Unbreakable (2000) User Reviews

Hugely underrated and misunderstood movie

[edinburghstoryteller · 8/10 · 10 January 2006]

I love this film. I'm the only person I know who doesn't hate it, but I cannot fathom why it gets such a bad rap from everybody. It seems that Shyamalan's films have this a running theme - with the notable exception of the Sixth Sense, which pretty much everyone seems to get. He makes movies that are very subtle, and which seem to need you to focus on them just right to fully grasp what he was trying to do. I've enjoyed all his movies, but for me the alien part of Signs takes a lot away from what I believe to be the central storyline and as such the whole movie suffers a little. Yet I know other people who think Signs is his best, specifically because of the way the alien plot line accentuates the central one.

Unbreakable is a beautifully simple film, but I think it has to hit you just right for you to completely get it. All the actors nail their parts, particularly Bruce Willis and his kid. Shyamalan takes an interesting (if slightly fringe) theory and puts it in a real world context, with a real family. Somehow he manages to never go overboard with it and - for me at least - it gripped me from the first moment to the last. Samuel L Jackson's character history is really nicely crafted in the middle of the other plot lines and you get genuinely involved in the people Shyamalan has created.

Don't get caught up in all the talk of the twist ending. The ending is good, but if you spend the whole movie waiting for this tumultuous twist you'll inevitably be disappointed, and the movie stands alone without it.

Don't go into this movie expecting another Sixth Sense or Signs. It's very very subtle and very understated. If you don't like slow movies, just don't watch this because it moves at a very sedate pace, but I personally think you'll be missing out. You'll likely either love it or you'll loathe it, but at least it will make an impression.

Rich yet subtle

[laconian · 8/10 · 1 July 2001]

My kudos to M. Night Shyamalan for proving the consistency of his moviemaking abilities. "Unbreakable" is a movie that is rich in both technical brilliance as well as script quality.

First, let me get my one objection for the movie off my chest. The ending could have been done better. The majority of the length of "Unbreakable" does an excellent job of building suspense, with the wonderfully muted, melancholy acting adding depth and tension to the plot. My problem is that it fails to live up to its own expectations; the ending does not consummate entirely what I expected it to. Somehow, in a movie that took painstaking details to illustrate every step and glance, concluding it in the manner that it did felt almost blasphemous. Maybe in a nameless action thriller it could be passed off as mere hackery. But here, it seems strangely out of place, kind of an enigma in itself...

Now that the ugly part is over with, I feel almost obligated to sing the praises of "Unbreakable". Shyamalan's prowess with photographic techniques and processes shows through in this, with rich reds and blacks given to scenes of moist emotion and colder colors dedicated to the bleak, uncaring (uncared for?) world. One technique I particularly liked was the manipulation of photographic mediums, some parts using crisp 35mm films and others using angry, shuttered magnetic (or 16mm?) film. In the end, it all worked very well, because each technique seemed to integrate seamlessly with the plot and mood (notice the confusion and panic at the very end?) "Traffic" is a good example of processing overdose. "Unbreakable", on the other hand, hones it perfectly. The lushness of this movie comes in close second to the wonderful eye candy of "American Beauty". I could watch it again easily... with the sound turned off!

On the more human side of the spectrum, the acting was wonderful. How nice it is to see Bruce Willis proving himself to be a true A-class actor! His unassuming and insecure behavior worked *perfectly* for this role. Samuel L. Jackson, like always, did a bang-up job with what the script gave him. Robin Wright and Spencer Clark's characters seemed a bit two dimensional, but they seemed to be minor roles compared to the prominence of Willis and Jackson's characters. A little character development would have been appreciated, but if the ending was a result of the time-constraint guillotine, then I would expect the developmental scenes to have gone too.

The thing that people seem to complain most about this movie is the plot. I like the premise. A little fantasy in our movies isn't such a bad thing once in a while, is it?

"172,000 comics are sold in the US everyday." I liked it.

[poolandrews · 7/10 · 7 August 2007]

Unbreakable starts as the Eastrail Train #177 from New York to Philadelphia derails with the loss of 131 lives, the only survivor is security guard David Dunn (Bruce Willis) who has walked away from the crash without a single scratch on him. Shortly after the crash he receives a letter from Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) the owner of an an art gallery specialising in comic books & related artwork, Elijah suffers from a rare disease called Osteogenesis Imperfecta which means he has very brittle bones which are easily broken. Elijah tells David that he feels there are people on the opposite side of the scale to him, people with very strong bones & great strength & him walking away from that train crash is proof that he is one of them. Elijah tries to convince David that he is a real life comic book superhero & that his unique powers should be used for good...

