Unbreakable

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I watched M. Night Shyamalan's (cool name) [b]Unbreakable[/b] yesterday evening. I had seen the movie a couple years ago and remembered being quite fond of it, but I couldn't remember why. The screening last night jolted my memory.

This film has an incredible plot. Being an avid comic fanboy (yes,I proudly admit that I am a fanboy) and a frequent day-dreamer, I often ponder the existence of heros. Not the day to day heros that we read about in the news paper or see working late nights at homeless shelters. No, I mean [i]super[/i] heros. [b]Unbreakable[/b] focuses on the idea of a real life super hero, a person that has incredible power in an ordinary world, a world in which villians cannot be defined by a gaudy outward appearence or a tendancy for maniacal laughter. How would a super hero realize his power and ability? How would they measure and test themselves? What would their family think? The main charecter has to wade through all of these issues while at the same time coming to terms with who and what he is.

[b]Unbreakable[/b] stars Bruce Willis as a reluctant hero, a man with a troubled family life, a seemingly dead end job, and [spoiler]a remrkable gift that grants him increased strength, invulnerability, and a "sixth" (oh the irony) sense to detect a person's evil deeds[/spoiler]. Willis does an excellent job portraying a reserved, shy man who seems to have given up something that was important to him. Samuel L. Jackson co-stars with Willis as "Mr. Glass", a comic book aficianado that believes Willis' charecter is destined to be a hero. Mr. Glass is the antithesis of Willis' charecter, he is easily injured (breaking "like glass") and has been debilitated because of his condition. The intelligent, stylish, and broken Mr. Glass is portrayed perfectly by Jackson.

The most notable aspect of [b]Unbreakable[/b] is its incredible camera work. M Night Shyamalan is a genius at setting up film sequences. The movie transforms from vibrant colorful scenes to gritty blue magnetic segments within a heartbeat. The film work is lush without being over processed and exaggerated.

Anyway, I really enjoy this movie, but I realize that quite a few people were let down with the ending. What were/are your thoughts and opinions on [b]unbreakable[/b]?[/color]

[Brasil]

I'm probably one of the only ones that enjoyed it, as well. Like you, I'm a bit of a comic book/superhero geekboy, and I think that's why I enjoyed this movie so much more than the regular audience.

The spin that Unbreakable puts on the superhero genre is an admirable one, indeed. While Willis' performance was...not his best, the plot made up for it. Plus, Sam Jackson electrifies the screen no matter what he's doing, it seems. He could be sitting on the can and we'd enjoy it. But that's beside the point. It's sad, really, that Shyamalan's second and third films were tossed aside, or failed to live up to The Sixth Sense. I think Unbreakable was vastly underrated. I found Signs to be the inferior film of the three. It relied on jumpy scares more than anything else, and the ideas and writing were trite.

Unbreakable, on the other than, Sam Jackson alone makes seeing it worth it. Shyamalan was able to do something that few filmmakers are able to: make the villain seductive.

This film had what I call...low-key flair. Similar to Sixth Sense, it used an almost toned down approach to its subject matter. Signs failed to do this, and that's why I dislike it. But Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are two really fun movies. People should give Unbreakable more of a chance.

[Omar Harris]

I also love this movie (let's make the superhero fanboy mention 3 for 3). Samuel L. Jackson is awesome as Mr. Glass, a sympathetic, and yet seductively evil force all at the same time. The twist ending [SPOILER]With Mr. Glass being responsible for all the accidents that led the two characters to meet[/SPOILER] was a nice touch in portraying the characters states of mind.

[Semjaza]

While I admit I barely remember the movie now, I did enjoy it. At the time it seemed like a lot of people were complaining about how poor the film was and I just never understood it.

[Maully]

[color=green]I have only seen this one once, and that was when it first came out in the theatre. I remember being rather disappointed in it, but not hating it. I liked it technically better than plotwise. The lighting and camera work were awesome, as was the use of color the M. Night Shyamalan has incorporated in all his movies thus far. I could talk for days about how talented a director and writer he is.

I enjoy entertaining the thought of Superheroes, but this movie didn't really hit a chord with me. [spoiler]My favorite scene is in the train station when Willis finally accepts who he is and encournters all the people all while the camera is doing the dizzy swirl around the room[/spoiler]

As to where it stands in regard of his other films, I would rank it third. I think signs, while not as technically artistic, is the best. I find most people can't get past the manifest alien theme to get to the theme of restored faith and life. I thought Gibson carried his part of the defunk man very well.[/color]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='Yisan']I hated this movie. Sub-par plot and sub-par acting. The only thing that saved this movie from being total crap was Samuel L. Jackson. That man can save any movie[/quote]

[color=indigo]The only thing that is saving your post from beeing utter garbage is the fact that you mentioned Samuel L. Jackson.

