web
counter
 

Outside the Little Boxes

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (48)



unbreakable_dvd01.jpg

“It’s alright to be afraid, David, because this part won’t be like a comic book. Real life doesn’t fit into little boxes that were drawn for it.” -Elijah Price

Unbreakable is a film either loved or hated. People who hate it tend towards two poles: bemoaning that it has silly super hero elements stapled onto reality, or complaining that tepid and boring reality has infected a perfectly serviceable super hero flick. I prefer to apply the Reeses Axiom in this particular case.

Shyamalan originally envisioned the film as a three act story in the traditional structure of a super hero narrative: origin story, maturation into power, confrontation with nemesis. Shyamalan decided during the writing process that the origin story in this case was the most interesting story to tell and deserved to be expanded into the full length of the feature. That decision is derided by many fans of comic book films, who note that the origin story is so overdone as to be cliched at this point. How many freaking times do we really have to see Batman, Superman, and Spiderman go through essentially the same first hour of the film anyway? The difference in Unbreakable is in an unswerving devotion to grounding the film firmly in reality every step of the way. It is a retelling of the cliched super hero origin story with every genre element stripped out. If The Dark Knight distilled most of the fantasy of comic books out of the bottle, Unbreakable is Everclear, something even purer if not nearly as palatable.

Unbreakable follows an extraordinarily simple and logically appealing premise: if there are those with genetic flaws that make them supremely frail and weak, what if there are people on the other side of the curve who are impossibly invincible and strong? Would they even know what they were, or would they remain hidden in anonymity? After all, you don’t go to the doctor if what’s abnormal is that you never get sick.

Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson turn in superb performances as David Dunn and Elijah Price, both playing completely against the types that have dominated their careers. Willis is quiet, withdrawn, nary a quip in sight. Jackson is a genius trapped in a broken body, swinging between polar opposites of foaming passion and suicidal depression. The weakest component of the film is Spencer Treat Clark, who just doesn’t quite have the acting chops to hold up the large portions of the film dedicated to his portrayal of Willis’ son. It’s a shame Shyamalan couldn’t have snagged Haley Joel Osment for one more film.

The film’s visuals echo comic books, in the subtle ways that drab blues and grays dominate except for significant characters who jump out with signature colors of green, purple, orange. There are several shots that emphasize realistic projections of comic book norms, the most striking perhaps when David climbs out of a pool in the midst of the final confrontation, raising himself from one knee on clenched fist, head bowed, drenched poncho hanging around him exactly like a cape in a split second pose made iconic by just about every super hero comic book in print.

The script takes its time, allowing the events to unfold more as a mystery to be unraveled than the forging of a hero. David is a skeptic, looking not for something to make him special, but something to make him fit in. He wants to know why he survived. He wants to know what he’s meant to do in this world. He’s not a hero, he’s a man. The unfolding of the mystery plays out not as triumphant or gleeful, but as something horrific. David is horrified to be the only survivor of a train wreck, not a scratch on him. The doctors don’t look at him as a miracle but with a palpable unease. When David breaks in to see the wreckage of the train, sees that there is no rational way that flesh could survive it intact, he is sickened. When his son piles an ungodly amount of weight onto the barbell, and watches his father lift it without noticing, they both react with a breathlessness approaching terror. Horror is rooted in the unknown, and there is no more terrifying unknown than not understanding what you are, even if the mysteriousness is good in some objective way.

At its heart, the film isn’t really about comics or superheros so much as the myths we make to explain the world, the exaggerations we pile one on top of the other in a societal game of telephone, turning something simple into something grandiose. There’s a conversation early in the film in which Elijah explains how perfectly realistic an original sketch of a superhero is: muscles and proportions perfectly and lovingly sculpted like a work of Michelangelo. It’s only once it gets into the publication process that the exaggerations seep in, the fake bulges, the spandex, the otherworldly powers. Simple concepts become elaborated as we read them off of Plato’s wall, unimaginable strength turns into punches through steel, indestructible flesh becomes a mutant healing factor, the fact that a heroic man can drown like any other is explained by kryptonite.

But the myths work in the other direction too. The kernel of truth at the heart of them gives us some direction, some hint at the incredible things that truly are possible.


“Do you know what the scariest thing is? To not know your place in this world, to not know why you’re here.” -Elijah Price


Steven Lloyd Wilson is a hopeless romantic and the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. His novel, ramblings, and assorted fictions coalesce at www.burningviolin.com. You can email him here.









