Of all the auteurs working in cinema today, M. Night Shyamalan would be the one to create a two-decade-long trilogy almost accidentally. Sixteen years separate Unbreakable and Split, with a further three bringing us to Glass. This conclusion to Shyamalan’s stealth series sees Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson reprise their roles from Unbreakable and the return of James McAvoy and Anya Taylor-Joy from Split. McAvoy’s character was originally written for Unbreakable, but cut because he was becoming his own story, fitting for a character with twenty-four distinct personalities. Glass reunites these two original strands of thought. McAvoy’s Kevin and all his dynamic intricacies dominate the story, but it ultimately inherits the restrained sensibilities of Unbreakable. This clash does not always serve it well, but represents the best part of the two features and is symbolic of how this bizarre story has unfolded unpredictably over the past nineteen years.

It is not difficult to imagine that a sizeable proportion of audiences were confused by the appearance of Willis’s David Dunn in Split’s final moments. He is not even named, but his identity is telegraphed by his film’s unmistakable score (sadly absent here), then confirmed when he name-drops Jackson’s Mr Glass. Despite this, his role in Glass is deceptively small. He drives the initial thirty minutes, with his actions allowing Sarah Paulson’s Dr Staple to trap himself and Kevin in her psychiatric hospital along with Glass. But he is no longer the engine to this story. Glass’s obsession with comic books acts as the through line. Unbreakable saw him wreak havoc in order to find his supernatural opposite; Willis is the answer, ‘unbreakable’ in contrast to the extremely fragile bones which gave Glass his namesake. They were the hero and villain of the story respectively and Kevin, through his twenty-four personalities, is further proof that a world of superheroes is real. Staple is not so convinced and thus the story’s conflict materialises.

The decision to make this and the murkier debates which result from it the centre of the story reflects the film’s ambition, something it hardly needs to prove,given its origins. Naturally, Shyamalan would not be content with creating a conventional superhero story, so do not expect wisecracks or a CGI-laden finale. This small scale is refreshing, particularly because it is backed up by a trio of genuinely interesting characters, instead of just one or two as we have come to expect from the genre. McAvoy succeeds in giving each personality their own mannerisms and quirks and Jackson chews scenery delightfully; their larger-than-life personas do not leave much narrative oxygen for Willis’s more introverted Dunn, better served by the original and relying on residual goodwill much more than his counterparts, albeit through no fault of his own. Taylor-Joy also deserves better but one can only ask so much of a film this full of ideas.

A lot has changed since Unbreakable emerged in 2000 as an unconventional superhero story. Shyamalan could have leveraged the explosion in comic properties to his advantage, but the story of Glass is not quite up to the task. Our constant exposure to Iron Man, Batman and Wonder Woman means that the mystery of superheroism which was so central to Unbreakable and now Glass has been undermined. We have seen greater spectacles elsewhere and the mere existence of superheroes is not a sufficiently urgent driving force to be so crucial to the plot. Moreover, seeking to dissect how we organise and celebrate our cultural hallmarks is a compelling idea, but one which requires more nuance than is present here. One can see how this approach was so tempting and the assembly of all these disparate characters is a tantalising concept, but these two facets of Glass’s story are ultimately at odds with one another. Like a hero and a villain, there is not enough space for both to exist harmoniously and thus the resolution to both of these unique selling points is underwhelming, even though Shyamalan manages to force enough puzzle pieces together to make it enjoyable at the same time.

Those who follow Shyamalan’s career will not be surprised to hear that it was his ambition that let him down here. Glass’s very existence reflects his willingness to take bold risks where others would not. He is aided by a very enjoyable cast and characters which are compelling even when his story does not do them justice. Tonally, the clash of superhero jargon and gritty realism might prove even more off-putting for some. Those able to tolerate such will probably leave the theatre feeling grateful that he was willing to aim so high in the first place.