The attractive, magical idea of a standalone, sequel-less movie first entered my head when I was 7 years old, when my father offhandedly stated that he hoped that they would never make an Edward Scissorhands 2, citing how such a thing would detract from the already-perfect story and bittersweet closure. This was the first time I'd ever considered such a concept, and I was of a split mind (pause for laughter...) on the idea. It's difficult for the child mind to grasp the notion of not wanting any kinda continuation of a world I'd been so enamored with. (After all, isn't this the lucrative basis on which all franchises are born?) But what my father said challenged my superficial yearning for more of everything/anything and got me thinkin' about the sanctity and purity of a singular story and the allure of inevitable loose ends.
The point of this longwindedness is to hopefully set up a framework for: my indelible adoration/frustration with Unbreakable, my holy-shit-fantasy-come-true reaction to Split, and, yes, eventually my still-simmering 'hot take' on Glass.
Anyone who's kept up with this site for the past 10+ years should already be aware of how I've consistently championed Unbreakable as one of the best movies of the 2000s, and certainly M. Night's greatest cinematic achievement. To this day, I'm still pleasantly confused in regards to its popularity with other moviegoers who aren't me: billed as "From the director of The Sixth Sense," I'd've assumed people would've been put off by a slow-burn character study with very little 'action' and no second act. But I was pleased; it gave me hope as to how well it did financially and how post-1999 cinema could be about big marquee movies that focused on low-key moods & high-concept premises grounded in expert cinematography and fresh capabilities. And, as usual, it was nice to be on board with the public re. a popular culture signpost. And whatever everyone else took from it, we were all able to agree on one thing: the ending.
That goddamn ending.
Because these essays are written for entertainment purposes only, there will be minor spoilers throughout (which is actually pretty consistent with most published reviews). Also, while I don't feel like dissecting the guy's entire filmography movie by movie, I figure while we're here, we should address the 'twists' situation and get a few thing straight.
I like his endings - I like the idea of them. They're typically imaginative and organic to the stories they follow. But for a guy who's a competent screenwriter and expert director, he can't seem to exercise any tact when it comes to the art of the reveal (which, really, is the whole meat of the burger). These ideas must read fantastically on paper, but on the screen they play out like a recap of Part One of a two-part TV movie; recycled scenes and dialogue from earlier in the film play out in a jumble of bad editing and clumsy exposition. If an audience can't retain stuff they saw 90 minutes ago, what makes you think they're even paying attention at all? Notwithstanding, Unbreakable doesn't quite follow this model -- No, its conclusive gaffe is much more bizarre: a series of title cards assuring us that completely uninteresting events took place after the movie ended. It's a startlingly amateurish head-scratcher in an otherwise magnificent film, and will always be a big black asterisk next to the title.
Weak storytelling devices aside, Unbreakable's Dragnet-like ending all but guaranteed that it was closed-off from potential sequels. Part of me always kinda appreciated this guarantee - in the handful of things that make the movie unique is that it is just a first act that manages to be more engrossing than most traditionally-structured stories. And after 16 years it sits high as the crown jewel in an uneven film career -- and clearly I don't think I was alone in feeling that way.
In every instance, this 'ending problem' has overshadowed each individual movie. I can't think of Sixth Sense, Signs, or The Village without confronting all the same aforementioned hangups. Similarly - albeit conversely - Split suffers this same hiccup in a most ironic way. Watching it again recently, it's easy to forget that it's an all-around headbanger and effortlessly one of the best of 2016. The kidnapping sub-genre can often derail into grotesque places which sometimes diffuses what generates its suspense in the first place; and because of its Hitchcockian tones and performance-driven plot, it felt like a return to form for the man who was once supposed to be "the next Hitchcock."
And many will find it hard to believe: as I sat watching it for the first time - roughly halfway through - I thought (perhaps subconsciously) that this particular story could potentially serve as some kinda crossover device with Unbreakable. This thought left my head as quickly as it came in, and I wish I'd said it aloud so someone could've witnessed my premonition.
Call it wishful thinking, or maybe there actually are subliminal clues throughout that alerted me to what would be The Ending To End All Endings.
In fact, is it fair to say that we didn't even need a continuation? Was Split's ending enough of a rush that no movie could've lived up to what those last 60 seconds promised? In a non-rhetorical frame of mind, after taking a look at Glass, I would answer 'yes.'
But let's not come at it from that direction. All that really states is: in this disjointed trilogy, Unbreakable is the better movie. And that's fine - I can live with that. And while I've not read any fan or critical reaction (I rarely do), I can imagine that, as with any highly anticipated sequel, it doesn't meet expectation. I know - it didn't meet mine. And again, that's fine.
What it is is that, for years, I've wrestled with the frustration of, "Why won't this guy make a sequel to Unbreakable?" And what happened was that he made a sequel to Split instead. And once you stop crying and catch your breath, you realize that's not entirely a bad thing. And it's not an entirely missed opportunity either - the shades of Unbreakable are still there, and the attempts to get Samuel into center stage don't go unnoticed. Though the fact remains: there wasn't any story left in Unbreakable to tell -- like a comic book, it's just onto the next adventure, the next villain, the next locale.
But as I've stated so many times in the past, sequels aren't solely about comparison -- there's still a movie here to be seen.
While it's unfortunately not the Mr. Glass movie it could've been, it's also not the David vs. Beast movie it could've been either. What it does is tries to satisfy the needs of its two predecessors, and only manages a small portion for each. What it does accomplish as a Split sequel is that, while the story or the character didn't need any kinda continuation, the performance did. James McAvoy manages to transcend both realism and parody; while there's nothing too subtle about his portrayal, even still you watch extra close to make sure there aren't any flaws.
As far as I can tell, there aren't.
The hard sell is calling attention to the formulaic predictability of comic book structure and lore while most of the moviegoing public has been spoon-fed the real stuff year after year -- it's in their blood. Though not for lack of trying: once again, Sam Jackson's main function is to deliver expository monologues as to exactly what's going on; constantly calling attention to how things are playing out, even though we ourselves can see it plainly. And while this is clearly some shitty writing, you could do worse than giving it to Samuel L. Jackson.
One refreshing masterstroke we're left with is that he does throw in one left-field mystery involving yet-another party of comic book villains that is left comfortingly unexplored.
Regardless, Shyamalan's back on track with a muddled ending bogged down with explanations, connect-the-dots resolutions, and zero faith in audience smarts. After a series of moody, captivating, borderline moving movies - Glass included - we deserved a much stronger ending. But ain't that always the case? We can't complain; if this is an inadequate ending to Unbreakable, well, we're already used to that.
What's important here is that this isn't M. Night at his worst -- it's not even him being mediocre. It's been a long time, but I'm gonna throw caution right into the wind and look forward to what he does next. In other words, party like it's 1999.
- Paul
Posts
.jpg)
.jpg)
