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)

19:00 / 08.03.04

Uh, hello, Doctor Freud? Bruce Willis wasn't ignorant of his powers, he was in denial about them because he wanted to be a regular guy. The problem with the movie, as I think Rizla and Spaliance have ably (if somewhat frothily) pointed out, is not in its plot or premise but in its truly extremely pretentious execution. Maybe if it had been well-written, well-directed & well-acted it would've been a better movie. It was very pretty.

Aside: Mr. I'm a celebrity, cut my face off and wear it like a mask., are you Will Wheaton?

Haus of Mystery

19:48 / 08.03.04

No I'm Kenny G.

20:02 / 08.03.04

Oh yeah? The floutist or the radio disc jockey?

Haus of Mystery

20:44 / 08.03.04

Neither. And both.

16:23 / 11.04.05

Liked it.

Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!

16:56 / 11.04.05

I think it's important to divide the artist from the work in this case.

Shamayalangodango is an arrogant, self-important tit, but that doesn't stop me from loving Unbreakable... although it is slow at times, I thought the ending was perfect; not so much a twist, but a perfect circle within the story.

Besides, if we're judging art on the personality of the artist, I hate so much art it's not funny. Grant Morrison and Alan Moore can be pretentious wankers often, but they still make killer comics more often than not.

Also, I think many of Mr. Sham's films are much improved on the small screen. I saw Signs, thought it was shit.... then saw it on TV and it scared the fuck outta me. I only ever saw Unbreakable on TV, so perhaps it's improved by that sort of medium in some way.

17:20 / 11.04.05

Hmm... there seems to be something of a backlash against M Night. I can only understand it in relation to the impact that 'The Sixth Sense' had - on its release it was a groundbreaking film, but because the majority of insight in the film is stacked at the end, it's not something people will commonly want to watch more than once. So people demanded a lot from his next film - that it be as good.

No idea what Shayamalan is like as a person, but i find his cinematography inventive, unusual, and i think he draws particularly strong performances from his cast.

Regrettable Juvenilia

21:25 / 11.04.05

Demanding that a film be good isn't demanding a lot!

21:30 / 11.04.05

I love you Petey Shaftoe.

21:32 / 11.04.05

To be as good as the sixth sense is pretty good, tho

06:49 / 12.04.05

It's not so much the ideas behind Unbreakable, but rather the execution that puts me off.

Sure he's trying to treat superheroic ideologies seriously, but does he have to do it with grey filters, ponderous pacing and an insistence that none of actors smile, let alone laugh.
That's a TEENAGER'S idea of treating a subject seriously. Unbreakable, like all Shyamalan films, is absurdly po-faced and as awkward as an adolescent.

Also, it's a brave critic who wouldn't accuse it of portentousness. It builds and builds and builds and the pay off hits with the all the strength of a dry sponge. It's all very well going on about it being a "perfect circle", but Shy was going for a punch - for a twist* - and he failed.

*I will argue the point until the cows come home

lonely as a cloud...

08:02 / 12.04.05

I enjoyed Unbreakable quite a lot - I admit, I only saw it for the first time at the weekend and hadn't read any reviews or spoilers or anything else. I thought it took itself way too seriously - especially Sam Jackson's character - but it was a fun movie. I thought pretty much the same about Signs - Mel G takes himself too seriously while battling aliens whose only weakness is BASEBALL BATS! - but I enjoyed The Sixth Sense the way I guess it was intended - as a thriller. I do think Shallyman or whatever his name is has slightly too high an opinion of himself, but the premises for most of his movies are more fun than most of the crap Hollywood spews forth.

