For those of you who thought UNBREAKABLE sucked....
Jorge Von Zidek
it. And that doesn't mean saying, "it was too slow," or "the ending sucked".
Blanket statements like that are cop-outs. Give instances where you thought
they should have sped it up if you think it was too slow. If you refuse to do
this, then you make yourself look like a simple-minded fool and make your
opinion null and void. Personally, I loved the flick. I think it is better
than Sixth Sense. I don't care if you hated Unbreakable or not, but at least
give some reasoning to why youhated it.
"No shooting friends Joseph."--Audrey Dunn (Robin Wright-Penn)
Ken Ream
"Jorge Von Zidek" <kyzrs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001129020636...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
But Jorge "it was too slow" and "the ending sucked" is all they got.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
KalElFan
(Jorge Von Zidek) writes:
>...please indulge the rest of us with some logical reasoning why
>you didnt like it. And that doesn't mean saying, "it was too slow,"
>or "the ending sucked". Blanket statements like that are cop-outs.
>Give instances where you thought they should have sped it up if
>you think it was too slow...
I like UNBREAKABLE a lot and the slow pace did not bother me
in this one. It would in a sequel, but in this one that style was
good because Dunn has basically been asleep for years, indeed
his whole life, and was just waking up. We were also going from
this mundane "real world" to something more interesting that
culminated in the shock ending. So it worked for me.
That said, your dismissal of the criticism is silly. Saying "it was
too slow" is a perfectly valid criticism for *some* people who may
demand action in their movies, especially wannabe blockbusters.
They don't have to cite examples, because the whole friggin' movie
is like that. Dunn sleepwalks through about 15 minutes of screen
time trying to figure out if he's ever been sick, etc. You have to
really appreciate the feel and style of the movie to like this kind
of thing. Many did, but many didn't.
qp...@my-deja.com
> ...please indulge the rest of us with some logical reasoning
> why you didnt like it.
I wouldn't worry too much about why others hated this film, as long as
you enjoyed it. Indeed, polarization on this film was inevitable as it
is a follow-up to one of the most popular movies of 1999. Here are
some of the reasons people might not like the film, most of them were
apparent to me before I even saw it.
* "It's not enough like THE SIXTH SENSE."
* "It's too much like THE SIXTH SENSE."
* "There is no wire-fu, bullet cam sequences, or CGI."
* "It's a MATRIX rip-off."
* "I guessed the 'surprise' ending before the movie was over."
* "The movie was great until the end. Since I didn't correctly guess
the ending, it sucked."
* "Night Shyamalan is popular, therefore he must be a hack."
* "They denied the audience a kewl train-crash scene."
* "There is no hip-hop music, jump cuts, or scenes of people walking
calmly towards the camera and away from an explosion."
* "There are no bad puns every time a villain is dispatched."
* "Too much hype."
* "Tested poorly with teens."
* "Michael J. Fox dies at the end."
And finally...
* "Both Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis are in this film, yet
neither of them says the word 'motherfucker!'"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter Bott
complaints. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
Personally, I thought it was too slow and only "ok" up until the
ending. I loved that ending and it gave much added substance to
everything I thought was too slow or illogical. Because of the
ending, everything Mr. Glass said and did made perfect sense to me,
and the symbolism of the artist illustration vs. the comic book cover
seemed to come full circle.
But, by that same token, I grew up on comic books, so the ending,
which I should have saw coming but still came as a complete surprise,
was something I could fully appreciate. I can't see as many non-comic
book fans getting as much appreciation from the movie as I have.
Any movie I think of a week after seeing it is a good movie in my
book. Unbreakable has crossed my mind several times since seeing it,
and I'm definitely intending to pick this up on DVD when it comes out.
Peter Bott
On 29 Nov 2000 07:06:36 GMT, kyzrs...@aol.com (Jorge Von Zidek)
wrote:
John Harkness
>
>> ...please indulge the rest of us with some logical reasoning
>> why you didnt like it.
>
>I wouldn't worry too much about why others hated this film, as long as
>you enjoyed it. Indeed, polarization on this film was inevitable as it
>is a follow-up to one of the most popular movies of 1999. Here are
>some of the reasons people might not like the film, most of them were
>apparent to me before I even saw it.
>
>* "It's not enough like THE SIXTH SENSE."
>* "It's too much like THE SIXTH SENSE."
>* "There is no wire-fu, bullet cam sequences, or CGI."