Written, co-produced & directed by M. Night Shyamalan Unbreakable was his follow up to the huge commercial success that was The Sixth Sense (1999) & both films have much in common, both are set in Philedelphia, both star Bruce Willis who again has a strong involvement with a young boy (no, not in that way...) & both have a genuinely effective & unexpected twist ending. I'll start straight away by saying that I think both The Sixth Sense & Unbreakable are really good films which I like & I find it hard to call one better than the other, if I'm honest I'd probably say The Sixth Sense is slightly better but it's a close run thing. The script which takes itself very seriously has an intriguing & fascinating premise, forget your overblown superhero flicks like Batman (1988), X-Men (2000), Spider-Man (2002) & Fantastic Four (2005) as this is very low key & tries to portray an ordinary man suddenly discovering that he has superhuman powers. Again though it's low key as he can't shoot lasers from his eyes or fly, in fact the whole film is very quiet & very ordinary which was obviously a deliberate thing on the filmmakers part. It's all here with his weakness, his arch enemy & using his powers for good but in a very subtle sort of way that I just liked. The dialogue is very sparse & not much is said, the character's are good & there are lots of little things they do or say that you may not pick up on the first time you watch it but suddenly fall into place as the story progresses. My only real problem is that it's a bit slow & the ending while having a nice twist feels unfinished & rushed.

Director Shyamalan does alright although the film is a bit dreary to watch as all the colours are muted, it's as if the film takes place in a world where there isn't a sun & it's overcast all the time. There are no big action scenes or anything like that so don't expect any as the film relies on strong storytelling & an interesting premise. At least Unbreakable is something just that bit different & for that alone it's worth a watch. I wouldn't say it's ever scary like The Sixth Sense but it has a certain atmosphere to it.

With a supposed budget of about $75,000,000 one has to ask where all the money went although the reported $20,000,000 Willis was paid accounts for a fair chunk of it. It's well made but not particularly stylish or memorable, I don't know it's just a bit drab looking if I'm honest although I'm sure that was intentional. The acting is pretty good although why does everyone whisper so often? I personally like Willis as an actor & Samuel L. Jackson so I don't have a problem with the cast except for the kid who is annoying but isn't in it enough to totally spoil it. According to the IMDb the usually terrible Julianne Moore was offered the part of Willis' wife & I'm throughly glad she turned it down/didn't get it.

Unbreakable is a strange & different sort of fantasy film, it's not for everyone that's for sure but I have to say I really liked it a lot & recommend it. Shyamalan went on to make the alien invasion flick Signs (2002) next with Mel Gibson which I also really liked.

Very subtle. Requires multiple sips to get the full measure.

[Videofilm · 18 July 2004]

This movie will be the curious nugget in the collection of Shyamalan films. It is great to see young writing and directing talent that is carving a niche away from the usual fair while running with the big boys and girls. Entering the mainstream was achieved through his kick-off blockbuster, The Sixth Sense. If you are among the small cadre of people who figured out The Sixth Sense's twist before the ending, salute! Unbreakable continues Shyamalan's unorthodox view of things by crafting a more 'mortal' superhero drama. Unlike Peter Parker (Toby Maguire - Spiderman) who completely emerges as Spiderman (web-slinging and building-hopping) within about 30 minutes of the whole movie, David Dunn (Bruce Willis) is discovering his more subtle but extraordinary abilities for the whole movie, with some help from his friends and foes. Being able to stick to and vertically climb a building wall is a fairly noticeable attribute (why it would occur to somebody to try it escapes me) but never being sick in one's life may actually escape one's attention. People develop mindsets that prevent them from recognizing certain things until a suggestion changes that condition. In this movie, being the sole (uninjured) survivor of a train crash is a pretty strong suggestion. From there you watch the revelation unfold. Yes, there is a villain but I won't spoil the movie for those who have not ventured to try it. If you have been avoiding it after poor recommendations from others, forget about The Sixth Sense and give it an undivided attention DVD viewing.

Be patient and let it take you. I liked its subtle power. It implies a certain superhero quality in all of us.

Thrilling and suspenseful film excellently played and compellingly directed by M. Night Shyamalan

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 24 June 2012]

Interesting film and one of the greatest successes of the magnificent filmmaker Night Shyamalan . This intriguing picture with twist ending revolves around a security guard named David Dunn (Bruce Willis) who miraculously survives a catastrophic train crash outside Philadelphia . His marriage to Audrey (Robin Wright) is crumbling , and he's thinking of moving to New York . David learns something extraordinary about himself after a devastating accident . He formerly had a car accident that was a pivotal point in David and Audrey's relationship. He meets a strange man (Samuel L Jackson) with Osteogenesis Imperfecta , a real but rare disease . At the end takes place a confrontation against a violent delinquent , some camera shots show David in a hooded raincoat , which may be to imply that he's some sort of a caped crusader.