14:34 / 12.04.05

The first time I saw 'The Sixth Sense', I'd had the twist, though unspoiled, horribly ground into me as the most brilliant scripted genius of all time since last summer. So, while I'm watching and waiting... the twist never came. Walked out of theatre, listened to friends talk about movie, and realized, the twist had been something I'd taken for granted since about the first quarter of the film. Shit. I didn't quite want my money back, but when I see a movie that's supposed to come at me from my blindspot and smack me in the head like a swarm of hallucinogen-coated bullets, I want surprise.
This has poisoned my view of all his films, no doubt. 'Unbreakable' annoyed me every step of the way, except the little things with the villain, like the green and purple, but then, these were things Sam Jackson brought in himself. So Sam Jackson could make a badass superhero movie all on his own, but unfortunately it wasn't the movie we were given.
Frowny people and first-year undergrad psychoanalysis of superheroic tropes does not entertainment make, I'm afraid. Especially when everybody's stoic and slow, paced all to hell, with nothing particularly interesting happening for long stretches that never seem to get anywhere and of course, hero in the rain 'cause nobody's ever seen that, be we can't even make that dramatic here, because it might excite people and get them to forget that this isn't enjoyable and immense because to be serious and adult is to be small and paced and seriously serious.

09:55 / 18.04.05

i say brilliant.

you cant make a superhero movie without being pretentious and contrived. mns knows it and deprived the audience of anything 'super' as well. this film is my favourite bw selfparody; better than 5th element even.

a genrebusting film is never going to be as tight as a formulaic exploration. i thought the sloppiness was pretty minimal here, and mostly came from poor direction of the secondary actors, including slj.

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:08 / 18.04.05

you cant make a superhero movie without being pretentious and contrived.

Yes, you can. It's called Mystery Men. I saw that just after I saw Unbreakable and it struck me the extent to which MmmmmmBop Shaman is wrong about superhero comics. This idea that they're in the same tradition as great myths and legends, that they speak about fundamentally archetypes or whatever - well, maybe, but does it have to be so portentous and plodding and po-faced? The mistake is to think that in order to show "true heroism" or whatever you have to strip out all the goofy crazy dayglo shit that has also always been part of superhero comics. Give me a skull in a bright green bowling ball and a guy who throws spoons at people any day.

12:03 / 18.04.05

Haus of Mystery

12:50 / 18.04.05

Exactly.

15:07 / 18.04.05

the only film of his i have disliked so far has been 'the village'. i couldn't work out the purpose of the film.

22:23 / 18.04.05

The mistake is to think that in order to show "true heroism" or whatever you have to strip out all the goofy crazy dayglo shit that has also always been part of superhero comics. Give me a skull in a bright green bowling ball and a guy who throws spoons at people any day.

I think it's a mistake to go into Unbreakable expecting a comic book style superhero movie. If you want Flex Mentallo, you're going to be disappointed. When I went to see the movie, I only knew it was about a guy who was the only survivor of a train crash, so it was really surprising to see it develop into a superhero story.

But, I think it's not meant to be so much a comic book story, as an adaptation of superhero characteristics into real world people. The film isn't designed to show 'true heroism,' it's designed to show what would likely happen if someone in real life was invulnerable, how it would affect his daily life, and how he would actually go about being a hero.

So, complaining that the film isn't pop-crazy enough is like saying the same thing about Alan Moore's early Miracleman, which was a big inspiration on the work. The thing I love about the film is that it's not a power fantasy, it's more a purpose fantasy. Elijah explicitly, but also David is just lost in the world, and they each find a purpose in these archetypal roles.

I think the slow pacing is a large part of what makes David's choice to be a hero so satisfying. The film puts you in the mindset of this guy who is living a normal life, with something that's just a little off, and when he finally does become a hero, the train station and subsequent rescue scene is phenomenal because he finds the extraordinary in the everyday. The world hasn't changed, his view of what is possible in it has.

I love the over the top superhero stuff too, but I can appreciate the idea of playing out a superhero story in a more realistic way, and I think besides being a great superhero story, it's just a great character piece.

Jack The Bodiless

10:30 / 19.04.05

Yes, you can. It's called Mystery Men.

Well, that's reductive. You can't compare a character-based drama to a comedy, it's utterly pointless. Same as comparing it to Die Hard (dumb as fuck argument if ever I've heard one. Hey everyone! Let's hold Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind! They're both Jim Carrey movies!).

