Slashdot Mirror
Review: "Unbreakable"
Shyamalan puts on quite a cinematic show and trots out all kinds of neat director's tricks, a la Hitchcock. There are long and odd close-ups, elaborate circling shots, dark and dreary skies, loving and lavish Philadelphia street and interior scenes.
No wonder many of the critics are befuddled by this inventive and deliciously creepy film. This movie doesn't have a cellphone, computer, or explosion in it.
Willis plays a security guard named David Dunn, who miraculously survives a disastrous train wreck. It belatedly occurs to him and to others that there might be something special about him, since he has survived some earlier catastrophes in his life, and has never been sick a day in his life. Enter Elijah Price (Jackson), a comic book student and collector who has been searching all of his life for people who miraculously survive things. This is great acting from Willis, perhaps his best. His character is a man lost and out of kilter, almost in hiding. He knows there's something very off about his life, that he has a different destiny, but he can't get a grip on what it is. So he spends his days frisking drunks and weirdos at football games.
Dunn, a former football hero, is having marital troubles, and isn't quite sure why he's drawn to working security in a Philadelphia college sports stadium. He wakes up every morning sad and frightened. It's Price who stuns him by suggesting what his real destiny might be.
The movie is a bit dawdly in parts, but the story-telling really is astonishingly faithful to the comic-book genre: simple, improbable, fantastic. Shyamalan's cinematic style is painstaking and very simple. This movie is a feast for people who pay attention to things like pace, direction and camera angles (there is actually a 15-minute sequence without a word of dialogue, one of the longest in years), and it captures the poignant ambivalence of the tortured superhero perfectly.
We are pulled along as Price badgers Dunn along with Dunn's son (Spencer Treat Clark) to come to terms with who and what he might be. Dunn's son worships him, and as a kid, is perhaps able to see him more clearly than Dunn can see himself.The boy has a certainty about his father that is both funny and powerful -- at one point even frightening -- and it becomes a key element in the movie.
The Superhero stories are among the great and most enduring American myths, an often unacknowledged part of this country's original and unique folklore. One of the distinctive traits of the Superhero genre in comics is the ambivalence of many of the characters. Heroes (Batman, Spiderman, the literal Superheroes themselves) are often innocents. They are ambivalent, reluctant. They are far from indestructible, in fact they are all oddly vulnerable. They never asked for their gifts or reveled in their powers. They have no ambition, other than to lead more normal lives than they are permitted -- just like the Willis character. They are ruled by their destiny, and crippled by their mortality. If their deeds are heroic, their sense of themselves is complex. They are almost all broody and strange. They have gifts they didn't ask for and don't really want, a part of them always wishing they could go about their lives just like everyone else.
What drew many of us to comics in the first place was that this strange assortment of distinctive heroes were both superhuman and all too human. They are different from us, yet just like us. This understanding is at the heart of Unbreakable, and one of the many reasons it works so well.
You know, This is part of a Trilogy
Maybe I was watching different previews, but I didn't know a lot of that stuff coming in to watch the movie.
garc
I heard somewhere that the Wachowski brothers did the Matrix because they wanted to do a movie about superheroes that the viewing public would not consider silly. Real superheroes. Shyamalan succeeded fantastically at this objective, and he didn't even need to use technology as magic. His reasoning is not perfect, but I wanted to believe.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Here's the Filthy Critic's review. (GIVES AWAY PLOT)
And those are my six cents.
humor for the clinically insane
great comedy company.
While I don't agree with everything that the Filthy Critic says, when it comes to "Unbreakable" he seems to have a much better grip on the movie. The Filthy Critic says "It's like a funeral we once had for a squirrel, way more somber, long and expensive than it needed to be."
http://metamuscle.com - Better Bodies Through Hypertext
The sad fact is its just "ok" ... the cinematography was excellent, the director did a fabulous job ... but the plot just wasn't strong enough. This is more of a movie to rent then to pay 20$ for ...
OffTopic: I got my moneys worth though, there was this 15 year old girl who wouldn't shut up during the movie, kept giggling and laughing and her friends were bothering her ... 5 minutes didn't go by that we didnt hear "stop it man!!" A couple people walked up to her and told her to shut up and she still didn't get the message ... so I took one of my g/f's starburst candies and threw it and hit the 15yo square in the head (very hard to, I threw it overhand) ... all ya heard was this "OUUUUUUUUUU! hit me in the back of the head man, thats not cool!!"
I was very proud of myself :) Delivering a candy ordinance to a non orifice in a dark movie theature at high velocity :P ... needless to say after all of this I became the disruption cuz I couldn't stop laughing for 5 minutes :) ...
To summarize, with the right combination of people you can still have agood time at an exceptionally medicore movie.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Did you think this was a lousy ending? I thought it was pretty true to comic book style..weird tho..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Posts like this made me think today about Howard Rheingold's writing in "Virtual Community" about hostile articulate people who take up so much time and energy and space online..Odd
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I have a theory about Unbreakable that seems to be at odds with what everyone else thinks about the ending. That probably means I'm just wrong, but I'd like to get some feedback on the theory:
The Jackson character never says he is the opposite of the Willis character. Oh, he implies it a lot, and the screenplay leads us in that rather obvious direction. But even at the end, Jackson never directly says he is the opposite of Willis. My theory, then, is that Jackson is not the villain that everyone assumes is the lame ending.