The 2010 Academy Award Nominated Shorts for Animated and Live-Action | The Best Buddy Cop Movies













Comments

It sucked. Enough said.

Posted by: sosumi at February 24, 2010 2:39 PM

I'm one of the few people that actually loved this movie. Aside from that, I'd say that this is one of the better reviews of a movie that I've read on this site in a long while. Kudos to you Mr. Wilson.

Posted by: CinnabarriGirl at February 24, 2010 2:44 PM

I love this movie. The scene in 30th Street Station where he's brushing against strangers always chills me.

Posted by: Julie at February 24, 2010 2:47 PM

I liked it. this is pretty much what I thought too

Posted by: blurm at February 24, 2010 2:49 PM

One of the best comic book films ever made. But then, I love when they take a comic book story and strip 95% of the comic book out of it for the screen.

That's why Spider-man 2 > Spider-man >>>>>> Spider-man 3. There's a direct correlation between the "comic bookiness" and the quality of the film.

Comic books have great serial stories but a ream of awful, vile, silly tropes. These tropes must be purged with fire before you put them up on screen, or you end up with Batman Forever or Batman and Robin.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at February 24, 2010 2:50 PM

I love this film, and I loved this review.

Posted by: Bizarro Sofía at February 24, 2010 2:52 PM

Great review. This eloquently explains why I liked this movie so much when I was a kid. I saw it with my dad and my brother and we all walked out of the movie loving it and were shocked to find out so many people _hated_ it. Looking back I worried that it was just my lack of taste as a youngster, but I'm glad to see that the movie still holds up well.

Posted by: Kayanne at February 24, 2010 2:57 PM

Great review as always. I guess I am one of the rare people who neither loves nor hates this film.

I've liked it more as time has gone on. I liked the overall tone and themes of the story and the two leads. I've always felt like the whole "madman trapping the family in the house" confrontation was a bit odd and tacked on. It just came out of the blue and didn't seem to fit the rest of the film. The kid annoyed me too. But, overall, it was decent.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at February 24, 2010 3:01 PM

Great movie. I especially dig the scene early-on when the blood's seeping through the dressing on the other crash survivor.

Posted by: the new transported man at February 24, 2010 3:08 PM

I'm liking your reviews more and more, SLW.

I'm in the group that enjoyed this movie. I love the subtlety of it and surprisingly, I thought Spencer Treat Clark was pretty good. He's not Haley Joel Osment, but he was believable.

Posted by: Brie at February 24, 2010 3:11 PM

One of the best comic book films ever made. But then, I love when they take a comic book story and strip 95% of the comic book out of it for the screen.

That's why Spider-man 2 > Spider-man >>>>>> Spider-man 3. There's a direct correlation between the "comic bookiness" and the quality of the film.

Comic books have great serial stories but a ream of awful, vile, silly tropes. These tropes must be purged with fire before you put them up on screen, or you end up with Batman Forever or Batman and Robin.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at February 24, 2010 2:50 PM

I disagree with this premise.

What about "Spider-Man 3" is more "comic booky" than "Spider-Man" or the original? While I am not exactly sure what "comic booky" is meant to be (other than perhaps a synonym for "stupid", "childish", "sucky", "poorly written" or something along those lines), I don't believe the reasons "Spider-Man 3" or "Batman and Robin" were so awful was because they were too much like comic books.

I've read a lot of comic books in my time (too many probably) and I have read some bad ones, though I've gotten pretty good at avoiding them over the last 10 years, but I can't think of anything specific about the medium that would link it more to films like "Spider-Man 3" and "Batman and Robin" and less to films like "Dark Knight", "Iron Man", "Unbreakable", "Sin City", etc.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at February 24, 2010 3:11 PM

I really liked this movie, even though someone spoiled it for me. I was like "don't tell me" and she was all "he's a comic book, it's really stupid". I wanted to kill her and then die myself.

Posted by: annoyingmouse at February 24, 2010 3:13 PM

I love this film, and I loved this review.
Posted by: Bizarro Sofía at February 24, 2010 2:52 PM

Yes. That. Ditto.

Posted by: Anna von Murderpuppet at February 24, 2010 3:19 PM

You wrote, "...the origin story is so overdone as to be cliched at this point."

The key meaning here is "at this point." At the time Unbreakable came out, comic book super-heros weren't main stream. The general public wasn't familiar with super-heros movies. Obviously we'd seen the Batman films, but those didn't really give any attention to Batman's "origins." Superman had come out -- what, 20 years earlier? Hardly in our recent memories (unless you are pathetic and watch it once a month like me).

