MovieChat Forums > GlassĀ (2019) Discussion > think i figured out why critics gave it ...

think i figured out why critics gave it bad reviews..(spoiler)


The general consensus from most critics was Glass sucked - too slow/talky/boring/no deliver enough action/silly end twists, basically MNight back to his "Happening" ways. so I went in expecting the worst (had seen UB back in 2000 and kind of dug it and bought the DVD. Split I missed at cinema as thought it be something horror like The Visit but then everyone went nuts over it being an UB sequel got my interest up and bought DVD thought was pretty interesting and was quite excited when MNS announced Glass. basically he'd 'punk'd' his long originally intended/rumoured UB trilogy on an unsuspecting world in a move worthy of one of his end twists. genius.) so when I checked Glass out last Saturday (1st wend as no want to get spoiled on SM if wait longer) I expected the worst but it baffled me as imo it seemed like the perfect sequel/conclusion to both UB/Split totally in keeping with the slowburn feel and giving what was expected in David/Beasts confrontation(s) but also gave something unexpected and interesting which concluded in about 3 great end twists so I came out and was like 'WTF are all these critics smoking?!'

So here it is..

I dont think alot of the current 'millennial' age reviewers have even seen Unbreakable (but wouldn't admit to it) as its sooo long ago before the age of SM and they were expecting Glass to be more of a horror movie in line with Split as its a sequel with McAvoy, but due to the end scene of Split they knew of it being sort of a sequel to that UB movie with BWillis from sooo long ago.. so I think they thought because Split was horror and UB was from around the time of 6th Sense (which is one of those movies that everyone has seen or knows about even if they havent) and MNight is primarily known as a horror director (as seen with his recent films hes gone back to horror), that UB and now Glass was horror too..so initially they were prepared for a horror movie and when they found out Glass was actually supposed to be more a 'superhero' movie (and might've checked UB out on Netflix but had to stop half way as got too bored and wanted to check their SM instead) went in expecting something like a traditional superhero MCU movie with action explosions Bruce Wills as Wolverine etc and after being bored with all the slow talky stuff for an hour and a half got excited by Mr Glass teasing the traditional CG superhero end battle in the city at the towers (as seen at the end of the likes of Superman II/Batman89/Spiderman3/TDK/TASM/MOS/every other MCU etc) with bruce donning a black leather superhero suit and when it didn't happen felt cheated and then didn't like the end of them all dying as it was so final no coming back and no post end credits scene after they waited for 10 minutes of credits -and they'd have just much rather been watching the next MCU and counting down to Endgame instead of having to review shyamalans silly slow superhero with no superheroics movie.

And likewise those older critics who had seen UB but who never cared for it too much and never really 'got' it (I remember at the time UB was generally regarded as something of a disappointment with critics/audiences as they were expecting something more '6th Sense' as it was MNight/BWillis again - just compare the BO drop from 6th to UB. think even I remember expecting another twilight zone twist in the tale horror film after saw trailers which kind of sold it as a 6th Sense '2' and then when saw it I was like 'oh wow its about supeheroes'.. ), and when they heard Glass was a sequel were expecting the CG battle stuff with David v Beast and were thoroughly disappointed (even more than they were with UB) esp after Mr Glass teased that skyscraper battle finale) .. the only older critic who seemed to like Glass was Mark Kermode (he's probably the best film reviewer around)

reply

Kermode cheered when it was announced as the UK number one movie on his show about twenty minutes ago, and restated how.much he likes the movie.

(And he has generally slagged off Shymalans movies in the past)

On your general points, yeah I can see some of that. I have actually seen a YouTube reviewer saying they enjoyed Split, but had not seen Unbreakable... I couldn't believe that, but they seemed to be honest. They didn't like Glass, quel surprise.

