Review Roundup: Find Out What the Critics Are Saying About M. Night Shyamalan's GLASS

M. Night Shyamalan's 2016 film "Split" was revealed to be in the same universe as his 2000 thriller "Unbreakable," and now Shyamalan has brought the characters together in the third film in the trilogy, "Glass." What do critics think about, "Glass," does it hold up to the previous two films? Let's find out!

From "Unbreakable," Bruce Willis returns as David Dunn as does Samuel L. Jackson as Elijah Price, known also by his pseudonym Mr. Glass. Joining from "Split" are James McAvoy, reprising his role as Kevin Wendell Crumb and the multiple identities who reside within, and Anya Taylor-Joy as Casey Cooke, the only captive to survive an encounter with The Beast. Following the conclusion of "Split," Glass finds Dunn pursuing Crumb's SUPERHUMAN figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Price emerges as an orchestrator who holds SECRETS critical to both men.

John DeFore, The Hollywood Reporter: As a trilogy-closer, it's a mixed bag, tying earlier narrative strands together pleasingly while working too hard (and failing) to convince viewers Shyamalan has something uniquely brainy to offer in the overpopulated arena of comics-inspired stories. Though satisfying enough to work at the multiplex, it doesn't erase memories of the ways that even movies before the abjectly awful After Earth and The Last Airbender made us wary of the words "a film by M. Night Shyamalan."

Chris Nashawaty, Entertainment Weekly: Like his on-screen characters, Shyamalan has always grappled with his own special gift (which may also be his greatest burden) - his talent for delivering a gotcha sting-in-the-tail surprise. That playful air of the unexpected is mostly missing from 'Glass.' We've been here before, now there's just more of it. Yes, it's easy to be impressed by the world that Shyamalan has created and now fleshed out, but it would be nice if we were also moved to feel something too. In the end, 'Glass' is more half empty than half full."

David Sims, The Atlantic: So why did I enjoy it so much? For one thing, I appreciate the sheer brashness of Shyamalan's storytelling, which swirls the mythmaking inherent in characters such as David with the emotional scars borne by orphaned characters such as Superman. If Incredibles 2 was Brad Bird reckoning with America's superhero obsession, Glass is Shyamalan taking up that mantle and coming away with the observation that, though these heroes might be "broken," they're also singular. The director clearly sees them as objects of daily fascination for a country looking to escape the mundane wherever it can; he's just trying to understand why.

Owen Gleiberman, Variety: "It's good to see Shyamalan back (to a degree) in form, to the extent that he's recovered his basic mojo as a yarn spinner. But 'Glass' occupies us without haunting us; it's more busy than it is stirring or exciting. Maybe that's because revisiting this material feels a touch opportunistic, and maybe it's because the deluge of comic-book movies that now threatens to engulf us on a daily basis has leeched what's left of the mystery out of comics."

Matt Singer, Screencrush: If 'Glass' was a standalone film, and the audience was meeting these characters for the first time - if the are-they-or-aren't-they-superheroes question felt like a legitimate mystery - it could work. But 'Glass' is a sequel to not one but two different movies that proved fairly conclusively that these guys are pretty darn special. Shyamalan's already shown us how strong David is, and how the Horde can climb walls with his bare hands. What's the point of convincing people, and then trying to unconvince them? Would you make a Superman sequel where Lois spends 45 minutes trying to gaslight the Man of Steel into believing he can't actually fly? That's essentially what Shyamalan's done here."

Scott Mendelson, Forbes: 'Glass' is a shattering disappointment and a monumental artistic misfire from one of my favorite filmmakers. It is, at least, a testament to my belief that 'Unbreakable' needed no sequel. If that majestic superhero origin-as-mid-life-crisis drama was too early to cash in on the zeitgeist (which is, to be fair, part of what made it stand out all of these years), then this continuation is (at best) a decade too late. It adds little of value to its predecessors, offers nothing in terms of in-the-now commentary on its genre and actively pollutes the carefully constructed mythology. It is so focused on plot turns and story twists that it mostly loses sight of its characters. It plays like an inadequate (and underfunded) fanfiction sequel to 'Unbreakable' and a meta-parody of a stereotypical late-2000s M. Night Shyamalan miss."

Sam Adams, Slate: In 2000, 'Unbreakable' felt like an anomaly, a superhero movie that steered clear of camp and dug into the genre's bedrock. It could have been thrilling to extend that approach into 2019, where superheroes storm the multiplex on a monthly basis, and there's no longer a need to laboriously explain the culture behind them. Unfortunately, it seems that laborious explanations are the part Shyamalan likes."

Chris Evangelista, Slashfilm: As 'Glass' unfolded, I desperately searched for something to grab hold of, like a drowning man trying to snag a life preserver. I've supported and enjoyed Shyamalan's work for so long that to sit and watch 'Glass' play out in such a sloppy, sloggy fashion felt jarring. "Have I been wrong this entire time?" I thought. "Is Shyamalan a bad filmmaker after all?" The answer is no. In his past work, he's displayed a wonderful knowledge of cinematic language, and a masterful control of the camera. But none of that is on display in 'Glass,' which only has a few memorable shots spliced into a visually bland, flat space.

David Ehrlich, Indiewire: The trouble with 'Glass' isn't that its creator sees his own reflection at every turn, or that he goes so far out of his way to contort the film into a clear parable for the many stages of his turbulent career; the trouble with 'Glass' is that its mildly intriguing meta-textual narrative is so much richer and more compelling than the asinine story that Shyamalan tells on its surface.

Nick De Semlyen, Empire: Essentially a 'Split' sequel with an 'Unbreakable' topping, this is weaker than either of those films but still has a decent amount of entertaining and creepy sequences, most of them due to McAvoy's high-commitment performance.