Oh sure, he's insane all right. And he does evil things in setting up the disasters. But he's not the villain because he does those things for good reasons -- insane reasons, but with a good motive: To find a hero that can help humankind. If he were truly evil, and not just insane, the last thing he would want is to find a hero, for it would interfere with his evil actions (as actually does happen at the end when he goes to prison). Talk about stupid actions for a villain! But then, as I said, he never does come out and call himself a villain, or say that he is Willis' opposite. We just assume this from the carefully crafted writing and the way the characters dress and act.
Since I heard Unbreakable is supposed to be part one of a trilogy, I think the real villain is yet to be revealed. My theory is that the wife is the real villain. Consider, she is the one who contstantly tries to stop Willis from acting on his hero tendencies. She is the one who holds him back. When Willis survives the train wreck miraculously, she rushes back into his life to hold him down again. And, most significantly, in the screenplay, she is the only one who explicitly says she is the direct opposite of Willis' personality!
My theory is that the Jackson character is well-meaning but insane, while the wife is seemingly benign but actually the one doing the most to stand in Willis' way, preventing him from acting as a hero. Far-fetched, yeah, but maybe the next movie will reveal this. In any case, it seems a less obvious (and lame) ending than the movie actually had. It seems unlikely such a good writer who is so good at misdirecting an audience would settle for such an obvious choice of villain.
Those of you who have seen this movie, what do you think? Viable theory, or have I overlooked something in the screenplay?
________________
________________
Private Essayist
Actually I can't really not liking a movie I've reviewed for slashdot, cept for that John Travolta nightmare..I love most movies, I have to confess..hope to be writing a regular Sunday column about them.. Called Tech Culture..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
But can you say more? Don't you think seriousness and comic books can mix? They sure did to me... Movies are subjective..everybody has a different reaction..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
No, I didn't think the ending was lousy, but that's because I took the ending in an entirely different way than you and every other reviewer I've read. Probably means I'm just wrong, but I like my theory better. I already posted my thoughts here. I'd be interested in your thoughts as to the viability of my concept.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
I think this is very smart. The movie is shockingly low tech, and definitely not silly, IMHO. Not even a cell fone..I though this was very creative and particularly effective...Very smart observation by Elwood, I thought..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Never been able to do it..there are times when I would have love to figure out how...
jonkatz@slashdot.org
An awful lot of people are liking and not liking the movie..makes it interesting..I think it's far from a terrible movie, though, for all that one can criticize it...
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Is it my imagination, or are people doing this more and more? It seems to me to be epidemic..I had a man translating the movie in Spanish to his girlfriend at the top of his voice..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
This movie definitely belongs on /. Many /ers started out on comics, and still are into them. Maybe the line between people who loved this movie and people who didn't are that people who loved comics really got the way it was put together..people who didn't wouldn't, of course.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I also love the idea of people shrieking and screaming when their Katz blocking software doesn't work..nothing is more fun that watching them go nuts..maybe it means I'm perverse..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Comics are bigger now that when I was a kid..you can see from the posts that age isn't the common denominator, but I do think loving comics might be connected to responses to the movie..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Theres no ad or trailer or story that doesn't mention the Superhero connection..anybody who hasn't heard about it lives in a tunnel..the whole promo campaign of the movie was based on it..that doesn't give away a thing..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
sGreenHornet asks: So Mr. Willis do you have any other films in line with M. Night Shyamalan? (or you rather not say)
And Willis' reply...
bruce_willis_live: Unbreakable is the first part of a trilogy of films.
bruce_willis_live: I can't tell you about the others ...
bruce_willis_live: But we're supposed to do two more.
bruce_willis_live: you'll understand how it lends itself to a continuing story.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Interesting question..But I thought the reasons for the Jackson character contacting Dunn were always made clear..he said he had been waiting his whole life for a newscast that had a particular set of words..and he heard that early on..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Another annoying shot was when he would have something real close to the camera, but out of focus, and then have the main subject of the scene about 10 feet away, like in the comic book store scene (the comic book store not owned by Elijah, that is). The left third of the screen is filled by a giant, out-of-focus comic book rack and you keep wanting to focus your eyes on it, but can't. Drove me freakin' nuts.
"I liked this movie a lot, but I came out thinking it stunk.." at least you're consistent..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Warning: don't read this if you haven't seen the movie yet.
I saw Unbreakable yesterday, I was impressed with it and I'm no comic books fan. It's a great beginning for a Saga, we've had enough of Superman, Batman, Spiderman and X-Men we're looking for a new hero.
And unlike others I loved the ending. Elijah Price is the bad guy, is it because he wants to be one? It's more because he was born to be a bad guy and Dunn is a hero for the same reasons. It goes to show that each one of us is born to be something, a criminal, a doctor, a computer scientist, a novellist, whatever. You'll feel an emptiness if you're not doing what you were meant to do, what you were meant to be, somehow you'll know that something is not right until you follow your destiny.
Maybe he's an "Archie and Jughead" double issue?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
After all, you have a "comic book" story about a hero who does two heroic things in the whole movie. I understand that the movie would have been too rushed if Shyamalan had tried to put too much into the first film, but this film fealt entirely way too slow. 1-and-a-half hours of moody shots of Dunn skulking around trying to decide what he wants to do. Followed by one really disturbing "rescue" where Dunn really comes too late. I say too late because I just didn't get a very satisfied feeling from someone busting up the bad guy after the bad guy already kills and terrorizes his victims.
