Is “Glass” a perfect finale to the M Night Shyamalan’s Trilogy?

In all these years, however, the same audience who was once intrigued by the superhero grandeur presented before them has fed itself on the extraordinary servings of Marvel and DC movies.

Considering these two facts together takes us to the fate of the Finale movie, Glass, which failed to leave a similar impact on the viewers as the first two movies.

Watch the trailer of Glass here.

Although the movie is good, and won’t disappoint you (Forbes calls it being better than Aquaman), its conclusion is reached in a rush, and leaves the audience dissatisfied, owing to the plot twist that was rather unnecessary in this final movie.

The story, just like the previous movies, has an edge over other superheroes movies. Instead of keeping superhero actions and special effects as the main focus of the movie, Glass deals with the psychological state of the people and questions their superhero abilities.

The psychiatrist played by Sarah Paulson is in charge of three delusional men who “think” they have superpowers. Samuel L. Jackson playing Mr. Glass is a mass murderer, an anti-hero which is portrayed as a hero.

(Courtesy: SlashFilm)

What really disappoints the most in the movie is the comparatively lesser screen time given to David Dunn, and the hasty ending that leaves the audience wanting more. Also, the deliberate effort made by the director to keep up with the times also turns us off.

So answering your question directly, I would say that the Finale could have been better as it is not as phenomenal as Split and Unbreakable (and we know what Shyamalan is capable of), but it’s a watchable movie.