Glass review round-up: M Night Shyamalan's trilogy-closer is 'uneven, disappointing and ultimately unsatisfying'

M. Night Shyamalan brought his latest offering to London on Wednesday, comic book thriller Glass — a tale merging two of his previous movies. Starring Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson and James McAvoy, Glass blends storylines from Shyamalan’s Unbreakable, which came out in 2000 and 2016’s Split. [caption id=“attachment_5366421” align=“alignnone” width=“825”] James McAvoy unleashes The Beast in Glass. YouTube screengrab[/caption] In the new film, Willis and Jackson, who both starred in Unbreakable — a film about a train crash survivor who discovers he has a new superpower — are joined by McAvoy, who played Kevin Wendell Crumb, a man with multiple identities, in Split. Willis reprises his role as security guard David Dunn as he chases one of Crumb’s frightful personalities. Jackson returns as the fragile Elijah Price, also known as Mr Glass. However, unlike Unbreakable and Split, Glass has mostly received negative reviews from critics, with IGN’s Rosie Knight calling it a “ tonally confused” movie with “hints of greatness.” Glass also stars Anya Taylor-Joy, whose character Casey was kidnapped along with two classmates by Crumb in Split, as well as American Horror Story actress Sarah Paulson, who plays a psychiatrist treating the three main characters. So, here’s what all the critics are complaining about. 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.” Variety: “The movie, watchable as it is, is still a disappointment, because it extends and belabors the conceits of Unbreakable without the sensation of mystical dark discovery that made that film indelible. Glass is a sequel that feels more dutiful than necessary. It turns the earlier film’s ominous pop poetry into overexplicit blockbuster prose.” Entertainment Weekly: “It’s hard to say whether Shyamalan’s timing is incredibly savvy or a bit opportunistic. What’s easier to say is that his new quasi-sequel, Glass, only half works.” IGN: “Despite a strong cast and an interesting concept Shyamalan never quite manages to pull together the two worlds of Unbreakable and Split into one cohesive film. Never sure whether it’s a heroic superhero story or a psychological thriller, Glass feels more than a little scattered and with its uneven and disappointing third act, ultimately unsatisfying.” 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.” Uproxxx: “Glass is a fascinating movie. Now, having said that, I should quickly point out that I did not enjoy this movie and I consider it, after a 19-year wait, one of the biggest personal disappointments I’ve ever experienced in a theater.” TheWrap: “If Unbreakable and Split are some of the strongest works in Shyamalan’s filmography, Glass holds a place somewhere in the middle between those and the titles that turned off so many moviegoers.” (With inputs from Reuters)