One thing I did decide after watching this movie was I'm glad I don't have Dunn's other ability, that is the ability too see whatever bad things a person has done recently, whenever he touched them. On a related note, I was rather disgusted at the way Shyamalan decided to have Dunn see a whole bunch of people's crap, but only decide that one was worth following up on. I guess it must be okay to smash Malt Liquor bottles on people's heads and rape girls who've passed out at parties. Or steal jewelery from jewelery stores. I say that because Dunn's character didn't decide to do anything about the guys that did that when he saw those memories. Why bother showing the audience that stuff unless Dunn is going to do something about it?
Anyhow, it was rather obvious to me that this movie was meant to be the first in a series (assuming it did well enough at the box office to keep the studios interested). After, the whole movie is about the creation, or discover, if you prefer, of a hero. But he hasn't particularly "fulfilled his destiny" yet, in this movie anyhow.
Ah, but in the world of superheroes and supervillians, the bad guy always seems to go out of his way to make his (the villian's) life more difficult.
For example: Just when the villian has the hero in the grips of "certain death" (with only one possible means of escape), the hero asks the villian what the villian's evil plans are. The villian, realizing that there is "no way to escape now" (except for the aforementioned single method), relents and reveals everything. Then, before the hero actually dies, the villian leaves to go do his evil things. The hero naturally exploits the sole method of escape, and goes on to spoil the villians evil plans.
So no, villians do seek out heros. They seem to take pleasure in terrorizing innocents, but the ultimate goal for a villian is to show off in front of a hero.
(For all of you aspiring evil-doers out there, the Evil Overlord List is required reading.)
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
I watched Star Wars, Episode 1 sitting next to some little kid who couldn't read yet. His dad read EVERY FUCKING SUBTITLE in the WHOLE MOVIE. I knew it was going to be bad when they had the star wars scrolling text and he was reading it.
It was worse, than this. Every time there was a subtitle, the little kid would start complaining saying "What did he say, daddy? What did he say?!" If they didn't tell him right away he would start crying. Brat.
Argh..
Maybe that's why I didn't like that movie too much..
-- Thrakkerzog
It wasn't the hero aspect that drew me to the movie, it was the actors and the director.
What made me like the movie was that this one has heros, is about cool things, AND has character development. Real development. I felt like I knew the characters, and felt the pain and the joy that they went through.
I don't think you should compare this to the sixth sense, they are different movies. An author can write books about different things, and can try out different writing styles--directors/script writers can too.
If you want to compare this to something, at least choose something that was similar--compare it to X-Men.
The biggest difference, or the one that is most important to me, is that X-Men tries to hit the ground running at the beginning of the movie. Yeah, they try to give you a little feel for the characters, but it is a pretty lame attempt. It seems when a script writer, or whatever, isn't sure how to start and develop a plot, they don't. They start in the middle and have little hints dropped everynow and then as to what the beginning could have been.
shyamalan (I hope I spelt that right) took the task of creating a 'super' hero, and added into that the idea of 'believability'.
Oh, and Katz, I think you gave away more than I've seen in any previews--but maybe it couldn't be helped.
--Scott
But I completely disagree..the dictionary defines an innocent (as opposed to innocence) as somebody with little experience in the weays of the world. Spiderman was absolutely an innocent, Batman in a very different way -- was ambivalent about his power, saw himself as a freak..Tim Burton captured this in the very great lst Batman movie..Superman was a total innocent..The Kefauver committee hearings (I read the transcripts for that in another context) actually took testimony from psychiatrists arguing that the early superheroes were unwholesome, and in particular, that Spiderman and Batrman and Robin promoted homosexuality..no kidding, the head of the American Psychiatric Institute testified to that. But Stan Lee would never have argued that Spiderman was worldly or sophisticated..Like the Dunn character in Unbrekablew, few of the Superheroes, including Spiderman, were polished or confident..They were all awkward, unsophisticated, thus ..innocent.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
One of things I like most about Shyamalan's
...)
style is how every scene is dense with meaning.
For example, there's color coding, which also played an important
role in the Sixth Sense. Bruce Willis's character, David Dunn, is
associated with the colors yellow and green. If you watch the
movie with this in mind, you'll see it in almost every scene. His
clothes are almost always a combination of these two colors. Even
when he's washing dishes, he has a green shirt and is using a yellow
dish towel. His house is yellow with green trim. His raincoat
and uniform are green with yellow writing (green and yellow are
the colors of the fictional Franklin State University). The
superhero in the comic young Elijah receives as a child is yellow
and green. The superhero action figure David's son Joseph plays
with is green and yellow. And so on.
Samuel Jackson's character, Elijah Price, is associated with the
color purple. In the very first scene of the movie, the baby
Elijah is coddled in a blanket with purple trim. His coat
has a purple lining. Even a casual viewer will have noticed this.
(On a side note, in Judaism, Elijah is the prophet that is expected
to announce the coming of the Messiah
The two color schemes are used together in interesting ways.
For example, in the scene in which Elijah and David's wife
Audrey are speaking at the medical clinic, the rug consists of a
checkered pattern of squares: yellow circles in green squares on
the one hand, and purple squares with blue trim on the other. It's
very striking, especially in the aerial shot.
Another color sometimes associated with David and his family
is a dark maroon. His hat at work is this color, for example.