A suspense thriller with supernatural overtone full of intrigue , emotion , surprise and plot twists . Shyamalan came up with the idea for the film while filming ¨The Sixth Sense¨ ; of all the films he's made , this is Shyamalan's personal favorite and of course is set in Philadelphia , like most of his films . He is an avid comic book fan, which was made apparent in this film . As in comic books, the main characters have their identified color schemes , David's is green and Elijah's is purple , they show up in their clothes, the wallpaper and bed sheets in their houses, Elijah's note to David, and various personal items, among others. Several camera angles were chosen to simulate the comic book device of a frame around each scene . Excellent performances from the two main characters , M. Night Shyamalan always had Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson in mind to play the roles of David Dunn and Elijah Price. Enjoyable support cast as Robin Wright , Spencer Clark , Eamonn Walker , Leslie Stefanson and Charlayne Woodard, who plays the mother to Samuel L. Jackson's character, is actually almost a full 5 years younger than her on screen son . And as usual director M. Night Shyamalan makes cameo appearances in his own movies, like Alfred Hitchcock, one of his favorite directors , this time as a Stadium drug dealer . Colorful and evocative cinematography by Eduardo Serra . Marvelous and thrilling musical score by James Newton Howard who always works with the director . Well produced and directed by Night Shyamalam , many of his films have car crashes playing pivotal roles and involve two ordinary individuals with extraordinary abilities or events happening to them , one of the people either has connections to a child or is a child, and the one connected to the child is always having marital difficulties . Night Shyalaman is an expert on fantastic films plenty of intelligence and thought-provoking issues as proved in ¨Sings¨, ¨The village¨ , ¨Lady in the water¨ , ¨¨The incident¨ with exception to flop titled ¨Airbender¨ . Rating : Better than average , worthwhile watching .

Personal Significance

[bilcal7-1 · 9/10 · 17 August 2004]

It seems this movie has taken a bit of heat, known by many as Shyamalan's "worst" film. It is often written off as slow moving, and the twist at the end as unoriginal and boring. I've heard people say the acting and camera work was awkward and stale and that the casting was poor. Ironically enough, as more people begin to dislike this movie, the more I seem to fall in love with it. This film has a lot of personal bearing with me, both as a student of psychology and a lover of movies and just plain art. I feel like I've taken this film under my wing during its times of criticism, and now I'd like to try and show everyone what exactly I love about it so much.

Shyamalan really showed a stroke of brilliance by getting Serra to be his cinematographer and to play around with the aestetics of the film. I don't know how or where Shyamalan is getting these guys for his movies, but I definitely love the style of each frame he shells out. Serra had been involved with predominately foreign films before Unbreakable. This was his first big American film, and I think you gotta give a little credit to Shyamalan for that. His unique and creative touch really added to the direction. In keeping with the "comic book" theme of the movie, you will notice that almost every shot is taken as if you are looking through or in between something. Like the squares of a comic strip. There is also a dark, slightly blue colored filter used throughout most of the film. This gives the movie a very bold, but eerie tone. Showing that the world can be a rough and scary place, but it can also be fought and overcome. It is evident that time and effort went into every shot. It may not slap many viewers in the face as brilliant, but it really strikes a chord with me.

As for the score, I am more than willing to argue that this is, hands down, James Newton Howard's best score of his very successful career. It is compelling and booming. It's very powerful, but not over-the-top and excessive. For anyone with the soundtrack, check out 'The Orange Man' and 'Visions'. These are two of the most powerful pieces of any film score around. And I stress the word "powerful". Yeah, he's no Hermann or Morricone, but the emotional weight and emotive power of his chords and his overall composition are just downright chilling.

The writing and the direction are just as captivating as the score. Almost every line of dialogue and every scene seems to be placed out on an island, alone so that everyone can stop and judge it. Some people might view this as cocky and/or boring direction, but I see it as daring and unique. Much of Shyamalan's writing is done that way. ('…I see dead people…' '...They call me Mr. Glass…' etc. etc.) Another aspect of the film that tickles my fancy is the underlying themes. I do believe, to a certain extent, that people do have somewhat supernatural powers at times. People have been known to make miracles and do unbelievable things. Maybe these things could be 'developed' in some way. These theories are, in a way, intertwined with some aspects of psychology, such as selective attention and self-actualization. If you care to discuss some of these ideas, let me know and I will relate them to the film through my eyes. In short, I do believe there is a superhero in everyone. It may not be through supernatural powers, but it may simply be through the act of reaching out to a person in need. Other themes of the movie, like how completely different people can always be connected in some way and how everyone has their vulnerabilities and weaknesses are intriguing, yet universal. From a psychological point of view, Shyamalan really gets inside the head of OI patients (osteogenesis imperfecta). He then brings this psyche to the next level with Jackson's character. Elijah, is very passionate but very tortured and evil. His interactions with Willis bring depth and focus to both the characters and the story. Certain scenes in the movie are really quite striking and powerful. The shots of Willis in his security poncho. The train station scene. Elijah's breathtaking fall on the stairs and many more speak so loudly to me and say so much in just a simple clip. For some reason this movie just speaks to me, like art. If anyone cares to discuss more about this film, that'd be cool. There is a lotta other cool stuff to talk about with this movie. Just thinking about it makes me want to watch it a few more times. It may not be the feel good film of the year, or the masterpiece that everyone was looking for, but it definitely sits well with me.