>* "It's a MATRIX rip-off."
>* "I guessed the 'surprise' ending before the movie was over."
>* "The movie was great until the end. Since I didn't correctly guess
>the ending, it sucked."
>* "Night Shyamalan is popular, therefore he must be a hack."
>* "They denied the audience a kewl train-crash scene."
>* "There is no hip-hop music, jump cuts, or scenes of people walking
>calmly towards the camera and away from an explosion."
>* "There are no bad puns every time a villain is dispatched."
>* "Too much hype."
>* "Tested poorly with teens."
>* "Michael J. Fox dies at the end."
>
>And finally...
>
>* "Both Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis are in this film, yet
>neither of them says the word 'motherfucker!'"
>
Which may, of course, be an absolute first.
BTW, the actress Charlayne Woodard, who plays Elijah's mother, I think
she gets added to the list of actresses who were younger than the
actor playing their adult son -- Jackson is 52 this year, and though
Woodard has been around longer -- her first credit was Hair, in 1979,
I think she was born in the early to mid-50 -- She was almost
certainly younger than 30 when I met her in 1982, when she was
nominated for a Genie (Canada's Oscar) for a film called Hard
Feelings.
John Harkness
Marc Fleury
>Personally, I thought it was too slow and only "ok" up until the
>ending.
Funny, I felt the opposite way. It was great, up until the ending.
I am also a big comic book fan, like you. And, although the ending
made me smile, it's a bit too prosaic for what came before.
-- Marc.
ind...@my-deja.com
In article <20001129020636...@ng-bk1.aol.com>,
kyzrs...@aol.com (Jorge Von Zidek) wrote:
>I don't care if you hated Unbreakable or not, but at least
> give some reasoning to why you hated it.
I'll bite. First of all, I didn't hate the film at all. I thought it
was good, but flawed. I plan on seeing it again. Someone isn't a
moron simply because one felt the movie had its weaknesses. Most of my
complaints stem from the writing, as opposed to the direction. I think
the concept of the work and Elijah's character are unique and
fascinating. I do think there were some wrong turns, though.
> "No shooting friends Joseph."--Audrey Dunn (Robin Wright-Penn)
Ironically, your signature quote was problematic for me. Shaymalan
sticks humor into a terrifically suspenseful scene, diluting much of
the tension. Was this really a scene that needed a laugh?
In general, I found the subplots with David's family to be underwritten
and less than compelling. I didn't feel that the wife nor the child's
character arcs were completed in any satisfactory way. And yes, I see
where completion was attempted. I did like the conflicts, though -
there was just too much going on in the film for the family to receive
as much attention as perhaps it deserved. Having said that, the
David/Elijah main plot was infinitely more interesting.
I also didn't feel there was an appropriate climax. Yes, the ending
was abrupt, which wouldn't have bothered me had their been a true
climax. One could consider David's apprehension of the killer to be a
climax, but it comes out of left field as a subplot, and doesn't
*directly* relate to the relationship between David and Elijah. Yes,
it inspires Elijah to reveal his secret to David, but there is no sense
of finality or closure in the character's relationship. Elijah simply
gives the information to David, and the film is over. No struggle.
Finally, my biggest complaint is with David's psychic powers. He
receives these visions every time he touches someone? Since when? If
it had been occuring his whole life, as he seems to imply, then it's a
bit hard to suspend disbelief when David is unaware of his unique
status. Leaving the psychic powers out would have brought an element
of ambiguity to David's skills. Was he truly supernatural or just a
normal man led to believe he's supernatural? That question would have
added depth to the film. Instead, it becomes Shaymalan's attempt at a
super-hero art film.
OK, feel free to argue. I've got an open mind, and I did enjoy most of
the film, aside from the above points.
Brad Schauer
Jorge Von Zidek
>
>Ironically, your signature quote was problematic for me. Shaymalan
>sticks humor into a terrifically suspenseful scene, diluting much of
>the tension. Was this really a scene that needed a laugh?
I feel it was because the entire movie up to this point had been very serious,
nothing humorous for the audience to have a release through (except maybe
Elijah telling the customer to fuck off). The audience was on tension overload
at that point and needed something to help release it.