When he tells Elijah of his near drowning as a child, he's wearing
a shirt of this color under his jacket, just showing through.
When Joseph threatens to shoot him, Joseph's shirt is yellow
and maroon, and Audrey has a maroon undershirt.
I think this color is explained by something David says during
his dinner date with Audrey: his favorite color is rust. I think
that's what this color must be -- dark rust. Why rust? It's what
happens when water damages what is otherwise strong iron and steel.
It symbolizes his vulnerability -- water is his weakness.
Another recurring theme, almost the leitmotif of the movie, is
the upside-down shot. It starts with the little girl in the
train who watches David with her head upside down. It continues
when Joseph sees the news of the accident on TV, his head dangling
upside down from the couch.
You see almost the same thing when Elijah is lying on the
staircase in the subway, and sees the man with the gun upside
down. When he receives his first comic book as a child, it's
upside down (and we're given some foreshadowing by the mother:
"They say this one has a surprise ending" ). David and Audrey's
accident leaves their car upside down. There are more examples
but I'll stop.
So what's the point? I think Shyamalan is underscoring the
nature of the plot: he's turned the classic comic book story
upside down: instead of the villain trying to destroy the
superhero, he's actually trying to *create* him.
Perhaps others noticed things I've missed. I'd like to
hear what others think.
-David
..to have read them all.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
but don't invoke the Simpsons, my heroes, to come after me..I just named my new dog Homer in his honor..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I'd love some other feedback on the ending..Some people thought it was abrupt..I thought it was much in keeping with comic book narrative..I'd love other opinions..somebody just e-mailing me objecting to the linking between technology and computing and evil at the end..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Oh, so you didn't notice the three Macs on Elijah's desk, with flat-panel displays, shown multiple times.
I loved the movie. I'm actually glad I saw it before The Sixth Sense. I went in with a clean slate and was blown away.
I see a lot of people saying, "It's no Sixth Sense," etc. I saw it after Unbreakable and thought, "very cool, but Unbreakable was better."
It goes to show that you shouldn't have watched it with another movie in mind. That's what ruined it for you. It's not called, "The Sixth Sense: Part 2."
This is the clarification of the puzzling I was hoping for. Thanks, WB..I think you captured it for me perfectly, and better than I did.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Neat observation..also in the car window outside the stadium when he chased the weird guy.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I'm not sure what you mean by "bunk," but I think the pacing was very deliberate, and very inventive. I the age of the slam-bang, explosion a minute movie, he chose to go another, very deliberately slow placed way. I think it resulted in great character development and an eerie sense of Dunn, but I guess you didn't. It was very unusual.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
During the rescue scene at the end, there is 15 minutes with no dialogue at all, one of the longest such stretches in recent movie history.
Another reason why I think this was an inventive movie..it may be in this era people simply can't stand a movie that's that reflective and deliberate...maybe for good reasons.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Unbreakable was like a comic-book movie told as a story for adults. That's what I loved about it... it was a pretty complex drama, full of totally human charcters. But with a twist of the supernatural, it turned into the most unbelievably realistic movie about the whole superhero/archvillan theme I've ever seen. Plus I love the way zillions of lame people who would never go near anythign with a "comic book"-type theme are going to see this movie. Nice piece of trojan-horse filmmaking.
Trojan-horse aspects aside, it was a damn fine movie. Awesome story, plenty of creeping and uplifting moments. The movie did drag in places, and I thought it was unecessarily dreary in parts. However... I loved the ending so much, it made the entire rest of the movie worthwhile. It's one of those movies I'm still thinking about, 24 hours after seeing it. :)
http://www.bootyproject.org
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
The movie is a bit dawdly in parts, but the story-telling really is astonishingly faithful to the comic-book genre: simple, improbable, fantastic.
Wrong.
Comics are a medium, just like film or television or a book. Within that medium there are different genres. In comics, you have the superhero (just the American version/bastardization of all the world's hero myths), drama, spooky/suspense/horror, kids' and humor.
Your review, except for this misstatement of yours, is exceptional. Thank you for taking the time to write a careful review without giving anything away.
You must be color blind, or watched the 6th sense again by accident- but the color red is not relevant to this movie. Green and Purple are.
The movie had twists and turns, and you can never be sure exactly what's going on and what's going to happen next. And it was a great ride.
I also like the fact that there are multiple interpretations open to what happened. My favorite alternate interpretation is that that nothing supernatural happens in the entire movie. "Mr. Glass" is just a loonie who reads too many comics (a tragic, character, but a loonie nonetheless). David Dunn is a troubled soul who gets caught up in Elijah's tail. Dunn's very lucky in the car and train accidents, but there's nothing supernatural about that luck. His great strength under duress, is simple adrenaline buzz. His seeing bad things that people have done, is intuition that his mind expands on to fill in the details.
Do I think that this really what happened in the movie? No, probably not. But I love the fact the possibility is there, like there is for Bladerunner.
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
But he's not the villain because he does those things for good reasons...
You really need to read more comic books, read more fiction, and watch more movies in general.
In real life, no one hardly ever thinks that they're the bad guy. The Unabomber thought he was doing what was right (stopping the evils of modern society). The guy who shot all those abortion doctors thought he was doing what was right (bring justice to baby assassins). People who embed nails in trees which result in fatal or crippling logging accidents think they're doing what is right (saving the forest from greedy rapists of the earth). Heck, that guy last week who was working with his mom to try to sell off his nephew on the Russian black market to be broken down into organs said he was "pursuing his dream."