I saw that just after I saw Unbreakable and it struck me the extent to which MmmmmmBop Shaman is wrong about superhero comics. This idea that they're in the same tradition as great myths and legends, that they speak about fundamentally archetypes or whatever - well, maybe, but does it have to be so portentous and plodding and po-faced? The mistake is to think that in order to show "true heroism" or whatever you have to strip out all the goofy crazy dayglo shit that has also always been part of superhero comics. Give me a skull in a bright green bowling ball and a guy who throws spoons at people any day.

Yes, yes - but there are 101 of this kind of superhero movie. It's the norm. Shyamalan may not be the most original director in the world, and his reliance on a twist ending to the exclusion of dramatic tension may be gratingly annoying, but it's pointless and rather shallow to ask why (WHHYYYYYYY?) he didn't just make a traditional superhero movie. He didn't want to. He wanted to look at it from a different angle. You may not like the angle he chose, or the execution of the concept (others clearly do - I thought it was fantastic), and you can argue about that if you really want to, but saying that if he wanted to make a film about a superhero, he should have done it a certain way - is that really the point you're trying to make, Fly?

Haus of Mystery

10:42 / 19.04.05

But, I think it's not meant to be so much a comic book story, as an adaptation of superhero characteristics into real world people

Hmmm. But why are they 'real world people'? Because they're so dour? Because it rains a lot? I don't think the film explored a great deal other than a very, very basic superhero tale stretched out over far too long.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:21 / 19.04.05

Yeah, exactly. I didn't go into the film expecting it to be "pop-crazy", in fact I didn't even expect it to be about comics - so I groaned when that opening title came up, informing portentously us about how many comic books are sold every year or whatever - which is hilarious becuase it's really not a great figure, and annoying because as we all know not all comics are about superheroes. I'm not saying "this film failed because it was not this other very different film", I'm saying "this film is annoying because its whole aesthetic and philosophy is pompous and boring".

By "true heroism" I meant, "what would likely happen in real life", Patrick.

Jack, before we get carried away can I remind you I was responding to the claim that "you can't make a superhero movie without being pretentious and contrived".

12:15 / 19.04.05

All the real world is moody, broody, angsty, washed out, and walking about quietly and slowly in the rain. Doesn't everyone know this?
Nothing fun, fast, entertaining, witty, silly, or even awe-inspiring ever occurs in The Real World.
Obviously.
Of course, if I had superpowers, I'd probably wear a costume. Hell, my wardrobe's so one-note these days it practically counts as a costume.
If I were played by Bruce Willis, I'd wear tights and a cape, I would. Of course, if I were played by Bruce Willis people would probably die laughing and confused.
I want my superpeople having a bit of energy, y'know? Somebody you'd run into at a good and proper club, caffeine addicts up at three in the morning in pretentious coffeehouses. Not the suspicious, sour-faced old man in a big coat hovering outside of the Tom Cat or something.
Both are reality, both are the real world, but it has to be both, not necessarily one or the other.

15:11 / 19.04.05

It's not entirely the dark angstiness that makes it realistic, it's the fact that the guy has problems that are fairly common, he's got a regular job, just going along, then he discovers he's superpowered. The primary difference is in the way the film is constructued. Something like Spiderman, you know he's going to become a superhero, you're just waiting for it, but here, you don't expect a story set in a superhero world, so when those elements start creeping into the story, it's surprising.

I think it goes back to that Kill Bill speech about how Clark Kent is the disguise, Superman is the guy. That's true of most superheroes, but here, even when he's fighting, he's still clearly just David. I think that's the human element, the realistic element of the story, because he's adding the super to the human, not the human to the super.

17:37 / 20.04.05

I saw Unbreakable in the theatre without knowing a single thing before. I had no idea and that made the film much more entertaining. Once someone tells you that it's about superheroes (or ghosts or aliens or villages), it ruins it entirely.

I liked the movie in the theatre, except for the child. He bothered me. (I was happy in Mystic River when he had no lines)

Bruce just can't act. It's that simple. M. Night has got to choose better actors.

