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 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 in the likes of Superman II/IV/Batman89/XMen/Spiderman3/TDK/TASM/MOS/every other MCU etc) with bruce donning a black leather superhero suit and fighting the Beast, so when that didn't happen they 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 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'.. ), so 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, but obviously the lowkey finale in the hospital car park was totally in keeping with the closeted nature of the series.) .. the only older critic who seemed to like Glass was Mark Kermode (he's probably the best film reviewer around)