I think a lot of early reviewers were also caught out by the movie, as it certainly was not what many folk were expecting. Personally I am glad that I had read many of the spoilers before seeing it as I think it wouldn't have made much sense on my first viewing otherwise. The fact that so.many early reviews flet the ending was SO bad backs this up for me, they couldn't believe how it would make sense to have the three main characters killed off like that, but to me it makes sense

reply

it also makes sense in that theres no way the story with Dunn, Beast, Glass could go anywhere else. THIS is the confrontation movie with the 3 of them. THIS is it. (The only other way was to expand the opening 20minutes to the entirety of the movie so it'd been like Split again but with Dunn tracking him and have Glass having got out of the hospital or still in hospital and pulling all the things somehow so Dunn/Beast end up fighting in front of the city )

if there was to be another one in a few years with MNight again then itd be with other actors as various superheroes..

reply

I think this is spot on and the keyword there is CG.

Many of the audiences/critics are millennials their comparance levels are based on what they grew up with.
It all comes down to that example of the Thing remake a few years ago. They created the creatures with props and mechanics like they did in the original, but half way into filming, the producers decided to go CGI because of many focus groups statistics they made and the audience prefered that, rather that the original version, that made the movie great.

reply

... you know it is 100% acceptable for someone to not like UB or this film right? That doesn't mean that they are guaranteed to have 'no idea'.

That being said I loved UB - and mostly GLASS. I did think that Dunn's demise was handled in possibly the stupidest manner I could think of. It actually seems like they purposely spent over a year trying to think of the stupidest possible way they could handle it - and went with what we saw.

Now, now - I have no issues with the character being killed off, but surely there was a more suitable way to go about it.

reply

I agree that's the one thing about Glass I didn't like Dunn going out like that. maybe he should've survived and it ended with something like 'a Dark Knight' ending with Dunn living in the shadows even more than ever,

reply

>>I dont think alot of the current 'millennial' age reviewers have even seen Unbreakable (but wouldn't admit to it) as its sooo long ago

You don't honestly believe that, do you? Of course they've seen Unbreakable. It's not that long ago, and it was the follow up to The Sixth Sense. Everybody at the time saw it to see what Shyamalan would do next. And the people who didn't see it at the time saw it later when the film rose in stature.

reply

Alot of todays reviewers in their 20s early 30s might not have seen movies youd think like Unbreakable.

The reason I mention it is because I've been listening to the Empire podcast (Empire was one of the negative Glass reviews ) and a few times they have some of the younger reviewers on reviewing stuff and a couple of times an older 80s or 90s movie gets mentioned and they go 'I haven't seen it' (this happened with Godfathers, Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, even Die Hard etc and a guy who hadn't seen any of Arnies aside the Terminators and Predator) and it was mind blowing to me that these 20s+ old reviewers are in the film review biz and yet they haven't even seen some of the core movies of the modern age (70s onward) and if someone that's supposedly a film buff hasnt seen Die Hard then its likely not Unbreakable either etc . And then you realize just how old these 70s/80s/even 90s movies are and alot of these 'millennials' don't go out of their way to catch up on movies 20y ago before their time despite this new age of easy access of movies/even if they are free to watch on Netflix etc no matter how classic/important to cinema those movies are as they just too old fashioned for them/they just not interested/too busy on SM/gaming/utube etc etc

reply

My opinion as a huge Unbreakable and big Split fan on this is that the middle just went nowhere. Those movies were slowburns but they kept building tension and suspense. This one felt more like stalling until the resolution.

reply

I was meh about this in the theater. I've only started to like it more and more upon reflection. That could change once I see the DVD.

Point being, the movie was heavily budget-constrained and it shows. I have to agree that the middle portion dragged.

But I also have to confess that a big part of my disappointment at the time was how much the film foiled my expectations. I was bummed when they caught Dunn and Crumb so easily and so early. Guess I went in expecting an action flick when it was really a strictly psychological thriller (like its predecessors, come to think of it).

Regardless, I really like how the movie, called "Glass," really was about Elijah Price all along. All the while, he seemed to be catatonic and useless, when he was actually setting up his final triumph over the clover conspirators. He did it in an evil way, but he's the villain of his own story and has been all along.

reply

Learn to write ffs

reply

Maybe they just don't like Shyamalan.

reply

Please, learn to write.

reply

agreed the OP shud def have paid more attenshun at sckool!

reply