I'm getting side tracked though. In fiction there are three major kinds of villians:
1) Those who are evil for the sake of being evil.
2) Those who are merely selfish and ruthless.
3) Those who are willing to commit evil for the greater good.
The first one is simply lame. "Ooo, I am darkness incarnate. Fear me!" The only time it even remotely works is when supernatural forces of Evil are involved. Even then, it has become cliche. The best villians all fall into the latter categories. Even the insane and evil Hannibal Lecter is a case of the second category. He's not doing it to be evil, he's just willing to go to any extreme to satisfy his darker desires. However, this is still not a villian doing things for the greater good.
In the realm of superheroes and comic books, the best example of a villian doing something for the greater good is Magneto. Magneto has seen what happens when a minority is oppressed in the extreme when growing up in WWII Germany. He is fighting back so that mutants will come out on top. In his eyes, he is completely justified for anything he does. He is trying to be a savior to his people. So, don't discount Mr. Glass as a villian just because he thinks he's justified. The justified villian is a fictional archetype reaching back as far as literature has been being written. It's very much a cornerstone of the pulp genre which led to the development of modern comics.
Viable theory, or have I overlooked something in the screenplay?
You also might want to consider that every superhero has more than one villian. Mr. Glass would just be the first that David Dunn faces.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The only trailer I saw (which I saw 2 or 3 times) didn't give away anything. It makes the point that the Bruce Willis character miraculously lives through a train crash and there is possible something weird about him. The Samuel L. Jackson character is also introduced. But nowhere is it obvious that comics are going to play a role in this movie. Also, no information is given about either of the characters background. Going in to the movie I was expecting the Bruce Willis character to be more of a messiah type - maybe even an alien - than an actual super hero. Also, all of the stuff you say about his son is spoilers - its not even clear that he has a son from the trailer.
Anyway, the whole spolier thing touched a nerve with me because Unbreakable's trailer did the right thing, while trailers I saw last night wrecked two movies for me - Castaway and Family Man. In each case I was interested in seeing the movie before the trailer, at least partly due to seeing other trailers about a month ago that didn't give much of the plot away. Now, I'd be very shocked if there were any surprises left in each of these movies. Oh well, maybe I'll just have to go see Unbreakable again.
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
We never get real proof the guy's "unbreakable".
Although the "ESP" experience is totally internal, I suppose we can't put it down to amazing luck or ability to read people's body language or faces: he really does have some "super" ability to detect evil-doers. (Though they showed him wrong on the purported drug dealer just to raise a question.)
But much of the movie is about his slow acceptance of his special nature, and we never get a real smoking-gun proof on-screen.
- Didn't see what happened in the train or car crashes;
- He never just pokes himself with a penknife to see what happens (my first thought...);
- He talks the kid out of shooting him;
- Elijah "explains away" the drowning incident with comic-book 'logic' about everybody having a weak spot - a dramatic but not physical requirement;
- He doesn't take enough of a beating in the big rescue for his victory to be surprising.
- Probably a lot of people can bench-press more than they think if they really try.
That last point is crucial for me. Suppose the real message here is that anybody who was just three std. deviations to the right on the bell curve for strength, immune system, and constitution (and reaction time, etc.) could be a hero if somebody just convinced him to believe in himself.PS: I'm calling this one a movie (or two) ahead. The drowning incident is going to prove to be the start of it. He "died". And is special now because on some level, he's already dead.
Unbreakable started out being about comic books, was about comic books in the middle, and ended in comic book style. What is wrong with this? NO SURPRISE ENDING.
So no movie is good unless it has a suprise ending?
Some stories just don't need a suprise twist at the end and indeed, many would be hurt by just tacking on a suprise for the sake of a suprise.
That said, most people I know (including myself) did not predict the ending, at least not exactly. Personally, I knew _something_ was up, but I did not predict the exact ending.
Josh Sisk
A post from Estanislao Martínez on kuro5hin pretty much sums up the attitude of some on Slashdot to rally against John Katz as if he was trying to infiltrate this geek paradice without claiming any sort of technical merit as his pulpit.
/. arrogance-- the belief that programming is the hardest human endeavour in existence, and thus, programmers are the smartest people, and if you know how to program, you can do anything any other professional can as well as they do, or even better.
/. or here in k5 about "g**k political organizing"-- the typical "if anybody is able to hack the political system, we g**ks are". The g**k's premise *is* self-superiority.
Self-described g**ks *are* elitist bastards (4.09) (#82)
by Estanislao Martínez (emartinez*NOSPAM@quebecemail.com)
This goes to something I've talked about plenty already-- what somebody on that other site called once
Like, i.e., give legal advice ("IANAL, but B.S.]"), lecture experts about their own areas of expertise (e.g., go up to a linguist, condescendingly start explaining to them the most idiotic and trivial ideas from, say, Pinker's books, *and* then get them backwards). Or the numerous stories in
The attitude is basically, Katz, as a serious journalist who does not have [or claim to have, or see in advantage of having] wide technical skills, should be denied a voice. Surely `geeks' are entirely capable of evaluating and investigating their own culture? Surely someone without technical skills couldn't possibly understand?