It might seem cliched TODAY, but no more so than watching "Casablanca." At the time it was still fresh.

Posted by: superasente at February 24, 2010 3:19 PM

Great review of a near-great movie.

Posted by: Drake at February 24, 2010 3:26 PM

The scene at the kithen table where the kid figures out who/what his dad is while keeping it quiet from the mom? Killed. That was a beautiful, small, quiet moment that made the movie for me. This movie is made of parts like that. I know that sounds simplistic, like yeah, a movie is parts? but to me that's what it is: Individual scenes that... Oh, hey, wait. Did I just get it? Like panels in a comic book? Eh, whatever.

Not all the parts work and they don't flow but the kitchen scene, the comic book store, the bench. Good stuff.

Posted by: fpkillkill at February 24, 2010 3:26 PM

I decided to comment here instead of the political war that's erupted over in the newest "Chuck" thread. :-|

I didn't know what to make of this movie at first, and I'm pretty sure I didn't exactly like it on first viewing. The next viewing sold me, and I think what did it was the "evil" that Dunn finally went after...not some mad scientist with an island-based death ray, but a serial killer/rapist whose M.O. is sadly familiar to anyone who reads a real-world newspaper. I still don't particularly like the plot device used to get him there (clairvoyance) but the payoff was superb.

And then of course the ending where he simply calls the cops to put away the Big Bad. Nice touch.

Posted by: Barry at February 24, 2010 3:27 PM

I had the wonderful experience of watching this movie without knowing a thing about it beforehand. Really, not a thing. When that happens I think that reactions are purer, somehow, untainted by publicity and expectations, and in this case my reaction was unswervingly positive. I thought the movie was endlessly thought-provoking and, maybe because of my ignorance going in, I always think of it as a private experience, and am surprised when other people know it.

Posted by: J. K. Barlow at February 24, 2010 3:28 PM

I loved it. Alex(the BF) Loved it. I use it a lot, in conversations about Donnie Darko- as You said at the beginning, people hate it because they think it's a realistic movie with a 'silly' superhero theme stapled on- I say that in the universe created within the film, that is how superheroes and villains would appear-as a preternaturally lucky but otherwise unimpressive schlub, and a guy with brittle bones.

I love this film.

Posted by: Nadine at February 24, 2010 3:31 PM

>I love this film, and I loved this review.

+1

Posted by: jcollier at February 24, 2010 3:33 PM

Barry two things:

1.)"Yes!" about the ending. It was soooo in character for him. I get really frustrated when you have these characters that are all, "don't look at meeeeee" then do something really huge to call attention to themselves.

2.)Please come join us in the Chuck post. The violence is all in jest. Plus, I really need other people to validate my love for Chuck, sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who does :-\

Posted by: Kayanne at February 24, 2010 3:37 PM

The first and biggest thing that makes something "Comic book-ish" is kitchen-sinkism. Comic book heroes do too much with too many different kinds of characters in worlds over-packed with crazy shit.

Spider-man the comic book hero has villains of all types, including symbiotic alien suits. He fights battle royales with 3, 6, or 12 villains all at once and simultaneously has romantic and job subplots going at the same time, multiple villains can have fulfilling character arcs within the storyline, and so on.

Spider-man the movie hero is a lot less interesting when you have to spend screen time on 3 separate villain stories. He's fairly believable when all the villains come from a "science gone wrong" mold, just like Spidey himself. You've already suspended disbelief over the genetically modified spider, and it's not a huge stretch to get from there to an accident that attached robot arms to some dude's nervous system or turned some dude physically strong but emotionally unstable. Chains of similar coincidence stretch credulity less than completely un-related singular events. He gets drastically less believable when you start bringing in alien creatures with no backstory or relation to anything that went before.

A big part of this is simply to do with how the stories are structured. Serial magazines every month (or multiple times a month when the various titles are in crossover) have a different story-telling space than a 2 hour movie. When an individual issue of Spider-man has one crazy ass thing happen, you can adjust. But then you realize that a movie is telling the same amount of story as about 60 issues of the comic book, if not more. You can't have 60 crazy ass things happen in one 2 hour movie. Audience buy-in is harder. Multiple plots and characters are more difficult to juggle. Movie audiences accept fewer silly justifications for something that simply looks cool. This is partially because looking at something moving in 3 dimensions shows the seams more than a 2D splash page. Movie audiences want emotional resonance between the characters more than comic book fans do, in part because a character moving and breathing on a screen simply demands more emotional response than a 2D 4-color character.

