Glass (2019): Drama / Sci-Fi / Thriller

Glass.jpg

A security guard with extraordinary abilities tracks down a dangerous man with twenty-four personalities while the mastermind patiently awaits.

Nineteen years later, “Glass” finally makes it to the big screen only to give some answers and raise more questions. M. Night Shyamalan’s heroes and villains from “Unbreakable” (2000) and “Split” (2016) are brought together, unite, believe and doubt themselves and each other, and eventually clash. Here’s what happened straight after the film was released: It was pounded by the critics and deified by the audience. I guess the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.

The pace is the main issue. The two hours seem significantly longer as the first act seems a bit rushed whereas the second, due to the lengthy psychotherapeutic verbosity that ostensibly leads nowhere, drags and feels like a marathon. As for the third act, since it’s a Shyamalan film, I can’t say anything without giving away spoilers. What I can say is though is that there are certain concerns regarding the unbelievability of certain events, and events that give the trilogy a whole new direction you will either love or hate. Bold move but, at the end of the day, that’s Shyamalan for you.

Mr. Glass’s character development is another issue. He has become as intelligent as the script needs him to be. And that is partially why the story is led to a certain direction that, on occasion, lacks common sense. Then there is the when and how everything is happening; the timing, the understaffed hospital, the low security, the underdeveloped final clash…

BUT… don’t go in there with your own expectations of how you would like it to begin, develop, or end. Remember that with Shyamalan’s films one can only wonder if what they are watching is the end or merely the beginning. If it helps, focus on the acting which is breathtaking. The, once again, meticulously chosen hero colour pattern. The directing and the photography which makes it a world-class thriller. And keep in mind that the characters from “Unbreakable” (2000) and “Split” (2016) belong to two different studios which collaborated for the first time (and according to Shyamalan probably the last) to bring this project to life. So, a lot of Industry Professionals truly believed in it.

Think of “Glass” as a confrontation of a man’s ultimate altruism against another man’s monstrosity, orchestrated by a third man who believes that humans would be physically and mentally capable of everything… if they only knew how to trigger their true identity.

Or don’t think of any reviews or critiques, just go and watch it, and see for yourselves…

Advertisements

Split (2016): Horror / Thriller

Split.jpg

A man with 23 personalities kidnaps three girls who must find a way out before the 24th is unleashed.

Sixteen years after “Unbreakable” (2000), and only just before the end credits started rolling down, we all found out that this was actually a (first) sequel. M. Night Shyamalan managed to keep us on the edge of our seats and once we said the first ‘WOW’, we realised what the marketing had managed to do. Then the second followed. Not included in the shooting script, and omitted from the test screenings, the last scene was kept under wraps, and is the tie-in between the two films. Kevin Crumb was written originally for “Unbreakable”, only to be seen in this one.

Based on a real-life person who actually had 24 personalities, “Split’s” Kevin Crumb suffers the same problem even though we get to see 9 of them on screen. Interestingly enough, “Unbreakable’s” David Dunn is based on a real-life person as well. Hmmm…

“Split”, as a standalone, is a brilliant psychological horror/thriller, with James McAvoy doing all the heavy lifting and the extremely talented Anya Taylor-Joy giving him all the support he needs. You feel for him as much as you hate him, depending on the personality that takes over. I have praised him and his talent in a previous review so feel free to see what I thought of him then and what I think of him now: https://kgpfilm.reviews/2018/12/26/filth-2013-comedy-crime-drama/

Experts on the Psychology field could argue on how much M. Night Shyamalan knows about the dissociative identity disorder, and the compartmentalization and segregation of the personalities but don’t let that distract you. Remember that it’s a psychological horror/thriller and not a documentary or a docudrama. I’ve watched documentaries propagandising inconceivable political and religious nonsense parroting biased and fallacious “facts”. “Split” is meant to give you the chills and that’s exactly what it does.

Unbreakable (2000): Drama / Mystery / Sci-Fi

Unbreakable.jpg

A comic book gallery owner discovers that the lone survivor of a horrible accident has an amazing ability.

It is only befitting to review this one at this point in time and… you know which one is going to be next! Now that “Glass” (2019) has been heavily promoted as the third part of an otherwise stealthy trilogy, “Unbreakable” has been given a lot more gravitas.

When it was first released in 2000 some people loved it, some people laughed at it, some people were just left scratching their head. I will avoid major spoilers about the ending just in case someone hasn’t watched it yet. As a standalone, there was really no closure. When it comes to ‘Mr. Glass’, justice was served. But what about David Dunn? He finally found his calling, and then what? Was that the end of the hero’s journey? To discover an ability and do nothing with it with it afterwards?

As part of a trilogy, the scope changes. It makes you now want to go back and watch it again, get to know the characters once more, and see how they can potentially be connected to the 24 personalities of Kevin Crumb in “Split” (2018) before you go to the cinema and watch “Glass” (2019). Remember the scene at the football stadium when David Dunn heads for the drug dealer? What if you suspected that the mother and child he brushes past and senses child abuse just before, is believed to be little Kevin with his mom? Hmm…

Anyway, “Unbreakable” is arguably M.Night Shyamalan’s most innovative and resourceful directing, Eduardo Serra’s darkest cinematography, and one of the best James Newton Howard’s score. It marks the fourth collaboration between Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson who are both irreplaceable. Memorable moments:

  • The hooded rain poncho obscuring Dunn’s face.
  • Long tracking shots and high and low camera angles to create the illusion we are in a graphic novel.
  • Repeatedly seeing Mr. Glass through or around glass to remind us of his connection with it but also his weakness.
  • Respectively, the raincoat David Dunn wears in most scenes to “protect” himself from the rain (water).
  • The graphic novel’s colour patterns; Dunn wears green and Glass purple.
  • Speaking of, the saturated colours over the muted colours at the station.

“Unbreakable” is not a superhero film, yet it follows the hero’s self-discovery path. And even though it is not a graphic novel adaptation, is most definitely made that way to “beam us up” to the narrative storytelling of the world of pictures.

The Village (2004): Drama / Mystery / Thriller

The Village.jpg

A late 19th-century, isolated Amish-like community lives by strict rules in a valley surrounded by forest, inhabited by creatures that don’t let them enter it.

Box office-wise it didn’t disappoint. M. Night Shyamalan’s reputation was not what it used to be after “Signs” (2002) but he was still the golden goose of Hollywood and people were still fascinated by his third act’s twists. It was the reviews that didn’t do it any favours.

I’ve blamed marketing before, and I strongly believe that this is one of them cases too. Getting the crowd intrigued and messing up with their expectations are two different things, separated by an indistinct, fine line. In the end, it can go either way which is why marketing’s job is so crucial.

The photography is haunting, the score is Oscar-worthy, and the chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard electrifying. I will say nothing about the plot as… it is up to you to figure that out.

Watch it as you would watch “The Twilight Zone” (1959) having no expectation whatsoever, knowing though that nothing is what it seems.