Glass (Cristal)

El señor Shymalan se ha divertió mucho con esto. Trabajando a conciencia con el potencial dramático de los tres personajes principales y sus relaciones de profundización/acercamiento dentro de la misma casa, se gradúa y entretiene explorando y revelando la esencia de un tema brillante, que creó hace 19 años y construyó hace tres (la idea mágica de que los héroes de los cómics están presentes en la realidad). Lo hace con su típico deleite de creatividad visual, referencias temáticas y, en el final, dos puntos culminantes. Pero a pesar de que todo encaja en el primer punto, y se vuelve debidamente conspirador y original y atrevido en relación con las expectativas del espectador, no estoy del todo seguro de haberlo querido así. Por no hablar del segundo punto, que no debería haber estado ahí en absoluto, porque la película no está construida para ello. (20.01.2019)

M. Al principio, me gustó el desarrollo de los personajes padre e hijo de El protegido y su colaboración fue algo que me hubiera gustado ver durante el resto de la película. Por desgracia, una vez que la acción se traslada al hospital psiquiátrico, no es más que una oleada de conversaciones siniestras y la preparación de un final idiota. Me parece que Shyamalan ha querido subirse a la ola actual del cómic y a la vez manosearla con su estilo personal. El desenlace de esta película es una bofetada tanto a los espectadores de las películas de cómic como a los fans directos de El protegido, no creo que ninguno de ellos quisiera esto. De alguna manera, creo que es mejor quedarse con el cameo de Willis en Múltiple. (07.04.2019)

M. Night Shyamalan goes back to his roots and disappoints badly. In everything. Glass is a film that will probably make you a little embarrassed for the filmmaker himself. It looks televisual, but above all it's all incredibly stupid and self-aware at the same time. The twists and turns are absurd, the pacing is awfully slow and any attempts at philosophising are inhumanly off, and the decent Bruce Willis and James McAvoy can't pull it up to average. Watching Glass is like watching M. Night Shyamalan destroy his own legacy for two hours. And it's not a pretty sight. (16.01.2019)

Well… Given that I was mentally prepared for the worst, I’m not disappointed. In fact, I’m relatively a tiny bit pleasantly surprised that, at least conceptually, it makes some sense. IMHO, it is well though-out. In Glass, Shyalaman explores a well known but slightly different motif of comics films - how it would be in the real world - without the viewer actually anticipating it until de last moment. For the closure of a trilogy, it makes sense overall. Unfortunately, the film is almost impossible to enjoy purely at the level of the viewer, but only after it finishes, if you are able and willing to appreciate its structure. There are several stupid moments that ruin what could be a pleasant experience, along with empty dialogues and inconsistent performances (I like Sarah Paulson, but here she was badly cast). What’s utter nonsense is the character of Taylor-Joy (what she’s forced to do there is unbelievable), as well as the final alliance of some of the characters. (13.02.2019)

I understand where the director was going with all of this. Unfortunately, I don’t really get how he filmed it. While  Unbreakable is a fundamental movie of American cinema in my eyes, and Split set out to be the same, Glass connected the stories of all participants in a way that was not only unnecessary but it also spoiled my impression of the two previous films, which ended perfectly… and should have remained that way. But M. Night Shyamalan turned his superheroes into such strange figures that even though I still liked James McAvoy’s unrestrained acting, the movie as a whole made me really unhappy. It felt like a complete mess. But it’s still Shyamalan, so if you can endure the boring madhouse-like middle of the move, the finale can be quite intriguing from a screenwriting perspective. You certainly have to give him that. (14.06.2019)