>Finally, my biggest complaint is with David's psychic powers. He
>receives these visions every time he touches someone? Since when? If
>it had been occuring his whole life, as he seems to imply, then it's a
>bit hard to suspend disbelief when David is unaware of his unique
>status. Leaving the psychic powers out would have brought an element
>of ambiguity to David's skills. Was he truly supernatural or just a
>normal man led to believe he's supernatural? That question would have
>added depth to the film. Instead, it becomes Shaymalan's attempt at a
>super-hero art film.
>
I think David had those powers all his life, but only used them whenever he
chose to. David appears to be the type of individual who would only use them
when they would be necessary (while working security for the games, the train
about to derail--since using the power would help save his life). At the end,
he decides to embrace this power and use it for no other reason than to see
into other people's lives; to look for instances where he could do good.
impr...@my-deja.com
I liked the scene in the kitchen with the gun. The rest of the movie
reminded me of a Tori Amos concert - very "artistic" and pretty, but I
had trouble staying awake.
Some things I didn't like in Unbreakable:
1) It was WAY too long (especially the weightlifting scene - I got the
point already!).
2) There characters were weak and uninteresting, lacking in depth.
3) For a "realistic" portrayl of the subject matter, it was too
unrealistic at times. (Not sure if you're invulnerable? 2 seconds
with a sewing needle should clear things up. Refer back to "way too
long.")
4) I thought Willis' character was a retard or had some sort of freaky
brain cloud. How hard is it to remember whether or not you've had a
sick day? Maybe make this 3a.
5) Samuel Jackson looked like Buckwheat on a bad hair day. Well, ok,
maybe this was actually amusing.
6) There seemed to be no point or unifying theme to the movie.
7) I got tired of watching Bruce furrow his brow after the first 15
minutes.
8) There was very little intellectual stimulation. There were so many
issues that could have been raised but were not. Search previous posts
regarding "Watchmen."
Overall I found it boring. Some of the scenes were nice, but it all
came acros as so much eye candy after a while. It was just one slow,
artistic shot after another. The story would have made a nice Twilight
Zone episode. Stretching it out to 2 hours was ridiculous.
--
-Imp
Theatre is life,
Film is art,
Television is furniture.
Please check out www.improvius.com
STEPHE96
>> ...please indulge the rest of us with some logical reasoning why you
>didnt like
>> it. And that doesn't mean saying, "it was too slow," or "the ending
>sucked".
How 'bout the complete lack of internal logic? Why can't Bruce Willis SEE that
the drug dealer played by M. Night ditched the drugs in the bathroom
wastebasket?
King Dinosaur
you didn't like it. And that doesn't mean saying, "it was too slow," or
"the ending sucked". Blanket statements like that are cop-outs." ***
I think several posts clarify the reasons why people are saying they
dislike the movie. Almost all are saying several scenes confused them.
Many of the references used for those scenes are extremely obscure.
It's not that the audience is stupid. It's that they have no prior
knowledge of a particular symbolism or technique.
Don't attack people who say they dislike the film and their reasons why!
M. Night Shyamalan's fatal flaw was to create a movie than couldn't be
enjoyed on various levels. One example I can give to highlight my point
would be the old "Rocky & Bullwinkle" cartoons of the early 1960s. Not
all, but a lot of kids enjoyed the goofiness of the characters and
stories. The cartoon also works on a silly cerebral level. There are
many puns and references to living people that are clearly aimed at
adults. Jay Ward had a better grasp on mass appeal than Shyamalan.
I've been remaining quite civil while posting response to people who
didn't catch the symbolism or deeper meaning of scenes in "Unbreakable".
But there is something that's beginning to get on my nerves about the
majority of the posts...
It's perfectly understandable for people to question what something
means in "Unbreakable" especially if the person who posts the comment
says that it was one of the reasons they disliked a scene. What's
completely baffling is the number of people posting that they really
liked or loved the film without fully understanding it!
I'm not going to single out posts where I clarified a meaning or scene
for someone. If you're that interested to see if I know what I'm
talking about than research my posts on your own. But the general theme
of many of the posts are "I saw this or interpreted that. What does it
mean? I loved the movie!" They love being confused?!
I continue to stress that M. Night Shyamalan weakly or vaguely conveyed
the complete story. This is basically an art house or avant-garde film
being marketed to the mainstream. Don't use the blanketed statement of
"I love this movie" if you don't fully understand it. You are not
showing your intelligence nor wisdom by making such a statement.
If you're having difficulty understanding the point of view of this
post, let me put it to you in terms from a scene in "Unbreakable".