Thought experiment: Pull Venom completely out of Spider-man 3. No symbiote changing Peter's personality, no job-related angst with Eddie Brock. Instead, just lean on the discovery of a different killer of his Uncle and MJ's career troubles kicking his relationship in the teeth. That is more than sufficient to get Peter to act out in self-destructive but less over the top ways.

It's a better story that way. Cleaner. Stronger emotional arc. And it gives you an hour of the movie back to deal with Sandman actually trying to help his daughter, following up on Aunt May dealing with old wounds about her husband, actually earning Harry's redemption, etc.

I think that's the strongest version, but you get results that are decent by pulling out either Harry or Sandman, too. But those characters have a built-in emotional connection to Peter, so they're harder to lose. They are also actually characters who fit into the little alternate New York they've built up in the movies without stretch marks.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at February 24, 2010 3:47 PM

Kayanne:

I figured there were enough unrepentant geeks inhabiting Pajiba to keep the Chuck love at a solid 9.5/10 or better. But I might stop in if you need reinforcements...

Posted by: Barry at February 24, 2010 3:52 PM

Absolutely loved this film, too. Actually, the fact that the entire theater burst out laughing at the final line of dialogue only sweetens the memory of seeing it opening weekend.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 24, 2010 3:53 PM

I absolutely love this movie, and it goes a long way to explain why I still tolerate M. Night Shyamallama.

It took a while to grow on me, I'll admit. The first time I saw it, I was sure I hated it. But then, a while later, I decided that I wanted to watch it again, and I actually liked it. Since then I've probably seen it five times or so, and the appreciation keeps growing with each viewing.

Another great review, Steven!

Posted by: Snath at February 24, 2010 4:03 PM

I hated this movie on first viewing, then grew to respect and admire it in retrospect.

A typically terrific review, SLW.

Posted by: Jerce at February 24, 2010 4:24 PM

This was the only Shyamalan movie I'd never seen, partly due to timing (I just wasn't watching many movies when it came out) and partly due to hearing everyone say how badly it sucked, and partly due to getting some severely inaccurate plot summaries from friends that made it sound supah-dupah-dull. Then I caught it on TV and holy crap, I loved it.

It's probably my favorite Shyamalan film. Granted, I only like two Shyamalan films, so that's not hard to do, but still.

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at February 24, 2010 4:27 PM

I absolutely hated this movie....but your review of it was well-written and insightful. I still hate the movie though.

Posted by: lillie at February 24, 2010 4:54 PM

First, thank you for this wonderfully objective review, SLW.

I have, over the years, given up defending Unbreakable from the common complaints:

1. "Oh I saw THIS twist coming a mile away! It was NOTHING like The Sixth Sense!"

I never viewed the ending of Unbreakable as the kind of twist that The Sixth Sense built toward. I saw it more as revelation and acceptance. Both men finally admitted who and what they were. One was terrified of what he became, the other revelled in it.

For the record, I'm not one of those almighty people who saw the twist at the end of The Sixth Sense the first time I saw it. A number of things rubbed me the wrong way - why a renowned psychiatrist would take the bus instead of drive his own car, why he wore the same clothes throughout the entire film, etc. But I didn't see it coming. I wasn't even looking for it. I sure wasn't looking for the same trick to be played in Unbreakable either.

2. "It was supposed to be a messiah story and became a comic book story."

After seeing it, I didn't think that any longer. True, the marketing sure made it out that way, but the film never leaned in that direction at all.

3. "It tried to be a serious comic book story!"

True, many superhero comics function from issue to issue with tongue firmly planted in cheek. But most attempt to be serious. They pose the question "What if this existed in our real world?" From Superman to the Watchmen, that is the intent. So this argument is just silly in my opinion.

***

Some of the most striking components of the movie, to me, were the very detailed attempts to recreate comic book frames in film. The scene you've described in your review. The shot where Dunn is perfectly framed inside the football stadium tunnel. The vivid colors and contrasts. The effort to style Sam Jackson's hair in such a bizarre manner plays directly into his description of how a villain is portrayed in comic book art.

Something else greatly important to me, in this film, is that while we were treated to an origin story (in the birthing days of this habit, as has been pointed out in the comments) no one had seen that origin story before. We were treated to a new hero, a new story, a new villain, a new series of discoveries.

It's far from a perfect film. In retrospect I find Shyamalan's repeated efforts to depict water as a universal weakness exceptionally dull and unoriginal. The dialog feels forced from time to time. Clairvoyance really felt like more of a crutch to validate Dunn, rather than a true part of his development.