C'mon Yisan, put just a wee bit of effort into your post. I am not going to argue with your opinion, lots of people thought it was a lousy movie. Why did you find the acting and the plot "sub-par"? Why did you hate the movie? I honestly want to know why people disliked this movie just as much as why they liked it, that is why I created the thread. :)[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Yisan']You want to know why I hated this movie? Well, the plot and acting was sub-par. That's why. Why did I find them sub par? Well, I thought the plot was just stupid, and Willis and Jackson could have done better than what they did.[/quote]
Yisan, c'mon, man. You didn't even explain [i]wh[/i]y you disliked the performances. You merely just repeated yourself. [i]Wh[/i]y didn't you find the plot to be good? You're not providing anything to support your scathing critique of the film, and coming off as someone who has no idea why they dislike a movie. Develop your post, develop your opinion. Provide reasons. You need something to support your thesis. As it stands now, you don't even have an introductory paragraph.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Yisan']Jesus H Christ! I didn't like the movie! It was not my kind of movie! The plot did not intrigue me! I thought the acting was poor! I have seen both Jackson and Willis do better, so I know they can do it if they try! What more do you need to know?![/quote]
What kind of reply is that? I mean, seriously. All HC and I asked you to do was provide some reason behind your views of the movie. You should not have exploded like that. In fact, your tone was totally uncalled for. HC and I are trying to get you to think about why you feel the way you do.

Anybody can spew what you just spewed. That's not what I asked for, and I have a feeling that's not what HC had in mind, either. And really, you still haven't sufficiently supported your opinion. Your points are still vague and rather...ranty. It's not a sufficient reply.

"It was not my kind of movie" is not a sufficient support.

What about the plot didn't you like? Was it certain themes? Character progression? What? Think before you reply. I want a well thought-out and well-constructed, mature reply of at least two paragraphs.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]Maybe if I post some subtle aspects of the movie that disturbed me Yisan will be inspired to do the same.

Although I thought Bruce Willis did a great job playing a subdued, shy man, I thought that he didn't do quite an adequete job coveying the sadness that should have engulfed his charecter. I wouldn't have even realized that was the emotion he was going for if he didn't outright say so during the film. It is easy to see how broken his relationship with his wife and son had become, but I really never got the feeling that he had alienated them until he was speaking with Mr. Glass.

[spoiler]I also thought the captions at the end of the movie were a waste. It would have been much better if they just ended the film with Samuel L. Jackson's little line about how he should have known that he was destined to become an arch villian. The look of conflict in Bruce Willis' face spoke volumes and even a half wit could have figured out what would of happened. Then again, I never find those captions fulfilling.[/spoiler][/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Eh, I don't like Unbreakable. It was way too slow for me. I was waiting for a long time for [i]something[/i] to happen, and it didn't. All I got was Willis playing around in the pool for about ten minutes straight. And in my opinion Bruce Willis is a very weak actor, and completely fails playing opposite Jackson.

Add to that the fact that this movie is no more realistic than the Justice League of America as a collective, and I was basically left completely unfulfilled. Shyamalan's pacing is very slow in all of his movies, but for me there was nothing to redeem this film from that.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo][spoiler]I also thought the captions at the end of the movie were a waste. It would have been much better if they just ended the film with Samuel L. Jackson's little line about how he should have known that he was destined to become an arch villian. The look of conflict in Bruce Willis' face spoke volumes and even a half wit could have figured out what would of happened. Then again, I never find those captions fulfilling.[/spoiler'][/color][/quote]
[spoiler]I do like that idea of no title cards. What would have made the ending even stronger, perhaps is no dialogue at all after the handshake. Jackson and Willis shake hands and Willis is rocked by those visions of chaos and violence. They separate, Jackson silently nods, and Willis backs away, out of the comic shop, out into daylight.

It would have been very effective in showing that Jackson is the villain, and we know Jackson can do that nod we're talking about. Plus, if Shyamalan were so inclined, he would have had an excellent set-up for a sequel with that ending.[/spoiler]

[Transtic Nerve]

This is one of the movies, as with most, if not all of M. Night Shyamalan's movies, that involve alot of thinking on part of the audience member. The way MNS does his movies is very in dept. A normal movie-goer who goes to laugh at stupid jokes or see guns shooting for 2 hours would not understand or enjoy this type of movie. It's simply too involved for them.

I enjoyed it. Alot... I enjoy all of MNS's movies. There was something about it that just had greatness to it. It was never what you expected it to be, but that expectation never fell short of greatness. I thought the plot was very well written, far beyond any other movie of its kind. And the acting was just what it needed to be, not great, but not crappy. It was good.

I can't wait for MNS's new movie "The Village"