposed to be Mr Glass, but not much about his past is told, either. Everything is absurdly summarized in a way that, in the end, we don't really know - or care - about who Mr Glass or Kevin were. There isn't enough character development or closure going on here.

Sarah Paulson's talent was wasted on a character who could be played by anyone. She is a brilliant actress but the character was poorly written and brings nothing new or dramatically useful to the plot.

Cinematography is fine just as the pacing of the movie. Like I said, it is entertaining, definitely - and perhaps it will please the audiences who are used to the almost shallow plots of superhero movies. But if you were expecting a more deep and challenging story about humans with supernatural powers, you will be disappointed.

In the end, Mr Shyamalan couldn't make a superhero movie, and couldn't make a deep, mind-bending metaphysical movie either. He merely brushed over both worlds, but didn't dive deeply into either of them. It is a pity that a plot that had potential and that showed up to be brilliant in "Split" had such an underwhelming and unremarkable closure.

Let me start by saying the critics are just flat out WRONG with this one. And this is coming from a guy who has only enjoyed about half of this guys movies. If you are going in their to watch a superhero movie check yourself at the door. This is a dark twisted psychological horror with a chaotic like thread that reminds you of noir films of the past. It's like a Picasso painting in movie form. The ending is divisive and risky, which I love! It's not for everybody, but I think that's why I loved this movie.

So just re watched the trilogy in a row. Mainly cause there is total toffee nowadays. Not sure why glass has the lowest of the low ratings in the three. Unbreakable was great. But 12 years before split. Split was a good movie and even better when you watch it soon after the first film. Glass however seems to get a bad rap. Not sure if all the sofa directors and writers out there wanted it to be the way they imagined while they was working in Asda stocking shelves or not. But get a grip. JM performance in both editions is fantastic but in glass it's stepped up to another level. Maybe the time to wait (like loads of things now) is way too long. But after doing the trio in a row you will definitely get a better appreciation of them all. Shame MNS ain't turnt out anything great since.

Not sure what's worse, this film or the fake 9-10/10 reviews.

Not what I expected - in a disappointing way. Then add all the ridiculous praising 10/10 reviews and it takes more away from any positive aspects this film had.

For starters, outstanding performance as usual by James McAvoy, and he perfectly brought back his Split characters. Samuel L. Jackson was great as always and even Bruce Willis actually showed interest in performing for this film.

My issue was that the writing was all over the place and the 129 min length felt like 180 mins. Maybe it was the pacing, or more needed to be edited/cut to shorten this film to a more acceptable 100-110 length. The directing was decent but nothing spectacular.

I expected more but sadly was disappointed. It's not a flop, nor is it a 10/10 like all these fake reviews. It's a well deserved 6/10. Would I recommend it? Sure if you're a fan of Unbreakable, Split and its characters. Would I see it again? Nope.