Remember the scene in which you first see Elijah Price (portrayed as an
adult by Samuel L. Jackson) in his art gallery? Remember his reaction
to the buyer once Elijah discovered the purchase was by someone who
didn't really understand the artwork, but said he loved it? The
writer/director was making a statement about his own followers and fans.
KINGDINOSAUR
The Munificent but tortured Mr. Hole
qp...@my-deja.com wrote:
This is wonderful, great job!!
>
> > ...please indulge the rest of us with some logical reasoning
> > why you didnt like it.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about why others hated this film, as long as
> you enjoyed it. Indeed, polarization on this film was inevitable as it
> is a follow-up to one of the most popular movies of 1999. Here are
> some of the reasons people might not like the film, most of them were
> apparent to me before I even saw it.
>
> * "It's not enough like THE SIXTH SENSE."
> * "It's too much like THE SIXTH SENSE."
> * "There is no wire-fu, bullet cam sequences, or CGI."
> * "It's a MATRIX rip-off."
> * "I guessed the 'surprise' ending before the movie was over."
> * "The movie was great until the end. Since I didn't correctly guess
> the ending, it sucked."
> * "Night Shyamalan is popular, therefore he must be a hack."
> * "They denied the audience a kewl train-crash scene."
> * "There is no hip-hop music, jump cuts, or scenes of people walking
> calmly towards the camera and away from an explosion."
> * "There are no bad puns every time a villain is dispatched."
> * "Too much hype."
> * "Tested poorly with teens."
> * "Michael J. Fox dies at the end."
>
> And finally...
>
> * "Both Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis are in this film, yet
> neither of them says the word 'motherfucker!'"
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
The Munificent but tortured Mr. Hole
This post reflects the spirit and historical significance of the collected
works of William Shakespeare, H.G. Wells, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, and
Jack London, although some dramatic license has been taken.
M.I. #1981
PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION: http://members.nbci.com/_______/backstreet.html
How's your hole..............family?
impuissant / Cronan / Captain Infinity
The Munificent but tortured Mr. Hole
This is wonderful, great job!! Really I mean it!
>
> > ...please indulge the rest of us with some logical reasoning
> > why you didnt like it.
>
KalElFan
KI...@webtv.net (King Dinosaur) writes in response to another
poster:
>I think several posts clarify the reasons why people are saying they
>dislike the movie. Almost all are saying several scenes confused
>them...
The people who don't like it are saying it's *slow*. That, and the
the ending which they aren't confused by they just think it's stupid,
are the two main criticisms.
>Many of the references used for those scenes are extremely obscure.
>It's not that the audience is stupid. It's that they have no prior
>knowledge of a particular symbolism or technique.
They don't give a crap about any particular symbolism or technique.
The people who don't like it think it was excruciatingly slow, and had
a dumb ending. I don't agree with them, and the movie worked for
me, but you don't have to be a brain surgeon to figure out the reason
most of the movie's detractors had for not liking it.
>Jay Ward had a better grasp on mass appeal than Shyamalan.
Right, the writer-director of the #10 grossing movie of all time has
less of a grasp on mass appeal than some guy who I gather had
something to do with Rocky & Bullwinkle, that cult favorite that
got made into one of the biggest box office bombs of the summer.
>I've been remaining quite civil while posting response to people
>who didn't catch the symbolism or deeper meaning of scenes
>in "Unbreakable".
Well, that's mighty fucking decent of you.
>But there is something that's beginning to get on my nerves
>about the majority of the posts...
>
>... What's completely baffling is the number of people posting
>that they really liked or loved the film without fully understanding
>it!
Of course! How dare they have the fucking audacity to like or
love a film without understanding King Dinosaur's Treatise On
Symbolism Or Deeper Meaning of Scenes In "Unbreakable",
no matter how fucking clueless that Treatise might be? Speaking
of which:
>If you're having difficulty understanding the point of view of this
>post, let me put it to you in terms from a scene in "Unbreakable".
>
>Remember the scene in which you first see Elijah Price (portrayed
>as an adult by Samuel L. Jackson) in his art gallery? Remember
>his reaction to the buyer once Elijah discovered the purchase
>was by someone who didn't really understand the artwork, but
>said he loved it? The writer/director was making a statement
>about his own followers and fans.
On the other hand, he could have not been insulting his followers
and fans. He could have been writing for a character in his
movie, and his actual quotes in a USA Today interview this
week could reflect his view of moviegoers: he said he wants
to make crowd-pleasers.
