Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Unbreakable

Page: (1)2

16:18 / 05.03.04

I know, kinda cheesy topic, but what are your thoughts around the views on superheroes as put forth in the movie Unbreakable?

16:22 / 05.03.04

Could've been SO MUCH better. But I have no idea HOW.

17:17 / 05.03.04

hmm... shouldn't this be inthe MOVIE section?

As for unbreakable... I like it. It seemed like an attempt to pull the Superhero genre out of the comic medium... a sort if inverse to a movie about a comic charactor. In this case it was more of a movie charactor slipping into the "rules" of the superhero genre as defined by comics...

sure the movie had alot of contrivences and I would LOOOOOVE to go to a comic art gallery opening as depicted in the film. It sort of reminds me of the thinking behind Alan Moore's ABC line and the advent of Science-hero.

17:44 / 05.03.04

Indeed. Now, slightly off topic, the comic shop seen in the film, does these heavenly places actually exist?

18:08 / 05.03.04

Now, slightly off topic, the comic shop seen in the film, does these heavenly places actually exist?

Yeah... there are about 3 such comics shops with-in a 15minute drive from where I live...
One of the many reasons the Bay Area of California is so worth a visit!!!

Haus of Mystery

19:14 / 05.03.04

Bad Bad Bad Movie. Ponderous self important anti-fun by the most over-hyped director of the last 10 years. Poo.

19:37 / 05.03.04

I agree with mr. celebrity face and Chesed. It was crap, insulting to superhero dorks like myself and boring to the "civilians".

I did like that one scene where he & his son test his strength limits. And c'mon, SECURITYMAN is such a cool superhero concept.

Okay, maybe it didn't totally suck. It was like 98% suck.

Haus of Mystery

20:21 / 05.03.04

Hunnerd per cent I'm afraid. Am i really supposed to accept that Bruise Willees never noticed that he'd never been sick or hurt, and had super-strength until someone pointed it out to him? Balls.

20:54 / 05.03.04

Yup, I agree. Although I did find it to be somewhat entertaining, some of the ideas were pretty good, but it didnt manage to pull it all the way through. Or even halfway

22:15 / 05.03.04

I think the point was that "security man" would be a ridiculous superhero name... but the function of "security" on a piece of clothing is a mudane equivilent to a big red S. . .
. . . you read it and know what it's supposed to mean.

David Dun's charactor had not been "tested" since his car accident so the opportunity to even test this "super strength" was never sought, untill his kid got the idea in his head. He may or may not have been bullet proof either.

But that's how I viewed the movie and enjoyed it as such, still do; dispite any Poos posted here.

04:01 / 06.03.04

I was only mildly impressed when I first watched Unbreakable, but upon a recent viewing, I have to say it's one of the best superhero movies I've ever seen. Better by far then either Daredevil or X2, in any event.

I remember there being a great thread about the movie back in the day. It must've been wiped out in one of the purges.

07:54 / 06.03.04

I really enjoyed it too. Sorry everyone. [And if you don't mind - I am going to move this to Movies & TV.]

11:35 / 06.03.04

Am i really supposed to accept that Bruise Willees never noticed that he'd never been sick or hurt, and had super-strength until someone pointed it out to him? Balls.

Am I really supposed to accept that the gravity on Earth is so much lower than it was on Krypton that Superman isn't flying, he's just jumping a really long distance?

It's a superhero movie. There's no point looking for logical consistency.

19:59 / 06.03.04

Am i really supposed to accept that Bruise Willees never noticed that he'd never been sick or hurt, and had super-strength until someone pointed it out to him? Balls.

I think this is completely plausible. I think he'd just assume he was healthier than most people, or was just "tougher" than them, and doesn't get run down by sickness. Also, being a weightlifter, he probably assumed that whatever strength he had was due to that. Let's say you could fly right now, odds are you wouldn't ever try.

And also, even if he did realize it, is he automatically going to assume he's a superhero. He'd probably just think he washes his hands enough.

As for the film, it's one of my favorite movies, and reminds me a lot of Alan Moore's Miracleman, but instead of being an archetypal Superman, he's an archetypal Batman. And, the subtle way it turns into a superhero movie when you're expecting a fairly standard thriller is phenomenal.

David's uniform, the green poncho, was visually perfect in mixing real world plausibility and traditional superhero style, and the shot where he's sort of melting into the green pool cover was phenomenal.

I think basically everything in the film works. It's much better than The Sixth Sense, and the crap that was Signs. Plus, the twist really ties everything together, despite not neccessarily as being as radically shocking as The Sixth Sense twist.

20:53 / 06.03.04

I thought the film was an excellent representation of a well scripted comic into a live action fil.

My only grip i suppose was the psycho scene . Why did he have to strangel the guy ? I mean his benching in excess of 350 pounds and his body can survive damage from a 100+ mph train crash wht not just let nut boy smash his own fists to pieces ?

Also another thing , why are demented psychotic characters (i.e Hannibal lecture for example) , never utterly destroyed in a movie ? The only one i can recall is at the end of the original Dirty Harry film where DH shots the guy at the end ? (Ok it could be argured one killer on a another there ?) Is it to retain the dark mystique of the hidden "evil" psychotic lunatic ?