very well made, but curiously stupid

[Jeremy-93 · 6/10 · 9 October 2003]

"Unbreakable" is an extremely well-crafted film. The acting is mostly terrific, with Bruce Willis cementing his position as almost the only actor who can convincingly fill a certain kind of role: an unpretentious, quiet, blue-collar man, no intellectual but also no fool, well-meaning but no saint. As in "The Sixth Sense", he is on quiet, controlled form here, but in this film he's more regularly the centre of attention, and he's sufficiently magnetic to carry it off. Samuel L. Jackson, the perfect Tarantino actor, also excels in a completely different, much more restrained aesthetic.

The production is in many ways as good as the performances: measured, pretty dour and unvarnished. Within individual scenes the writing is usually fine, and some of the staging is memorably done - although the director's obsession with precise storyboarding does yield a certain inertia, making this largely a film of fluent compositions rather than dramatic scenes. The trouble is that all this sophisticated film-making can't disguise the fundamental lack of intelligence behind it. It's not that the plot is silly or the idea self-evidently implausible -- that is very rarely a problem so long as the film is made with conviction -- it's just that the idea isn't illuminating, it doesn't tell us much about anyone or anything. Its impression of seriousness is bogus.

The family drama which occupies the foreground most of the time is in fact incredibly ordinary: if you imagine this story shorn of its fantastical elements, it would barely pass muster as a TV movie of the week; and (more damagingly) that family story is in no way enriched or even much affected by the journeys taken by Willis's and Jackson's characters. And I don't even think that this film tells us much about comic books or superhero origin stories -- certainly little that isn't squeezed into the opening couple of minutes of Ang Lee's "The Ice Storm" (itself no masterpiece). It's very strange to see so much professionalism and care in all departments lavished on such a thin, underwhelming, half-baked idea for a movie.

Very Intriguing Film With Great Ending

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 1 May 2006]

This is a much better film than I ever thought it would be, and intrigues me every time I watch it. Samuel L. Jackson's role is what mainly inspires me to watch this multiple times. His character is amazing and just leaves me shaking my head.

This is a pretty low-key movie with the other star, Bruce Willis, playing an extremely subdued role for him, almost too subdued. There are times in here when you keep waiting for him to say something, and he says nothing. Half the time he's barely audible.

But he and Jackson play off each other well, and this is very suspenseful film, even if a lot doesn't happen. To explain the story would almost ruin it, because it's preposterous. I'll just call an interesting fantasy-horror film with a little family story tied in with Willis' wife (Robin Wright) and young boy (Spencer Treat Clark).

"Unbreakable" is beautifully filmed, has very little profanity in it, and a strange, strange story with a great twist at the end....one of the best I've ever seen in a movie. This movie is done by the same man who did "The Sixth Sense," M. Night Shyamalan, so if you enjoyed that you probably would like this, too.....although it's so different I wouldn't want to predict who would like this film and who wouldn't. If you're open to try something different, give it a look.

Comic Book Story for Non Comic Book Readers

[gbkmmaurstad · 7/10 · 23 September 2017]

Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) was born with a rare disease that makes him very susceptible to bone fractures. To motivate him to not be afraid to go outdoors in fear of breaking a bone, his mother rewards Elijah with comic books when he does. As an adult he lives alone and becomes a comic book art dealer.

David Dunn (Bruce Willis) gave up a promising football career after a car accident he wasn't even injured in. He marries, has a son and works as a security guard. He begins to question his purpose in life after being the only person out of 131 people to survive a train accident. And then he meets Elijah.

This is a good vs. evil in the classic sense, and yes, there is a superhero, but not like you'd read about in the comics.

Unbreakable is one of the finest movies in years.

[neovsmatrix · 10/10 · 23 September 2001]

I guess I can't be too surprised with all the negative responses that Unbreakable is getting. These days, the masses don't appreciate a buildup of atmosphere, strong character interaction, and stories heavily centered on characters and their psychology. Unbreakable has all of these traits, and proves to be a superior movie to the Sixth Sense in my opinion. Too bad it's so underrated.