(And with Signs, the movie would have been 1000 times better if we had NEVER seen the alien....)

Unbreakable seems to me to be about potential. It's not about superhero deconstruction. It's not about the difference between good and evil and all that Alan Moore navel gazing. Unbreakable explores Bruce's potential to be a hero, a father, a husband, a do-gooder.
While watching the film, I harboured a suspiscion that the movie would end with a climactic battle between Bruce and Samuel and that Samuel would monologue and gripe about how the world is not fair and he's going to destroy it or something. Then, Samuel just went to jail. Woweee.

Anyway, the movie would have been more accepted if M. Night didn't have a hard-on for a slow pace. He's got to accept that he's not Hitchcock. People don't like slow movies anymore. We live in a culture of Armageddon and Pearl Harbour, where the main character's moral dilemma ends up being "Should I sleep with her or not?" (Not that that can't be a sticky ethical drama or anything) I think M. Night would have been more suited to the late seventies style of thriller, like The Omen or The Exorcist; movies that take their time setting up characters then systematically breaking them down....

17:37 / 20.04.05

I saw Unbreakable in the theatre without knowing a single thing before. I had no idea and that made the film much more entertaining. Once someone tells you that it's about superheroes (or ghosts or aliens or villages), it ruins it entirely.

I liked the movie in the theatre, except for the child. He bothered me. (I was happy in Mystic River when he had no lines)

Bruce just can't act. It's that simple. M. Night has got to choose better actors.

(And with Signs, the movie would have been 1000 times better if we had NEVER seen the alien....)

Unbreakable seems to me to be about potential. It's not about superhero deconstruction. It's not about the difference between good and evil and all that Alan Moore navel gazing. Unbreakable explores Bruce's potential to be a hero, a father, a husband, a do-gooder.
While watching the film, I harboured a suspiscion that the movie would end with a climactic battle between Bruce and Samuel and that Samuel would monologue and gripe about how the world is not fair and he's going to destroy it or something. Then, Samuel just went to jail. Woweee.

Anyway, the movie would have been more accepted if M. Night didn't have a hard-on for a slow pace. He's got to accept that he's not Hitchcock. People don't like slow movies anymore. We live in a culture of Armageddon and Pearl Harbour, where the main character's moral dilemma ends up being "Should I sleep with her or not?" (Not that that can't be a sticky ethical drama or anything) I think M. Night would have been more suited to the late seventies style of thriller, like The Omen or The Exorcist; movies that take their time setting up characters then systematically breaking them down....

20:13 / 20.04.05

Um, it's not just the slow, see my post above.

20:38 / 20.04.05

I may be alone in this, but I don't really think of Hitchcock, when I think of "slow pace." There's an inertial tension in Hitchcock films can pretty safely be attributed to directorial pacing alone.
I just didn't think 'Unbreakable' had anything interesting to say or an interesting way of saying it. Interesting equaling entertaining.
'Le Samurai' was slowly paced (that film was *pace*) and I enjoyed it, just fine.

Brigade du jour

21:24 / 20.04.05

Bruce just can't act. It's that simple.

Bruce Willis appears, to the best of my recollection, to be something of a grumpy, humourless git in 'real' life. So if he can't act, how do you explain four seasons of 'Moonlighting'?

03:10 / 21.04.05

Humourless?

07:21 / 21.04.05

I think to say that Bruce can't act is a little unfair, as it seems to me that M. Night does prefer his leading men to be quite deadpan. Willis in both Sixth Sense and Unbreakable is quite restrained and brooding, as is Mel Gibson in Signs. All three characters are quite 'still waters run deep' kind of people and I think Night just likes his men to be, well, men.

Brigade du jour

22:14 / 21.04.05

Fair point, K9. Mind you, makes you wonder doesn't it? Is Willis acting when he's Mr Grumpy or was he acting when he was Mr Addison (and the coolest motherfucker on the planet when I was 12)?

Page: 1(2)