22:52 / 06.03.04

Well, if you killed off the main character you wouldn't have much hope of keeping the franchise going. Anyway, there are plenty of films where the bad guy/s get their just deserts. Think James Bond - that's twenty-odd right there.

Why did he have to strangel the guy ?

Dubious morality = vigilantism = every superhero in the history of anything ever.

00:36 / 07.03.04

Has anyone here ever done any isokinetic testing? I haven't seen the movie in a while but thats what the weightlifting scene reminds me of. Every time he added more weight to the bar he lifted it at the same speed like he had just enough strength to get the job done each time.

01:29 / 07.03.04

Also another thing , why are demented psychotic characters (i.e Hannibal lecture for example) , never utterly destroyed in a movie ?

As a corollary to this, why is it that the villains die so often in post-Burton superhero movies?

Which is odd, y'know, because villains hardly ever get killed in the actual comic books. But we've had onscreen death scenes for (off the top of my head) the Joker, the Penguin, and the Green Goblin, and I'm sure there are some I'm missing...

11:27 / 07.03.04

Bad Bad Bad Movie. Ponderous self important anti-fun by the most over-hyped director of the last 10 years. Poo.

Yes. Unbreakable is about the most ponderous, pointless, ugly and stupid slice of filmstock wastage I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. It failed on every concievable level.

Not adding a great deal to the discussion, but nevertheless it has to be said. Again.

12:09 / 07.03.04

I was thinking more along the lines of a sprit destroying beating really (if anyone remebers teh Batman graphic novel Cult ?). Batman literaly demolishies his oppenant rather then killing him .

Haus of Mystery

18:27 / 07.03.04

Sorry, but Unbreakable tried to be logically consistent, and failed. i don't have problems with implausibility in superhero movies but I do have a problem with narrative laziness. It was because Unbreakable was so devoid of the thrills of super hero fayre that I doubly resented it. Why settle for Superman punching through time when we can have Willis' pinched face looking all pained and earnest, and not doing ANYTHING for a whole movie? And Christ, did it have to be so fucking slow?

18:52 / 07.03.04

But it was a movie about characters and about bringing the implausible into the light of day. If it was faster it would be a high costume effort - instead it was an attempt to bring comic book ideologies and beliefs into a totally plausible character-based context. I loved it.

19:17 / 07.03.04

and the twist - the baddy is...the only other guy in the film! and his super power is...he's really hopeless!

pinchface bruce or smirking skyscraper-breaker bruce? die hard is a better superhero movie, the escapades are far more 'no real guy could do this' and the baddy is actually scary. remember the early nineties when all a superhero needed to prove his moral superiority was a gun, a ripped shirt, and a no-nonsense 'tude? them were the days (been a while since you heard anyone say 'tude innit?).

i just thought this film lacked drama. long lazy shots, an ending given away in its first sentence, a totally uninteresting and immature relationship between man and wife, lingering moments of 'childlike' awe. 'sorry son i know i'm being a prick with mum but it's all because i never noticed that i hadn't had a cold in my entire life'. didn't he wonder what everyone was going on about? some fucking crime-fighter, mind like a steel trap that one.

Haus of Mystery

19:21 / 07.03.04

Plus that CHILD! God, give me Robin in green hotpants over that whey-faced little Bastard!

Hmmm. That sounds a bit dubious doesn't it?

02:47 / 08.03.04

Why settle for Superman punching through time when we can have Willis' pinched face looking all pained and earnest, and not doing ANYTHING for a whole movie? And Christ, did it have to be so fucking slow?

This is like asking why Dr. Mahattan from Watchmen went to Mars instead of saving people. The movie is about David's struggle to realize himself as a superhero in the real world, not David beating people. The movie where he punches through time would be the next one, when he is already superpowered.

pinchface bruce or smirking skyscraper-breaker bruce? die hard is a better superhero movie, the escapades are far more 'no real guy could do this' and the baddy is actually scary. remember the early nineties when all a superhero needed to prove his moral superiority was a gun, a ripped shirt, and a no-nonsense 'tude? them were the days (been a while since you heard anyone say 'tude innit?).

While Unbreakable may be a superhero movie, it's not an action movie. Die Hard may be a better superhero movie if your qualification is 'no real guy could do this,' but Unbreakable is (I know this sounds cheesy) about finding the hero within. It's an extrapolation of classic superhero themes into the everyday world, and I think it does a phenomenal job of that.

When I first went to see the film, I was not expecting any of the superhero elements to appear in it, and that may have altered my judgment, and allowed me to enjoy his gradual transformation into a hero. If you're looking for the equivalent of Daredevil, you're in the wrong place.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

09:56 / 08.03.04

Bad Bad Bad Movie. Ponderous self important anti-fun by the most over-hyped director of the last 10 years. Poo.

Yes. Unbreakable is about the most ponderous, pointless, ugly and stupid slice of filmstock wastage I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. It failed on every concievable level.

Not adding a great deal to the discussion, but nevertheless it has to be said. Again.