I've seen this movie several times, and I have never even gotten tired of it. It does deal with comic books, but approaches it with a level of sophistication and intellect never found before in comic book movies. The movie walks a very fine line between reality and the comic-book world, at the same time walking a very fine line in terms of audience perception. Some chalk it up to be a silly comic-book movie, others a brilliant comic-book movie. And yet, there are still others that maintain Unbreakable's comic book theme does not exactly make it a comic-book movie. It's more of a drama, just like the Sixth Sense was more of a drama than a horror movie. Both are excellent dramas, but Unbreakable was superior in every aspect.

I especially admired the camera movement, and the framing of certain scenes to bring to life an actual comic-book. I also admired how Unbreakable was very light on dialogue, making full use of subtle gestures, movements, and actions to represent the character's thoughts. The character's environment plays a similar role and certain colors are often brought up to represent distinct emotions and thoughts the character has.

In the end, there are a number of things in this movie that can cause people to quickly denounce the movie, but these are all dependent upon perspective, as there's nothing truly wrong with the movie. In fact, if viewed objectively and with an open mind, the viewer might be much more apppreciative of Unbreakable.

It's clear that many of the posters to this comments area were truly angered by the movie and did not think their thoughts through prior to writing their comments, which is a shame as Unbreakable truly deserves better. If M. Night Shyamalan's next movie is at least half as good as Unbreakable, I'll definitely be in line to buy a ticket.

Not bad, but needs more

[Rarb · 7/10 · 27 November 2003]

OK, so this is a nice idea (though slightly juvenile): there's a few supernatural heroes in the world and some of them just don't know it. But once David Dunn discovers that he might be a little "special" I would have liked for him to have done more with it. Now I'm not expecting this to turn into a Superman movie part way through, but I would have liked to have seen a few heroic acts or, perhaps, a thrilling rescue (over and above what we do see) added to the mix. Lifting weights in the basement followed by one night out with our new-found hero just doesn't cut it. Apart from that, this is quite an entertaining story.

a consummate clinic in directing,etc.

[mikecalla · 9/10 · 16 July 2001]

M. Night Shyamalan seems to be proving himself quite the auteur. Unbreakable was the cinematic experience I had hoped it would be, especially after The Sixth Sense. A quiet sense of wonder permeated each and every scene, accomplished with some of the finest cinematography I've seen in the last couple of years. Director of Photography Eduardo Serra's execution is subtle, understated and absolutely beautiful.

Cinematography legend Greg Toland of Citizen Kane and The Grapes of Wrath fame would be proud of what this film accomplished artistically. I also couldn't help but notice all the long camera takes this film had, reminding me of a few Woody Allen films that let the actors act without the intrusion of the film making process, i.e.; getting a scene covered from multiple and sometimes meaningless camera angles just so the director and editor have something to work with in post production. The characters seem at times to be acting for the benefit of the others on screen rather than "us", the audience, lending a quality of voyeurism to quite a few scenes. The directors intent is quite clear to anyone wishing to delve a little bit deeper into the story and characters while appreciating how such a vision came to breath on film.

With regards to the story, Mr. Shyamalan and his crew have constructed something so rich in visual texture while managing to keep the story subdued and character development full of deep-seated anticipation. Every plot point came perfectly without any extra connotations that usually creep into a story such as this (super heroes?). Without any melodrama both Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson give very authentic performances that help the film keep its "Any Town USA" and "Average Joe Six-pack" feel very much alive.

By virtue of ingenuity and most likely a meticulous preproduction period, Unbreakable manages to be a consummate clinic in directing, writing, acting, and cinematography. One of the best movies in the past decade.

Mr. Glass, that's his name. That name again, is Mr. Glass

[Coventry · 6/10 · 14 January 2020]

When I first watched "Unbreakable", upon its release in theaters in the year 2000, I thought it was a boring and overrated film. Now that I watched it again in 2020, I still think it is a boring and overrated film, but at least now I can easily bring myself to write a handful of positive comments about it as well. Quite a lot of things can change in 20 years' time, that's certain. For starters, M. Night Shyamalan hasn't made anything but rubbish after "Unbreakable", and continued to do so until the fairly successful "Split" in 2016, so it's a lot easier to label this one as of his finest accomplishments. More importantly, over the course of two decades, the film grew out to become somewhat of a unique trendsetter and simultaneously a type of underdog in its own sub-genre. Whether or not he intended for it to be one, "Unbreakable" sort of is a superhero movie. There have been dozens (far too many, in fact) superhero movies in the past twenty years, but in 2000 the concept was still fairly unique, especially considering the protagonist in "Unbreakable" - David Dunn - is a reluctant and highly atypical kind of superhero.

