Elijah (Samuel L. Jackson) barely survives being born with a rare disease that leaves his bones extremely brittle. He grows into a dealer of comic book art driven by need to find his polar opposite, an invulnerable individual, and is attracted to David Dunn (Bruce Willis), the sole survivor of a train wreck. His attempts to persuade Dunn of his "powers", Dunn's initial refusal then, encouraged by his needy son Joseph (Spencer Treat Holmes), apparent acceptance of them, forms the spine of a picture that is part domestic drama (Dunn and his wife Audrey (Robin Wright Penn) are on the verge of separation as the film opens), part parable (about the heroism in all of us) and, I suppose, part comic book.
I say 'I suppose' because this is the strand of the film that director/writer/producer Shyamalan seems least comfortable with. For a movie about comic books, Unbreakable doesn't feel much like a comic book movie, as muted in mood as in palette (lots of wintry, almost industrial, blues and greys). Until about three-quarters in, the notion that Dunn is actually blessed with superhuman powers is treated with, at the very least, scepticism. Dunn's increasing self-belief is motivated by his need to measure up to his young son's quiet adulation of him, which itself is stimulated by the boy's fear of losing one or other of his parents. Indeed it is the domestic tensions that Shyamalan handles best, with the burly Willis both physically and psychologically repressed by what is, on one level, the mother of all mid-life crises. There is one terrific scene in the Dunn kitchen where the desperate Joseph tries to prove his growing certainty in his father's apparent invulnerability by threatening to shoot him, the scene ending with the three family members slumped exhausted against the three kitchen walls framing the screen.
This sort of visual symmetry is a favourite Shyamalan device, and is at least preferable to his other habit of filming scenes from unusual angles or distances. Far too many scenes are shot upside down, others rotate 360 degrees, in others the camera is positioned high above the actors for no good reason. One early scene takes place entirely in reflection on a television screen, another appears to have been shot with the camera attached to Willis' elbow as he carries Wright Penn up the stairs. This fidgety style seems designed to distract the audience's attention from the fact that Unbreakable is pretty much a chamber piece, and not perhaps what they were expecting from a picture with such high-wattage casting.
But it is this very fact that recommends the film. This is as thoughtful a mainstream picture to come of Hollywood in a good while and - stop me if this starts to sound ridiculous - Willis is developing as a credible, understated performer of some presence. Consider his recent career against that of his fellow conspirators in global convenience catering, Sly Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose latest pictures have misfired badly, and a picture emerges of an actor comfortable within his limited range who chooses his material with some taste.
If Unbreakable is ultimately a slight step backward for Shyamalan from The Sixth Sense (1999), the blame does not lie with Willis. Rather, it has the whiff of a half-finished script dusted off in the aftermath of that film's unpredictable success - it is now one of the top ten money-makers of all time - and finished in a rush to capitalise on the earlier triumph. The merits of the respective 'shock' endings of the two films are instructive. In The Sixth Sense, it was the icing on the cake, a pleasing twist at the end of what was, even without it, a satisfyingly spooky yarn with a rigorous internal logic. In Unbreakable, the 'surprise' ending - heavily trailed throughout - feels like a gimmick, an attempt at giving substance to the supposed crowd-pleasing supernatural element that actually undermines all that is best about the film.
Reviewed by John Atkinson
Reader comments about Unbreakable
Gee Whiz! (No Spam, thank you m'am) writes:
It's not often that a Hollywood movie can be accused of being too short, but that's the case with Unbreakable. Even the fairly ordinary early sections are well-enough done and (perhaps because we now know something of the director's techniques) they whet the appetite. But the film builds beautifully to its water-and-plastic epiphany, and only in the hurried and unsatisfying conclusion are we disappointed. It's not that the Scooby Doo ending jars - it's that where the rest of the film is explicitly multidimensional (those angles and mirrors), the ending seems almost accidentally to embrace the comic strip themes and the two-dimensional that the movie has worked so hard - and generally managed - to avoid.But still, a small masterpiece and thoroughly recommended for the discerning readers of your excellent review.
giles clarke (g.clarke@chello.nl) writes:
What a load of crap. Avoid it. This movie cannot work out if it is a fairy tale about comic book characters or a kitchen sink drama or a saga of self discovery. Ultimately it fails in all three. The comic book angle (willis turns out to have superhuman powers of the caped crusader variety) requires significant suspension of disbelief - which I certainly was unable to do, given that the rest of the movie is set firmly in the urban everyday reality of a divorce. There is some mumbo jumbo type explanation for Willis' powers given by Jackson, which would have been acceptable within the context of say The Mummy or Superman, but this is supposed to be a serious movie - or at least it presents itself as such - and of course no-one seriously believes in MArvel action heros!. The domestic drama element centres around Willis' pending split with long time wife. It is all rather predictable - but what really kills it is that frankley none of the characters are interesting in the slightest. Do not expect Tenessee Williams or Joe Orton plots and lines. Willis spends most of the movie standing around looking pensive and moody. His wife smiles sweetly and regrets that they are getting divorced. They go out for dinner and make small talk (your favourite colour etc) And that's it. He barely utters a single sentance that suggests he is a character we would be in the slightest bit interested in finding out more about - or of empathising with. His wife is equally 2 dimensional - and the kid is frankly rather annoying. Things come to a head in a scene where the son points a gun at his father and threatens to shoot him to prove he is 'unbreakable'. Maybe it could have worked with better acting and directing but here it comes across as limp. All act their parts rather badly (no depth, no reality) so where as we should be drawn into this little tale, we are left rather uninterested by it all - so that only leaves the story line to engage us - well - don't hold your breath. Not a lot happens and when there is any action it is all rather silly. And finally - there is zero humour.
Scott P (Email address withheld) writes:
I'll be perfectly honest. I was immensly disapointed when I saw this. This Guy did the Sixth Sense!? I found it mostly boring and wondered of Mr. Shyamalan has lost his touch. Oh and its Spencer Treat CLARK, not Holmes.
Pollyzanna (Email address withheld) writes:
It was ok - an interesting theory albeit unoriginal - and to watch it was certainly an ok way to pass the time.
But when it finished I found myself thinking "Oh, that's it? Did I miss something?"
I wondered where it was going - what point was it trying to make? I have no idea. I left with the impression that a good initial idea had somehow faded away and no-one knew how to finish it off. A shame as I had expected more.
Matt. H (Email address withheld) writes:
If you think that this movie was a load of crap it's probobly because it's a little bit beyond your intelligence level. It means that you should be watching "Joe Dirt" instead of Shyamalan films. It was an amazing film and pretty hard to "not get".
Add your comments about Unbreakable [About]