King Dinosaur
titled Fractured Fairy Tale:
" 'What is the politically correct thing to say? That I think I made a
good movie and that I hope people enjoy it? Isn't that how it goes?'
Word for word. But then this is M. Night Shyamalan speaking, Hollywood's
most happening --- and apparently most confident --- new wonder boy. So
there's more. 'But the truth is,' he states bluntly, 'I set out to make
THE movie of the year, to make one of the five Oscar-nominated movies.
That was my goal. That was my intention. Definitely.' "
Next quoted section concerning M. Night's technique.
" '...And yet most people in the audience probably don't even notice
what he's doing.' Oh, they notice, even if they don't notice that they
notice. Shyamalan's innovations may be subtle --- or harder to spot
with his larger budgets --- but his stars say he's every bit as edgy a
filmmaker as those goateed hipsters at the Independent Spirit Awards. "
'Nuff Said.
Excelsior.
KINGDINOSAUR
A.Patyk
STEPHE96 wrote in message <20001129214529...@ng-mk1.aol.com>...
>>
>'Unbreakable' was boring as hell (and, yes, I GOT the movie), with a script
>that made absolutely no sense. I've asked this before but I've yet to see
any
>of the movie's defenders explain this lapse in the film's logic: why
didn't
>Bruce Willis SEE that the drug dealer had ditched his drugs in the
bathroom?
>He touched him, didn't he?
Were is it shown that everything is revealed upon Dunn touching someone? He
seems to get a glimpse of the most severe instances of recent wrongdoing,
not a detailed history. He didn't see many details. No flaw in the film's
logic.
not Ruth
step...@aol.com (STEPHE96) wrote:
> >
> >> ...please indulge the rest of us with some logical reasoning why you
> >didnt like
> >> it. And that doesn't mean saying, "it was too slow," or "the ending
> >sucked".
I felt that it was not well written enough for me to suspend disbelief and
accept the central premise.
That ok?
FooserX
overload
> at that point and needed something to help release it.
Tension overload? Hahaha...PLEASE. What tension? You mean they were
BORED as shit and were desperately grasping for anything to make them
feel like their money was well spent.
X
FooserX
> If you're having difficulty understanding the point of view of this
> post, let me put it to you in terms from a scene in "Unbreakable".
>
> Remember the scene in which you first see Elijah Price (portrayed as
an
> adult by Samuel L. Jackson) in his art gallery? Remember his reaction
> to the buyer once Elijah discovered the purchase was by someone who
> didn't really understand the artwork, but said he loved it? The
> writer/director was making a statement about his own followers and
fans.
Gawd. Okay...you've got a movie called "Unbreakable" about a man who
survives a train wreck, and is supposedly invulnerable. It's underlying
theme is similar to comics in that it has a hero and villian. For 2
hours, the only action you get is one measly scene where he gives the
bad guy a sleeper hold. Do the math. It's ludicrous to think we're all
morons because we're not connecting every scene to symbolism. If we
really wanted to, I'm sure we could dissect Casper the Friendly Ghost to
the point of being a life changing movie revelation that EVERYONE should
be forced to watch to better their lives. People don't go to the movies
for this shit. They go to be entertained. At least the mainstream
audience does.
You guys are making out the fun of this movie to be discovering all
the symbolism. Since when does ANY movie get deemed great because you
can seek out every little scene and make your own symbolism. Gawd. If a
movie is going to work, it needs to work on every level. The Matrix was
deep and thought provoking, but even for the people who didn't have a
clue what was going on...they could still sit back and say "whoa" to the
special effects and action.
Making a big deal out of Elijah crashing into 3 boxes of comics before
finding the sentry? Camera motions symbolizing a "turning point?"
Colored themes indicating super heros? Is this how you guys get off to
movies? Gawd...the should be entertaining as well as deep. If he's only
making these slow ass movies to appeal to some sub-culture group of
people who make themselves love boring movies to feel like they're
smarter than everyone else, then join a film club or something. But
don't preview a movie and tease the public with a concept such as
"unbreakable" and then deliver them a boring piece of shit.
It's not that we CAN'T come up with all the connections...it's that we
went to the damn theater to escape, and have fun, and instead, we get
stuck with some boring, one-dimensional flick. So yah, I CAN say this
movie was boring and leave it at that...