Yours truly keeps on nagging that M. Night Shyamalan stole the basic concept for this film from the relatively obscure horror gems "The Survivor" and "Sole Survivor". True, both films came first with the idea of one single person walking away unharmed from a major disaster that killed hundreds of people, but "Unbreakable" admittedly is quite original in terms of linking it to superhero powers. After he miraculous survived a train accident that killed all other 300 passengers, Philadelphia security agent David Dunn is stalked and harassed by gallery owner and comic book fanatic Elijah Price. For you see, ever since birth, Price suffers from a physical condition that makes his bones extremely breakable, and he developed a theory that David Dunn must be his counterpart at the other side of the spectrum; - namely someone unbreakable. Why is this interesting? To be entirely honest, I still don't know, and this immediately leads us to what is still the bottom line: "Unbreakable" is a mainly boring and uninvolving film. The ideas are good and the integer performances (notably from Willis and Wright-Penn) are solid, but the slow pacing is intolerable and the "big revelation" at the end is quite "meh".

Unthinkable

[Mourn-2 · 1/10 · 11 December 2000]

Well, this is the 328th review on IMDB, so I'm probably not going to say anything that hasn't been said yet.

I will just say that, more than any other movie I can think of, I am absolutely shocked that this movie has a 7.7 rating and ANY positive reviews at all. In my opinion, this is indicative of the fact the movie going public no longer understands what makes a good film or even recognizes one when they see it. Unbreakable was an attempt at a two hour character study, primarily of two men. I'm guessing it was meant to be a character study because there isn't a plot or story line to speak of. This is fine, character studies can be interesting, unfortunately we are spoon fed little pieces of information in one scene, and then shown the effect of it in the very next, as if we were being spoon fed the dimensions of the characters.

For all the benefit of the doubt M. Night Shyamalan gave his audience in The Sixth Sense, he treats them like complete idiots in Unbreakable, making sure he drops a small foreshadowing to the audience before hitting them over the head with the actual event to make sure they understood. And even with this heavy handed approach, we ultimately end up with two people we don't care about swimming around in a thin story based on the incredible assumption that someone wouldn't realize that they had never been sick or injured in their entire life until it was pointed out to them.

In fact, the entire foundation of premises this movie is built upon is so fanciful and preposterous, that even a reasonable suspension of disbelief is impossible.

Lastly, the camera work, particularly the artsy shots, should LEND to the storytelling, not take away from it. Every time Shyamalan indulges in one of these sequences, he is not highlighting something important, he is reminding us we are only watching a movie. What he did so skillfully in The Sixth Sense comes across as random and forced in Unbreakable. Top this off with one of the most ridiculous scenes ever put on film in a serious movie (those who have seen it will probably know what I am talking about, those who don't heed my warning and go see it anyway, just watch for the scene with the kid and the gun), and you have a self-indulgent pile of trash unworthy of even going straight to video. I don't know if Shyamalan was rushed to get this out, or if he got Kevin Costner syndrome after the success of his first movie and decided that he could mail one in, but Unbreakable is Unthinkably bad. At the very very least, do yourself a favor and catch it for free on HBO or Showtime, or spend a buck and watch it in the dollar theatres, where it will be very soon I hope, making room for something more palatable.

Slow, thoughtful and clever -but the lack of traditional action or thrills may frustrate some

[bob the moo · 20 February 2002]

A massive train crash outside Philadelphia kills 132 passengers and leaves only one survivor. The survivor, security guard David Dunn walks away completely unhurt from the accident. Some time later he is contacted by comic book collector Elijah Price who believes that comic books are merely exaggerated versions of truth and that some people are created weak like him while some are created strong in order to protect the weak. David develops his talents with the support of Price and his son Joseph and, despite his cynicism, starts to try to use his powers to help people on need.

The 6th sense was always going to be a hard show to follow up but Shyamalan has managed to make a film that is almost as clever, emotive, thoughtful and slow. It even manages to end with a twist that is almost as good as sixth sense's was. The story moves quite slowly, almost painfully at times, however I found this succeeded in making the film feel more thoughtful and less glamorous. The director even shots the train crash in a very low key manner, as if to make the point that the film isn't about cheap spectacle or visual thrills. Instead we follow David as he finds his abilities and gradually accepts them, all this side is fascinating although some of the side stories are a little dragged out. The twist is only the icing on the cake and if you're into the characters the way I was then it is really impacting. One bit of advice - don't think about it or try to work it out. Thinking about the twist will stop you enjoying the main story and will spoil the film for yourself.