Wrong. The third party view from Katz is the most eloquent and nonpartisan view in any story. And the reactions to the Hellmouth series are a testament to that.
Keep in mind I'm responding to a broad claim, and have provided a broad answer. Yes, the discussion of `geeks' as a single group is a generalization. but in order to draw a picture of scoiety, or any group within it, one must paint broad brush strokes.
Sure some movies are great without a surprise ending: Star Wars, or Saving Private Ryan for example. These movies are not surprising, in that the good guys win. However, the exact how and why is unknown.
Take a look at some of the best movies to come out recently tho: Seven, Fight Club, the Sixth Sense. These movies were great not only for their surprise ending, but because the ending added to the enjoyment of the film. Unbreakable's ending only detracted from my enjoyment of the movie.
Unbreakable didn't even have an ending event that gives the movie purpose. No Death Star explosion, or P-51's zooming in to save the day. Something that lets me know I sat through an hour and half of film for a reason, or makes me want to come back for more.
Personally, I have no reason to consider seeing any trilogy created along this movie. I just hope Shyamalan's next film will fare a little better in the plot department.
Roberjo
Deterrence is the art of producing, in the mind of the enemy, the fear to attack! - Dr. Strangelove
I saw Unbreakable last night, with a friend. We're both in theatre at the moment; she writes plays, and I act. So naturally we watch for things like symbolism and good writing, et cetera.
Let me describe my scale of SciFi movies to you all. 1-10 inclusive, where 10 is the Matrix, and a 0 would be Lost in Space. When it came to plot, Unbreakable was an 8. At the beginning of the movie I expected to see something about a man who couldn't be hurt. I've read it before in books, and I'm not a comic book fan; I've always had a fascination for telekinesis and ESP type stuff, such as that found in Anne McCaffrey's Pegasus series (To Ride Pegasus is the first book of that, I believe). When Elijah was introduced as a character whose bones did break, and quite often, I began to wonder if they were supposed to be like mirrors of eachother (especially since whenever Young Elijah was shown it was in a reflection)--that is, for every time Dunn would've had a bone broken, instead Elijah got the punishment. Turns out I was wrong--it was even better. It was something I'd never seen before. They related it to comic books, and mythology, and mythology's basis in history.
If this movie got an 8 for plot, it was an 11 for symbolism. Embedded in it were themes such as good vs evil, and the definition of evil. For those of you who've seen the movie, the entire part about weaknesses brings forth the question of "Are all humans superheroes?" And at the very beginning of the movie, when Willis' character began hitting on the young woman in the train it showed that even he was morally fallible--something which wouldn't happen with Neo in the Matrix, who was supposed to symbolise Jesus, among other things.
Cinematography also gets a 10. Some of the shots were incredible, particularly on the train at the beginning.
Here's a comparison.
Matrix Unbreakable Lost in Space
Acting 9 9 5
Plot 10 8 3
Symbolism 9 11 1
Opinion 10 8 0
Sorry for the weird spacing.
If you like scifi, and if when you read you automatically look for themes and symbolism, you'll enjoy Unbreakable. But don't go in looking for something to make fun of, go in with an open mind. Critics go in to make fun of things, so they always rate things badly (except children's movies, which they absolutely love, how ironic).
Enjoy
Aciel
aciel@speakeasy.net
I had already posted this in another, private forum that very few of you may be familiar with, so I'll post it again here for no reason whatsoever, other than the fact that I'd like to share. It's a long post, so if you don't feel like reading it, that's okay. Or if you don't feel like reading it 'cause you figure I should just take off, that's okay, too.
**********
I saw this movie last week, and it reeked. Spoilers may abound, so read this post at your own risk.
The story moves so slowly, so obviously, you kind of have to wonder what the point to it all is. Sure, Willis and Jackson want to find their place in the world. At first, you're more concerned with Willis' place, but eventually Jackson's takes just as much precedence, but it's all so sad and brooding that you can barely give a shit about either of them.
Willis plods along, constantly sad. He's so sad, he can't crack a smile or do anything on screen other than be sad. Willis doesn't exactly pull this off well, and it ends up looking like he's... overly sad, or something. Not just sad, but really fucking sad. Even sadder is the fact that (IMHO) Willis is a proficient actor. Too bad his proficiency is wasted here.
Jackson is fares a bit better, 'cause we can see some of the torment inside of him and we know he's a strong fella trapped inside of a fragile shell. When he freaks on the guy at the store near the beginning, we know he's not fucking around. Unfortunately and sadly, even someone as cool Samuel L. Jackson can't quite make comics as cool as they used to be. Exactly how many bad ass, dead serious comic book collectors are there like this in the world? It's like the whole premise to Duets, with its whole karaoke subculture thing, and it's ridiculous. The fat sarcastic guy comic guy on the Simpsons is more believable.
And then there's Haley Joel Osment II, who's the center of one of the most awkward scenes I've ever seen in a movie. The whole "shoot-dad-to-prove-superpowers" scene is supposed to be serious and somewhat poignant ends up being hilarious. The whole theatre was laughing at the absurdity.
The whole comic book thing sounds cool at first, until you realize that it most certainly isn't. And this is coming from a guy with a sizeable comic collection, who still likes to pick up Spawn and Superman and rumage through comic book stores for those crazy issues of World's Finest and the Justice League where Matter Eater Lad and the gang battle their sons or the Scarecrow gives everyone strange phobias. Somehow, you're supposed to seriously believe that Jackson might be on to something, that comic book superheroes are based on a hint of fact. Well, they aren't, they're based on a character created by a Canadian and his cousin from Chicago, a guy named Superman. Superman didn't have any basis in reality other than a hair's breadth kinship to an early story Joe Siegel did on Nazi supermen, which didn't exist in the first place.