STEPHE96
"Unbreakable" is the predictable result whenever a so-so director whose last
movie was an unexpected HUGE hit is pretty much given free-reign to make his
"labor of love." M. Night discovered two things with this movie: 1) a movie
camera can film upside-down, 2) stuff filmed in a reflection "looks cool."
'Unbreakable' was boring as hell (and, yes, I GOT the movie), with a script
that made absolutely no sense. I've asked this before but I've yet to see any
of the movie's defenders explain this lapse in the film's logic: why didn't
Bruce Willis SEE that the drug dealer had ditched his drugs in the bathroom?
He touched him, didn't he?
After making 'The Sixth Sense,' the 9th highest-grossing movie ever, it's no
surprise that M. Night Shyamalan become incredibly arrogant. I'm sure his ego
will come crashing back down to earth after this fiasco....
Susan Umpleby
news:9045cm$rmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The audience was on tension
> overload
> > at that point and needed something to help release it.
>
> Tension overload? Hahaha...PLEASE. What tension? You mean they were
> BORED as shit and were desperately grasping for anything to make them
> feel like their money was well spent.
>
--------Have to agree.
Paul Richardson
no
> surprise that M. Night Shyamalan become incredibly arrogant. I'm sure his
ego
> will come crashing back down to earth after this fiasco....
Fiasco? The film made back it's budget opening weekend. Not too shabby.
KalElFan
(STEPHE96) writes:
>After making 'The Sixth Sense,' the 9th highest-grossing movie
>ever, it's no surprise that M. Night Shyamalan become incredibly
>arrogant. I'm sure his ego will come crashing back down to earth
>after this fiasco....
Arrogance does come across in some articles, but in the end I
think there's as much backlash against the people who take that
and justify wishing that a movie will fail. We saw this with Titanic,
and it's one of the things that made the success of that so sweet.
If he wants to make crowd-pleasing movies that get nominated
for Oscars, just like his first effort Sixth Sense and just like
Cameron and Spielberg and other directors have done, more
power to him and screw his few Cheerleaders For Failure. They
just get him more publicity.
Also, the movie just passed $50M yesterday after only 8 days,
so it's hardly a fiasco. I think it could have opened bigger than
it did, and been better received, with a campaign that better
prepared people for the comic book element. But there's no
way these numbers say "flop"; the movie has survived that
danger.
ttim...@my-deja.com
kyzrs...@aol.com (Jorge Von Zidek) wrote:
> ...please indulge the rest of us with some logical reasoning why you
didnt like
> it.
OK, I'll try. Mind you, I don't think it sucked; it was simply mediocre.
1. The movie was slow because:
Why didn’t Mr. Glass talk to Dunn directly right after the
accident? Why not simply send him a much more detailed letter, or call
him, or just walk up to him? Why send such a cryptic card with such a
cryptic question? Obviously, for dramatic purposes.
Why did the movie waste 15 minutes on whether Dunn had ever been
sick? He spends nearly 5 minutes asking his wife a simple question and
we spend another 5-10 minutes at his security job where this question is
brought up with a secretary and his boss. I know they want to establish
that Dunn was a security guard, but just showing 15 seconds at work
would suffice.
Why does the entire cast talk
so slowly? Both Dunn and his wife seem to take hours to complete
a simple sentence. MNS likes his characters to talk like this because he
had them do the same in the Sixth Sense. He is much too in love with the
dramatic pauses in mid-sentence. The first scene of the movie is a
classic example: I was screaming in my mind, "Hurry up and tell them
what is wrong with the baby! The boy's bones are broken for heaven’s
sake!"
The main entertainment value of this movie is it’s playing with
the audience’s mind for 2 hours as to whether or not Dunn is
unbreakable. However, in reality this question could have been answered
very easily and quickly in a matter of minutes.
MNS directed this and the Sixth sense with a similar style and
pace, and yet the Sixth sense worked because every 10-15 min., the
audience was entertained/scared shitless by the ghosts the kid saw. This
movie had no such mechanism to keep the audience entertained. Imagine
the Sixth Sense with no scary ghost scenes; you get Unbreakable. All it
had were scenes indicating whether Dunn was unbreakable or not.
Certain scenes were unnecessary, pointless, and intentionally
distracting. First, the gun scene-why was the son so troubled and wanted
his dad to be a superhero so bad that he would risk killing him? We know
he is disappointed that his dad is only a security guard and that his
mom and dad are breaking up but there is not enough background
information to make that scene believable. Furthermore, MNS was playing
with our emotions by having this scene drag-on for such a long time.