Willis is excellent - he doesn't set the world on fire, but he does a very low-key performance as a common man confronted with so much potential responsibility. He doesn't ham it up but you know that there's things going on inside his head that reflect on his face. Jackson is also really good - he maybe plays it a little too weird and should have been a bit more of a geek rather than an uptight art dealer sort. Willis and Jackson should keep making films together from now on, cause even there worst collaboration so far has still been good - Pulp Fiction, Unbreakable, Die Hard With a Vengeance - it seems to be a winning partnership (Loaded Weapon 1 doesn't count as Willis is only in it for 5 seconds!). A surprise addition to the cast is Eamonn Walker as Dr Mathison, it's a small role but he is a fine actor and deserves to be seen in big films (check him out in HBO's Oz for a real show of his abilities).

Overall it's very slow and may frustrate some people, but if you got the 6th sense then you'll probably get this. The story is moving and thoughtful and the final scene is merely the icing on a very fine cake.

M. Night Shyamalan's last really interesting movie so far.

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 13 March 2006]

M. Night Shyamalan followed up "The Sixth Sense" with the not-quite-as-great, but no less fascinating, "Unbreakable". Bruce Willis plays Philadelphia security guard David Dunn, who survives a train wreck that kills everyone else. After this, he meets Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), who suffers from Osteogenesis Imperfecta, which causes his bones to break very easily. Elijah is convinced that David is as strong as the superheros in comic books. But what is there about either of these men that remains to be discovered? As in his previous movie, Shyamalan creates a bleak setting that may be about to undergo a mind-shattering change. This one isn't as good as "The Sixth Sense", but you will be shocked at the end just the same. Watch for Shyamalan as the man whom David investigates at the stadium.

Just fantastic

[supah79 · 9/10 · 12 September 2005]

Willis finds out some strange things about himself after being the sole survivor in a train wreck. Jackson tells him he's special. Is he really?

Unbreakable really is an act 1 superhero story stretched to feature lenght (Night tells us in an interview). Genius. For once I believe Willis is the person on screen, not that he's playing Bruce Willis, the cool actor. Night uses colors (mostly blue, purple and green) and well chosen camera-angles as imagesystems (word is that the storyboard read like a comic). Most of them really work out well. I loved the slow pacing of the film. It really takes it time to tell us what's going on. As usual Shyamalan puts human drama first in his script. The first scene where Willis meets the woman in the train... You have to see the genius of it. In a few lines of dialog Shyamalan let's us discover the character Dunn.

Another reason why I love this film is because Shyamalan shows he has courage to make THIS after the enormous success of The Sixth Sense, which I think is inferior to this film. I just know the studio execs where pushing for something more tangible than this, but he chose this instead. A homage to comic books. And it works! BEAUTIFUL!!

brilliantly alright

[Gjay2 · 7/10 · 26 March 2003]

as a follow up to his massive sixth sense movie. Shyamalan gave us this tale of a man who begins to think he's unbreakable. It's a captivating plot, and a highly intriguing angle in which he tells the story, but it lacks something. And that is general enjoyment. It's slowly spun, testing the patience, and i was fine with it. It drove me in to it's little mystery. It's directed brilliantly, he truly is a film maker of the highest calibre, but beneath the technical brilliance of it, lies a story which doesn't really pay off. Like the sixth sense, there are millions of huge plot holes that destroy any realism it tries to create. And despite the occasional magic moment, it just seems a trek to get through.

Performance wise, it's spot on, everything is. If only it was paced and structured a little better. I think the score becomes the most memorable part of the movie. Shyamalan and composer james newton howard, are the new spielberg and john williams. Well lets hope so.

Shyamalan's second best film

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 7 January 2012]

For me, The Sixth Sense is M Night Shyamalan's best film, but Unbreakable comes very, very close. Maybe it is not a movie for everybody, due to some parts dragging and rambling on just a tad, but it is a thoughtful, moving and compelling film.

It is a very well made film with beautiful, brooding cinematography and striking scenery. Unbreakable also features my personal favourite James Newton Howard score for any of his collaborations with Shyamalan, it is so gorgeous and subtle. Even with the odd draggy moment, Unbreakable does have a very enthralling story that resonated with me a lot. Like The Sixth Sense, it deals with the supernatural genre but takes it to a thought-provoking and surreal level.

The pace is measured, and for the most part it works. The script is thoughtfully written as well, the characters are interesting(I don't think Willis has had a more involving character than the one he has here) and Shyamalan's confidence and assurance further adds to the many impressive things about Unbreakable. Bruce Willis and Samuel L.Jackson are both fantastic, and one wonders why they didn't do more together.