Also packing on the absurdity is that Willis never realized he's never been hurt or sick before, despite the fact that he was completely uninjured in a disasterous car accident. Didn't he find it odd that he's (theoretically) never cut himself shaving? When he trained for football back in high school, did he never realize just how much he could benchpress? Wasn't there any personal contests with his teammates over such trivial things as weight lifting records, simply because it's the kind of thing that guys do? Or illness? Mono? Chicken pox? Anything? How the hell does it take 35 years to figure that out, especially with the help of a guy who collects comic books of all things? Of course, I've taken to a little conjecture here, but it seems pretty reasonable to me.
Absurdity aside, the picture itself is meant to be atmospheric, moody and mystical. Well, that's all fine and dandy, if it didn't come off so poorly. We follow Willis around all day, watching him eat cereal and shit, hoping Lex Luthor or the Joker are about to show up, but instead, we get to watch him read newspapers. Everything is dark for some reason, probably to add to the mood, but I ask you -- what fucking mood are we supposed to be feeling? The sadness of Willis? The mystical feeling of him being unbreakable? It's sad enough that he plays the part as a zombie, isn't that enough? No, apparently it isn't, 'cause everything has to be black and atmospheric to the point of being obvious. Yes, he's fucking sad. Let's make everything dark to make it sadder. We get the point.
The ending itself is probably the most obvious and dull of all time. Since I gave full warning of spoilers, don't blame me if you're still reading and didn't see it yet, 'cause here it is: Willis' direct opposite is his arch nemesis. Christ Almighty, what a fucking surprise. In between the constant deluge of sadness and the eating of cereal, we get some comic book insight, like this gem of wisdom -- comic book superheroes have exact opposites as mortal enemies. No shit. Superman, a man with a million superpowers and incredibly static and perfect hair, had Luthor, a man without any superpowers and no hair. Batman had the Joker, a very serious guy (except in the camporamic 60's) versus a guy who can't stop joking around. Even "modern" superheroes are just as bound to this rule -- Spawn, a lieutenant in Hell's army, has an angel as a predator.
So of course we have to wait through 99% of the movie to find out something we knew from the beginning -- Jackson is Willis' arch enemy. Wow. Blow my fucking mind. Jackson spends his entire life looking for Willis, who he just happens to find in his own backyard out of a global population of 6 billion, just so he can feel at ease with himself in his own insane, comic book loving, arch-nemesis way. And after spending his entire life looking, what do we get? A made-for-TV ending that feels more like an episode of Dragnet than a dramtic ending to a serious comic book superhero movie. (If there is such a thing. X-men and the original Tim Burton Batman probably come closest.)
I mean, I could almost hear the Dragnet theme with the guy reaming out the convictions at the end. I have witnessed some anti-climatic endings in my day, and this one is easily near the top of the list. What's the point of finding an arch-nemesis if you're not going to do some city-destroying battle or something? They shake hands and Willis puts him in jail. At least the Joker went mano-a-mano with Batman for a little while and Luthor fire nuclear missiles at Superman. Jackson just sits there and is sent to jail, with subtitles filling in the details. How exciting.
This movie could have been cool. I wish it had been. Instead, it's a half-hour episode of the Twilight Zone stretched entirely too long and without Rod Sterling.
Maybe this will become something more. It's not much now, but who knows, maybe this is only issue one, sad holographic glitter cover and all. But if it isn't a one-shot and goes further with additional stories, I hope to hell they aren't as boring and sad as this one. I did mention it was sad, right? Good.
For some reason, it feels like the medium for this movie was totally wrong. The medium is the message, you know. If this was an actual comic book, under the wise, wise hands of Neil Gaiman or Frank Miller, this could have really been something. But in the end, it comes off pretty piss poor in this on-screen Festival of Dark Sad Cereal Eating.
But that's just my opinion. I could be totally wrong. And no doubt somebody will tell me so, but that's okay. That's the whole point of opinions.
J
I still think more will come from the wife if any sequels are made, for she was irrationally against having the hero lead even a hint of a hero's life. Perhaps just will just be explained away as a personality quirk of hers, and I just picked up on a red herring.
I will admit that my theory was formed halfway through the movie as I began to notice that the wife was his opposite, so that when it was said that you find a villain by looking for an opposite the wife came to mind. Especially since the Jackson character had said earlier that they were similiar in some ways. I guess I out thought the situation and should have just accepted the obvious ending.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
It's also a little inconsistent to say that, on the one hand, a movie has great cinematography but no plot, and on the other hand, it's a wait-for-the-video movie. Assuming you're not just a herd animal, the only reason to see a movie in a theater is to enjoy the cinematography. But I do agree, the cinematography was very good.
The one thing I dislike is those idiotic textovers at the beginning and end. I like to think some Stupid Studio Suit looked at his focus polls and said, "Soccer moms find the ending too ambiguous! We need a more moral ending!" and prevailed over Shyamalan's objections. This nonsense did a lot of damage to the everything-is-explained-in-the-last-30-seconds gimick that Shyamalan works so hard to build.