Shyamalan's reputation has certainly played a part in dimming this film's lustre over the years. I don't regret owning it on DVD, however.

Posted by: lubeg at February 24, 2010 5:01 PM

Incredible review of a wonderful movie. Sure, it's imperfect, but perfection might be too much to hope for.
I always thought that the reason Unbreakable got a bad rap was more due to chronology than anything else. People walked into it wanting another Sixth Sense, and were disappointed. If Unbreakable had been released first, it may have recieved a better welcome. I also wonder how much Shyamalan's later movies were affected by Unbreakable's tepid reviews. Would we have had to suffer through the nonsensical twist endings of The Village and heavy handed imagery in Signs if the public had responded positively to Unbreakable?

Posted by: Tae at February 24, 2010 5:35 PM

Mr. Wilson, Thank You.

I am a huge Shyamalan fan, and yes I had difficulty working the Happening into my love, but Unbreakable was beautiful and poignant, and a sad meditation on heroes and on our sense of reality.

I always hope that decades from now, shyamalan will be honoured as a visionary, when the current pigeon hole of looking for his "twists" fades away.

For me, lady in the lake, and signs are some of the greatest feats of storytelling in modern film making. he could make films about rapping gophers and i will still always defend him as one of our greatest directors and storytellers.

thank you for this review.

Posted by: idleprimate at February 24, 2010 6:03 PM

This has always been my favorite M.Night film, and you and lubeg completely explained why it is so. A beautiful film, one that deserved more attention.

Posted by: EJ at February 24, 2010 6:15 PM

I love this movie. SO much. But I can understand why some people might not like it--it's a slow, ponderous movie, with a lot of silences and thoughtful moments where not a lot happens. But if you let yourself get into it it really sweeps you away and you realize how perfectly done it is.

Posted by: figgy at February 24, 2010 7:03 PM

Loved it when it came out. Love it now. For my money, Shyamalan's best movie (yes, even better than Sixth Sense).

I still remember losing my shit when the big reveal happened at the end. I ended up blurting out loud "Sonovabitch!" and got a few angry glares.

What sells it for me is how understated Bruce Willis is. He's not the smart-ass or the tough guy. He's very much lost and very much afraid of what it means to have lived through that tragedy and what it'd mean to accept Elijah Price's gospel. We tend to forget that Willis can act because he chooses over-the-top roles.

Great movie.

Posted by: Fredo at February 24, 2010 7:28 PM

Great flik. Maybe bruce's best performance ever, and the kitchen scene with his son and the gun is classic. And some love for Ms. penn, who was equally fantastic.

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2010 8:29 PM

Nice review. The more times I see this movie, the more I'm impressed by it's long takes and subtlety.

I feel like Shyamalan's films all deserve a second viewing. He gets a reputation as a hack, but he's incredibly focused in supporting a film's theme. Sometimes it's a little heavy-handed, but I enjoy his style.

Posted by: kelsy at February 24, 2010 9:35 PM

Thanks for the review. I loved the film. I think it's by far Shyamalan's best.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at February 24, 2010 9:38 PM

@ idleprimate

Bravo to you, sir. I'm with you 100%.

Posted by: ladywhiskers at February 24, 2010 9:38 PM

Sorry, saw it once and hated it. Sixth Sense was M. Night's fluke, the rest has been a one way canoe down shit creek, complete with asinine plot twists and a plethora of hokey moments.
This coming from an actor who did background extra work in The Happening.

Posted by: Kamikaze Feminist at February 24, 2010 9:57 PM

It was the ending. I think that's why so many people hate Unbreakable.

****SPOILERS *******


First of all, there's the twist aspect. M Night quickly earned a reputation as a one trick pony with the twist, and he seems hell bent on reinforcing that reputation ever since. Personally, I think the decision was defensible. Throughout the movie, Jackson's character and motivation made absolutely no sense from any logical explaination, and he came across more as a "magic negro" than anything else. In that sense, having his character turn out to be a psychopath explained his prior erratic behavior, made him a more believable character and, ironically, more sympathetic, in the process.

But then, it just ends with that awkward, awkward epilogue. Really, he just turns him in and that's it? The police accept David's version of events, no quesitons asked? Elija doesn't mention the fact that David was the vigilante who followed some man home and killed him with his bare hands? And the police don't ask how he supposedly knew Elija blew up the train, or what evidence he had?

