the trouble with Glass is that its mildly intriguing meta-textual narrative is so much richer and more compelling than the asinine story that Shyamalan tells on its surface
Glass unravels hard in its spell-everything-out, twist-heavy third act which also suffers from a resounding anticlimactic dud of an ending, despite the director's best efforts to frame it as something gloriously epic and melodramatic
essentially a "Split" sequel with an "Unbreakable" topping, this is weaker than either of those films but still has a decent amount of entertaining and creepy sequences, most of them due to McAvoy's high-commitment performance
as has almost always been the case, Shyamalan's command of camera and composition far surpasses his abilities as a screenwriter -- although the sober goofiness of Glass's script does fit kinda nicely with the film's mannered, alluring aesthetic
as a trilogy-closer, it's a mixed bag, tying earlier narrative strands together pleasingly while working too hard (and failing) to convince viewers Shyamalan has something uniquely brainy to offer in the overpopulated arena of comics-inspired stories
"Glass" occupies us without haunting us; The movie, watchable as it is, is still a disappointment, because it extends and belabors the conceits of "Unbreakable" without the sensation of mystical dark discovery that made that film indelible
"Glass" is a shattering disappointment and a monumental artistic misfire from one of my favorite filmmakers. It is, at least, a testament to my belief that 'Unbreakable' needed no sequel
by Scott Mendelson [Forbes ]