Second, the drug dealer scene-why frisk him if he knew he threw
it away? This scene was to throw both the characters and the audience
off. Nothing else.
Third, the comic book store scene-I can understand that Mr.
Glass is upset that Dunn is not unbreakable, but why spend minutes
showing him in the store acting grumpy. MNS used this scene for dramatic
purposes. Mr. Glass knew what the comic book story was about so he did
not have to be in a store, anyway.
2. I had difficulty suspending disbelief when:
If Dunn is unbreakable then he can never get a vaccination shot,
a blood test, a flesh wound, a bruise, a paper cut or maybe even his
nails trimmed.
The fact that he lost consciousness after the accident proves
that is NOT unbreakable because the impact had to have compressed vital
arteries and nerves in the brain for him to be knocked out.
As a football player, he must have always tested his physical
limits, not when he is over 40. If you can lift the weight, you keep
trying until you can’t, especially if you are part of a college football
team with all of your teammates pushing you.
How can he fake an injury that is so severe that he must stop
playing football? An injury that severe requires extensive medical
treatment and at least one year to rehab. Furthermore, the injury he
sustained is kept a secret because MNS obviously couldn’t think of a
good one.
To prove he is unbreakable, simply take a needle and try to
prick his skin, no gun is needed.
Why did he bring his son with him to see Mr. Glass, a complete
stranger. MNS did this so that his son can hear and believe that his dad
is a super hero. This sets up the pointless gun and weight lifting
scene.
A better question would be have you ever been cut, bruised,
burned, pricked or injured in any way? Why didn’t Mr. Glass, ask a
simpler and more definitive question? MNS knows that everyone gets a
small flesh wound every month, but there are a few people who do not get
sick for years, so Mr. Glass’s question is more thought provoking and
difficult to answer.
If he could see what bad things people have done by simply
touching them, why does he wait until now to question these visions?
n[m]
step...@aol.com (STEPHE96) wrote:
> >
> >> ...please indulge the rest of us with some logical reasoning why you
> >didnt like
> >> it. And that doesn't mean saying, "it was too slow," or "the ending
> >sucked".
>
> How 'bout the complete lack of internal logic? Why can't Bruce Willis
> SEE that
> the drug dealer played by M. Night ditched the drugs in the bathroom
> wastebasket?
Was it my imagination, or was M. Night wearing two different coats - an
orange and green one in the bathroom, and a blue poncho when Bruce
frisks him?
--
Noah
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
--Frank Zappa
FooserX
> Was it my imagination, or was M. Night wearing two different coats -
an
> orange and green one in the bathroom, and a blue poncho when Bruce
> frisks him?
Maybe that symbolizes his "dual" role in being an actor and writer!!!
And the TWO colors means he's both good AND bad!!!
ANOTHER DISCOVERY!!!
AWESOME!!!
(I don't know if Night is the writoer or director or what...so don't
bother responding to that. :-)
X
Lord Jubjub
<mackenzie.19.killspam...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu
>, "n[m]" <mackenzie....@osu.edu> wrote:
> In article <20001129171439...@ng-cv1.aol.com>,
> step...@aol.com (STEPHE96) wrote:
>
> > >
> > >> ...please indulge the rest of us with some logical reasoning why you
> > >didnt like
> > >> it. And that doesn't mean saying, "it was too slow," or "the ending
> > >sucked".
> >
> > How 'bout the complete lack of internal logic? Why can't Bruce Willis
> > SEE that
> > the drug dealer played by M. Night ditched the drugs in the bathroom
> > wastebasket?
>
> Was it my imagination, or was M. Night wearing two different coats - an
> orange and green one in the bathroom, and a blue poncho when Bruce
> frisks him?
Wasn't that flashback in black-and-white?
--
Lord Jubjub
Ruler of the Jabberwocky, Guardian of the Wabe, Prince of the Slithy Toves
ttim...@my-deja.com
I can't believe I forgot about this problem: At first we are told that
he was injured in a car accident. So, for the next 2 hours MNS plays us
for fools by reminding us that he did get hurt so he may not be
unbreakable. However, Bruce knew all along what happened in the car
accident with his wife. And yet, MNS intentionally does not show us the
flashback until the END of the movie! What a cheap trick to play on his
audience! This movie would only be one hour long if we saw the flashback
right after he met Mr. Glass! That is why this movie is slow, illogical,
and incredibly over-rated.