So you haven't seen Hulk, then, Riz?

13:57 / 08.03.04

Indeed. Now, slightly off topic, the comic shop seen in the film, does these heavenly places actually exist?

Well, the comic shop seen in the film is actually a cafe on Spruce Street in Philadelphia, made over for the film.

15:17 / 08.03.04

But it was a movie about characters and about bringing the implausible into the light of day.

..assuming the 'light of day' consists of living in an arty car advert and spending all day staring at a gurning bald man practicing 'moody'.

Unbreakable is the perfect example of that utterly reprehensible level of Hollywood fare which is far worse than the mindless action trash, in that it dispenses with being entertaining in favour of spending it's running time going "Look, we're being SERIOUS! We're making a PROPER film! We'll make you crease your forehead and go 'hmmm...'!", but failing to actually put in anything good like, say, a non-retarded idea or an engaging character or an interesting bit of film-making or, like, a point.

So you haven't seen Hulk, then, Riz?

No, thankfully. God, it looked bad..

The Natural Way

15:25 / 08.03.04

And then you have to put up w/ that wanker's name fading up from black at the end.......

UUUUUURRGGGGGGGGGGGGH!

Have you ever seen the Shyamalan prick interviewed? He really believes he's a fucking auteur. He's so caught up in being "worthy". Double UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRGGHHH! Describes 'Sixth Sense' as a bloody phenomenon.

His shitty films are only "clever" if you live on a diet of McG.

Actually, given the fact that I'll prolly end up addicted to the OC, I'd better think of a another example........

15:31 / 08.03.04

Describes 'Sixth Sense' as a bloody phenomenon

Well, wasn't it?

And on the whole, this thread is really depressing to me. When did actually try to make something interesting and new become worse than just churning out more blockbuster, written by committe tripe. If you didn't like it, that's fine, but that doesn't make the entire venture a failure, and it's clearly a film that has people who loved it and got what he was trying to do.

15:40 / 08.03.04

and at the end we discover

HE WAS DEAD ALL ALONG!

mazing. toadily mazing.

The Natural Way

15:51 / 08.03.04

When did actually try to make something interesting and new become worse than just churning out more blockbuster, written by committe tripe.

For Cry-eye, Patrick! There's a whole fucking WORLD of indie film out there - it's not just Shyamalan and Hollywood. Twist endings and high concepts alone do not great cinema make. And, yes, lots of people liked Sixth Sense (the fools - "She saw you dance, Mama! She saw you dance!" Urrgh!), but Shyamalan is so high on his own bullshit it's horrid.

Jesus, I just can't get why he doesn't come across to EVERYONE as a pretentious time-waster. All that fucking portent, furrowed browing and, hmmmm, "beardy" subtext (a Preacher rediscovers his faith! Wow!).

Sound and fury signifying nothing. Not even THE ARSE.

16:29 / 08.03.04

Jesus, I just can't get why he doesn't come across to EVERYONE as a pretentious time-waster.

Because tastes differ? I thought that both Sixth Sense and especially Unbreakable were a lot of fun. (I liked Signs a lot less). Worthy? I don't know. They aren't the greatest films of all time, but the complaints seem to focus around the fact that he doesn't make action movies, hence we slide into pretentious and boring.

I thought Unbreakable was well told and gripping, actually. The fact that it didn't Zonk! Kapow! and Kersplat! the audience into submission isn't necessarily a flaw in my book. The fact that it took a well worn and standard comic book theme and did something different with it, surprising those of us who went to see it not knowing anything about it, is to its credit. I loved the way the twist locates the film completely in the comics world and there is a deep sense of satisfaction in watching the film reach that closure. I don't think the surprise or otherwise of the ending is particularly relevant, in that sense.

And underlying it all we have Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson wrestle with the meaning of their lives, in what we incerasingly realise is a fantastical world. But none the worse for that, if you ask me.

In the end, I don't think of Shyamalan as a stunningly original director. Instead I think he has made a couple of films which, despite the conventionality of the subjects, are fresh because of the deliberate quirkiness of the director and his competence in being able to realise that.

16:39 / 08.03.04

wow...
It seems the people who disliked this film have been moved to a greater passion than those who enjoyed it, I wonder what that says about Shyamalan's ability to stur some sort of emotion from his audience.

Of the 3 films being discussed in this thread (well those by the same director, rather than Hulk which I still like!!! and Daredevil) I still think Unbreakable best captures the feel and style Shyamalan seems to strive for. I didn't like 6th sence much and am so-so about SIGNS...

Haus of Mystery

17:18 / 08.03.04

Shamalamadingdong is a classic example of someone's ego being inflated before he could develop an interesting cinematic voice, Crap ending aside, I enjoyed the Sixth Sense to a degree but Unbreakable was just tripe. I'm not watching Signs as Mel Gibson creates homicidal urges in me, but from the trailer I can tell it'll be a fun-vacuum. I resent him taking UFO's, Ghost Stories and Superheroes and rendering them so dull. I'm not interested in cod-religious allegories and pseudo-philosophising in place of genuine awe and stimulation.

Page: (1)2