That was what was wrong with Unbreakable -- that awkward, awkward ending. Everything up to that point was great -- hell, it was ten times better than the Sixth Sense. But just like The Sixth Sense proved an OK movie can be redeemed by a great ending, Unbreakable kinda proves the opposite. And its a shame, really, because it could have been an absolute masterpiece.

Posted by: Irving Washington at February 24, 2010 10:27 PM

Maybe I'm just insane, but I've always thought that a sequel to this wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. If he did it right, if he did it as well as he did this movie, it could be amazing.

Posted by: figgy at February 24, 2010 11:32 PM

Loved the movie, loved this review.

Posted by: sheshakes at February 24, 2010 11:52 PM

i want this review to get me pregnant.
real pregnant.

Posted by: gp at February 25, 2010 9:40 AM

I think part of the reason people hate this movie is because of the Shyamalamadingdong-backlash. Fact is, his movies after this one sucked donkey balls. The Sixth Sense was ok, if a little predictable. But man, I LOVE this movie.

I do agree with Irving Washington that the ending made no sense. I think if it just had ended at "They called me Mister Glass." and not tacked in the blurb at the end, leaving it ambiguous and open for interpretation, it'd have been MUCH more effective.

What really surprises me is how the hell he keeps getting work. Signs was a so-so movie, and The Village was dreck. How anyone gave him big studio money for films afterwards is beyond me. And jeez, Lady In the Water should have killed his career, what gives?

And now, he's gonna dump all over Avatar, what a douche.

Posted by: Danny from Puerto Rico at February 25, 2010 1:48 PM

@ ZombieScientist:

You miss the point by a mile. Almost all the arguments you raise against 'comic bookiness' are argument I raise against bad comic book MOVIES as opposed to the actual comics.

Of course it was a lousy idea to toss the alien costume into Spiderman III, that already included the Sandman story and the Harry Osborn sideplot. But guess what: the alien costume, dealing with Harry Osborn and fighting the Sandman were NOT all in ONE story in the comics! That's not a sign of 'comic bookiness! It's how comic fans see Hollyood utterly wrecking the source material. It's Hollywood who tosses everything on the screen because they want to sell toys. It's the bane of comic fans going to the movies.

Batman Forever and Batman and Robin? Couldn't be further removed from comics. Anyone holding these two up as examples of what's bad in comics probably never cracked open a comic in their life. No one hates those movies more than comics fans, exactly because they are SO far removed from the source material it's not even funny. To Schumacher, the source material was probably the Adam West tv show. (Bat credit cards?)

Oh and how on earth is a healing factor an exaggeration of invulnerability? That makes no sense. 'Super powers' are ways to play with the human condition on a physical level, which then shows its effects on psychological and social levels. If anything, enhanced healing is actually closer to normal human than straight invulnerability.

I neither loved nor hated Unbreakable, which makes me rare I suppose. I think a lot of it was really well done. And a lot was rooted, like this article, in misunderstanding comics or superheroes. (Being able to drown does not make water his kryptonite. Spiderman can drown. So can Batman. So could the Hulk. Most would also die if you shot them through the head. So bullets are Spiderman's 'kryptonite'? )

Also: Superheroes are a genre. Comics are a medium. Another thing M Night, the writer of this article and many posters here just not seem to be able to understand. And if you don't, you kind of have little business writing about either. No offense.

Posted by: Dantez at February 26, 2010 1:09 AM

I just wanna share my experience here. I found my boyfriend several months ago, who is 10 years older than me, at http://EUAgeless.com/, a free place for age-gap relationship. It's fabulous! Maybe you wanna check it!

Posted by: Jim at February 26, 2010 1:36 AM

Dantez

I don't think you read ZombieScientist's comments. Whatsoever.

I thought he presented a fairly decent response to Forbiddendonut's criticism. His definition of 'comic bookiness' was a better way of saying what you attempted to argue, although I concede that the title may have thrown you off.

Trust me, he had a good point to make.

You on the other hand?

Swing and a miss.

Posted by: Peter G at March 1, 2010 4:00 AM

Excellent review.

I was on the fence about the movie. The train/hospital scene is brilliant. And I agree, when Willis walks through the station, it is very chilling. I think it's because the people on the screen can be you or I.

And Shyamalan does strip the story down to bare bones.

But I found so many things wrong with it. Revealing the comic book connection so early. Jackson's obsession that there must be a physical polar opposite to his frail being.

It was like a roller coaster which began to crest the summit but you only plummeted four feet.

Posted by: seen92 at March 4, 2010 9:21 AM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time