John Harkness
Really? Makes me wonder if you wre paying attention. I thought it was
instantly obvious from Dunn's reaction in the scene where the kid
tells Price that he'd been injured that he'd never been injured in the
car accident -- it is, in fact, the great lie that has come to define
his life. That's why Dunn keeps going back to it -- reading the
clippings, etcetera -- the car accident represents "the road not
taken"
John Harkness
Didn't see the ending coming, though
ttim...@my-deja.com
talking too much and how uncomfortable he was whenever he talked about
the accident. However, MNS only used these subtle hints as a clue to
whether Dunn was unbreakable or not, not as definitive proof. He still
played the "is he or isn't he" game to the hilt for next hour, UNTIL he
showed us the flashback where he reveals definitively that not only was
Dunn not injured but he had super strength. Heck, MNS showed all of
Dunn's visions to us, why not show us the flashback in the beginning
when the accident was first mentioned? He intentionly left a very
critical piece of info. from the audience so that he can play with our
minds for 2 hours. Admit it, we were scammed.
Mark Reichert
> Dunn's visions to us, why not show us the flashback in the beginning
> when the accident was first mentioned? He intentionly left a very
> critical piece of info. from the audience so that he can play with our
> minds for 2 hours. Admit it, we were scammed.
Because Dunn was scamming himself. He didn't have that flashback until the
end of the movie so we didn't see him either. He'd convinced himself he was
injured in the accident up until the visit to the wrecked train.
--
Please respond only in the newsgroup. I will not respond
to newsgroup messages by e-mail.
ttim...@my-deja.com
"Mark Reichert" <ma...@nospammessagelink.com> wrote:
> <ttim...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9071ga$6rm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > when the accident was first mentioned? He intentionly left a very
> > critical piece of info. from the audience so that he can play with
our
> > minds for 2 hours. Admit it, we were scammed.
>
until the
> end of the movie so we didn't see him either. He'd convinced himself
he was
> injured in the accident up until the visit to the wrecked train.
> --
injured? He only convinced his family and Mr. Glass that he was. He kept
this secret only to his wife and family because he wanted to marry his
girlfriend. His reactions every time the accident is mentioned clearly
indicates that he is knowingly hiding the truth. Even Mr. Harkness
states that a part of his psychological problem is his regret of not
taking the other path. He knew all along he was not hurt but he never
thought it meant anything until the train accident and when Mr. Glass
brought the possiblity of his powers. MNS only SHOWED us the flashback
when he felt it was the right time, ie., 2 hours later!
Another cheap trick MNS plays on us is the swimming pool accident that
Dunn had "forgotten". Just when the characters and the audience start to
believe that Dunn is unbreakable, MNS drops this false clue on our laps.
If Dunn had not forgotten this incident, he would have mentioned it at
the beginning and then Mr. Glass would have to answer both the car
accident and the drowning problem much earlier. Of course, the injury
problem only arose primarily because MNS, for some unknown reason, has
Dunn bring his son along for their first meeting with a complete
stranger! If his son was not there, there would be no reason why Dunn
would need to lie to Mr. Glass about the accident. Oh, I forgot, his son
was there to force him to lie and set up the ludicrous gun scene and the
weightlifting scene. The more I think about it, more I hate how cheaply
MNS was playing us.
Helen & Bob
Susan Umpleby wrote:
Not in the theater I was at. I thought it was an O.K. see it once film.
Not a "great" film, but an OK comic book movie. I didn't "love" it, nor
did I "Hate" it. I got my 5 bucks worth. But I wont see it again. Its
not worth a 2d look.
Bob
Susan Umpleby
news:3A29DAEF...@ix.netcom.com...
> Not a "great" film, but an OK comic book movie. I didn't "love" it, nor
> did I "Hate" it. I got my 5 bucks worth. But I wont see it again. Its
> not worth a 2d look.
> Bob
---------Well, when I saw it, several people got up and walked out (though I
suppose that could have been because they just couldn't stand the tension &
suspense? :-D ). I hung in there because this was a movie I had been
looking forward to seeing & I kept hoping it would improve. I actually
don't *hate* the film, but I was highly disappointed by it overall & my
foremost feeling leaving the theatre was "what a waste of money." Listening
to comments from people around me proved I wasn't alone in this...
Helen & Bob
Susan Umpleby wrote:
Obviously, we were at different theaters. We've got to stop not meeting like
this.
Bob