__________________
Actualy, Mr Glass had several computers in the back room of his comic shop. There were 3 or 4 of the new g4 power macs.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Was that 15-minutes of no talking where he went into that persons house and got rid of the robber? I think that might be it but I can't remember, and that's really good if the audience didn't even realize the 15 minutes of silence.
--
Scott Miga
suprax@linux.com
Yes, the camera angles are all over the place.
Yes, it is all about the superhero comics.
I enjoyed it, and I might well see it again. This is more of an art film than a mainstream american movie -- much simpler than sixth sense, and not as much of a shocker when it's over.
When I initially left the theatre, I was bummed. I thought, "Well, what an obvious way to end the movie" and "That's a weak Bruce Willis movie, and what a shitty ending".
Now that I've had a few days to think it over, there really is some neat pacing and eerie footage.
After reading some of the other comments, I like the movie even more. It's painfully low tech at times, with a surreal pace. Once over, the plot is astoundingly simple, and the finale obvious.
I'd see it again. It's very artsy, and a great role (IMHO) for Samuel L. Jackson. He's right on target, and a joy to watch.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Bruce Willis's next movie will be where everyone except him is dead but he thinks he is dead but doesn't know that he isn't dead yet. After that his next movie will be where everyone in the audience is dead but doesn't know it yet.
Maybe for a Clint Eastwood western you can get away with 350 words of dialog in the whole movie but isn't this getting tedious for these afterlife-spiritual-metaphor flicks? Ok so Bruce plays characters who are clinically depressed. I get it.
And what's with the everything is sickly green film technique? Why does his wife look all strung out and why does his kid wake up the next day just like normal after pulling a gun on his dad and screaming that he has to shoot him to prove to the world that he's a superhero. How fucked up is that?
I get it - it's a comic book and this is the evolution of his self awareness. Ok then why not make more like a comic book and less like the slow motion parts of a car commercial (flying raindrops etc.)
"This movie doesn't have a cellphone, computer, or explosion in it."
i beg to differ.. at the very end, when you see the interior of elijah 'mr. glass'' office, you see that he has not one, not two, but three Apple G4s with matching 15'' LCD screens running... wait for it.. screen savers.
woohoo apple product placement! i nominate this ten second scene for best gratuitous use of technology for eye candy, without making any substantive contribution to the scenery. oy.
and oh yeah, i dig comics, and i dig movies, and this one sucked rocks.
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
I think Unbreakable's approach to comics is downright condescending. It's basically saying, 'Comics are childish and stupid, but let me show you what a REAL artist can do with that kind of story.' If you take a look at more superhero-oriented comicbook stories like The Watchmen, Unbreakable pales in comparison to an oeuvre that is richer, denser, more thought-provoking, and has more symbolism and better pacing. It's that simple.
Did you think The Sixth Sense needed a textover telling us that Bruce went to heaven, his wife re-married, and the boy grew up to follow in his footsteps (except with dead clients, of course)?
Jackson is an instance of a small, elite group I call Presence of God actors. Seeing his name on the credits is your guarantee that you'll get some good moments, no matter how bad the rest of the movie is. Friend of mine nearly got violent when somebody started a cell phone conversation at just the wrong place in The Insider. But your solution is better! Anything you can do to raise the general civility level is a Good Thing.__________________
Alan Moore's various deconstructions of the Superhero genre (Watchmen, Miracleman, Swamp Thing) would be better written and more of an homage to the genre. Anyone care to guess when (if ever) Moore will get his chance to do movies?
Alan Moore's graphic novel From Hell is currently in the late stages of production of a film version. It's not a superhero book -- it's a graphic novel adaptation of Jack the Ripper -- but it should be interesting seeing Moore's work adapted to the silver screen (though I have my doubts how well it can capture the dark mood and earnest, detailed depiction of Victorian life that made the graphic novel so absorbing).
I've heard that Terry Gilliam has been approached about doing a Watchmen movie on several occassions, but has half-jokingly said he would only take the project if it could be twelve hours long.
In terms of comics/movies adaptations, I'm also very much looking forward to the film adaptation of Daniel Clowes' "Ghost World", starring Thora Birch in the lead role, which is supposed to come out in January.
The major defining scenes for all of the above would be scorn, looking for a scam, telling Price to shove off and stay away from his family.
Humor when he is with his son while working out and they keep stacking weights onto the barbell. The humor is both portrayed in his mannerisms and in the general shooting of this scene.
disbelief is the slowest level, and is very elegently portrayed by building slowly into the final scene we are discussing, where doubt turns into realization. He walks into the crowded terminal. The pictures start coming like he's always seen them, except now he is learning to trust what he sees.
Notice his facial reactions as this happens. He is obviously coming to a double realization. One that he can see these things through some miracle, and two, these people have actually DONE the stuff he sees. As he gets more and more images he obviously grows more and more disturbed, each crime building up as he gets over his numb state of mind.
Then, when he sees the murder it is the final straw, there is no more disassociation with reality. This person has actually murdered and almost without thinking he is triggered into action.
This rather well done theatrical sequence is not meant to be a selection process or Shyamalan's list of ethics. Instead it is a climax of emotion and understanding. Notice how each crime that is viewed becomes progressively worse. You go from shop lifting, to violence, to rape, and finally murder. This brings the audience with Dunn on his journey of growing horror and realization.
Hope that makes sense.
V