Debating the quality of Glass

Glass disappoints with a switch in logical thought

Glass is the third movie M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable superhero trilogy, along with Unbreakable and Split. It follows three main characters, David Dunn, who after his wife died a few years prior discovered he’s immortal and superstrong, as well as having extrasensory perception, allowing him to know all the horrible things someone he bumps into has done, Kevin Crumb, who has Multiple Personality Disorder with over personalities in his psyche, and Elijah Price, who was born with a condition that causes his bones to break like glass but possess superhuman intelligence, as they are brought to the same psychiatric center that specializes in people who believe themselves to be superheroes.

While the movie is good in the first few scenes, great while the characters are in the psychiatric center, and incredible during the climactic final battle, the period of time after that battle and the ending scene of the film are some of the most convoluted and needlessly complex sequences of scenes I have seen in a film. While I am attempting to avoid giving what happens away, the ending ruins every ounce of interesting character development and shatters the themes and ideas presented throughout the film–namely the idea that whether the characters’ abilities are superhuman or not is irrelevant; the fact that they use these abilities in the way that they do is heroic or villainous enough. After so many successful twist endings, it was starting to look like Shyamalan was finally going to return to his original excellent direction style. This film, however, shows that his recent successes were just diamonds in the rough, not signs of impending greatness.

In addition to this, Glass’s assertion that comics and other forms of popular media are just retailings of real world events is ruined by the ending. The storyline of Glass attempts to mirror the storylines of comics and graphic novels, but fails to do so; as a massive comic book fan, I can personally attest that few, if any, comics end in any way similar to this. In fact, the way the movie ends is similar to the martyr stories found in so many religions. At best, I could call this a parody or satire of how superheroes are presented in films now: as demigods suffering for the good of all. This, however, is likely not the case, as parody is humorous, and satire does not try to hide the allusions as deeply as Glass does.

Finally, and worst of all, the film doesn’t just fail to explore the themes of the previous two films, it even straight-up loses progress that the first films made. In Unbreakable, one of the themes central to the story is that fate has a plan for everyone, but this plan is almost always negative; you will suffer no matter how badly you try to avoid it. This is conveyed by the character of Elijah Price, a comic shop owner who is a supergenius.

Despite his gifts, he was born with a condition that makes his bones break as easily as glass. He tells David, the lead, that fate likes to play with people and nothing can be done to stop it. This idea is further developed in the next film, Split, where the Hoard, the alter ego of David Crumb, punishes those who he thinks haven’t suffered enough in life, while promising to lead those who have suffered to dominance. This can be interpreted as a metaphor for religion or aspirations in the universe’s malicious plan.

It provides hope for those who the universe has already grabbed ahold of, with the promise of enrichment and eventual prospering through it, with condemnation for those who don’t. Glass, however, breaks this concept without providing a bridge of evidence or logic, claiming instead that the universe is defeatable, though suffering is still required. To put this into perspective, two and 3/4ths of a film builds this idea of a malicious universal plan, only for 1/4th of the final film to completely pull the rug up from under that fondation.

By Austin Miller

Glass is a Good Movie

Night Shyamalan continues his return to form with Glass, the sequel of all three characters from the previous films in one movie. This is what people wanted to see. The teaser that was seen at the end of Split contained a surprise appearance of Bruce Willis’ David Dunn, the character in Unbreakable who survived a car crash when he was in college and a train crash that killed many people, leaving him without a scratch. He has superman strength and cannot be hurt, but, like every superhero, this power comes with a weakness; he can’t be around water. That’s his kryptonite. Both narratives come together in this amazing climax to the trilogy, wherein the mastermind, David’s nemesis Elijah Price, aka Mr. Glass, connects the trio, who all end up facing off.

This majority of the movie is serious and even creepy at some moments; pulpy and very funny at times. It really brings all of the audiences’ emotions. Shyamalan’s distinctive voice and ideas about villains, superheroes, and comic books come out clear and loud, especially for comic book fans. With that said, the main reason this was a good movie is that you don’t have to be a comic book lover to watch it. If you wanna go see a good movie with your family and friends, Glass is the movie to see. All the plot twists and weird feelings this movie puts you through only makes you crave more and more.

Glass is part of a series, and, if you don’t watch Unbreakable and Split first, this movie can be really confusing. Viewers who don’t understand the background material won’t understand what’s going on, who the characters are, or what their significance is to the plot.

Other than that, Glass is a really great story. I rate it five stars, and I highly recommend everyone to go see this amazing movie.

By Ra’velle Johnson


Austin Miller

I am in 12th grade. I am a reporter for the magazine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.