Some have been dismissive of the ending, I actually thought it was fine, though I was underwhelmed by it on my first viewing a few years back. I did say before that The Sixth Sense's ending was the only one of a Shyamalan film that worked, after re-watching Unbreakable I take that back. I still think though the others were either needlessly melodramatic(Signs), laughable(The Village) or both(The Happening). All in all, a great film and one of Shyamalan's better ones. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Moving - in its most original sense

[dgeerts · 9/10 · 13 January 2001]

The final plot twist in "The Sixth Sense" made me wonder whether its director could repeat such a stunt, in "Unbreakable". Force us to follow the path he wants us to take, by telling his story, slowly, subtly leading us. Make us start to believe we know what will happen next, make us love the characters, then make us *want* things to happen next. Yes, tonight when seeing "Unbreakable", all that happens, again. And then, exactly like in "The Sixth Sense", he pulls the carpet right from under us, in the final seconds of the movie takes away everything, every expectation, he first gave us. Many people will be so disappointed by this that they will end up hating the movie. So did I, for about five minutes. Now I know the movie will make me think, literally move my thoughts, for a long time after tonight. I want to see it again, right now. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. Hollywood has a new master storyteller. His name is Manoj Night Shyamalan.

An acquired taste...

[adrianbarac · 7/10 · 4 August 2008]

Saw this film back in 2000 and was both disappointed and bored s**tless. Finally saw it again the other day on Blu-ray - 8 years later. This time I watched with a more open mind, and I've come to appreciate it somewhat.

The usual standout Shyamalan traits: * Unique & interesting concepts, ideas and writing. * A handful of memorable scenes. * Generally excellent, understated performances from a great cast. * Meditative, hypnotic pacing which prompts you to look closer. * Some nice camera-work, with many scenes nailed beautifully in one masterful shot. * Yet another terrific James Newton Howard score. * You always believe that Shyamalan cares for his characters and stories. * His films always improve with multiple viewings.

The usual annoying Shyamalan problems: * Mind-bogglingly stupid holes just ROB the stories of credibility... (How can a train derailment possibly kill everyone onboard!!?, Why wouldn't David think to prod himself with a sharp object if he's curious? Why would water-allergic aliens invade a planet that's water-based? How can a man be dead for a whole year and not notice? Did he never eat, go to the toilet, go to work, or notice that no one acknowledged his presence?) * Slow pacing gives you plenty of time to notice and consider these problems. * Some patchy dialogue. * Pacing can sometimes get TOO leaden for its own good. * His style of camera-work can occasionally feel self-conscious. * Murky, natural-looking interiors and cinematography lend a "true-to-life" atmosphere... but can also make for murky, average-looking video transfers. Time to get your films telecined elsewhere, M.Night!!

M. Night's best (contains spoilers)

[Shrykespeare · 10/10 · 26 July 2004]

"Unbreakable" is one of those films that garners extreme reactions on both ends of the spectrum; either people love it or hate it.

The biggest criticism is that the movie is too long and too slow to develop, which is certainly a understandable argument. I prefer to look at M. Night's films in a different light; I admire the way that he absolutely refuses to rush through a story, and the way that he lets the characters develop at their own pace. Bruce Willis's slow, gradual transformation is a beautiful thing to watch, a testament to Bruce's incredible talent. The aura of sadness that he projects through most of the movie is tangible, and it's only through the teachings (or manipulation, if you will) of Samuel L. Jackson's character, Elijah, that Bruce's character, David, is able to finally realize his full potential, to understand his place in the world, and to connect with his son in a way he never could before.

I would also like to give special kudos to Spencer Clark's performance as David's son, Joseph. Most kids, especially those not close to their parents, have no understanding of what their parents do for a living. It's more comfortable to live a fantasy, where your Dad is a superhero and you will one day follow in his footsteps. It's no wonder that when the possibility presents itself that David is special, Joseph latches onto that notion, and proceeds to stop at nothing to prove it to his father, even coming a hair's-breadth from shooting him.

David's first adventure as a superhero was magnificently done. He walks into a train station, bustling with people, and lets his instincts take over. Just by touching people, he can see what terrible things they've done (kind of like John Smith on USA's "The Dead Zone", but not as extreme), for example, shoplifting, race violence, and date rape. But when he brushes up against a man who had committed cold-blooded murder, David leaps into action. He follows the man to a house he has taken over - both parents are dead, but the two children are still alive. The confrontation is also very well done. No words are spoken; there is no flurry of blows or martial arts moves; simply one man taking another man down in a way that any of us might do in similar circumstances.

The next morning, David shows his son a newspaper detailing the incident. He silently mouths the words "You were right", and his son sheds a tear of joy; his fantasy has been fulfilled, and his connection to his father can only get stronger from here on out. They also agree to keep his double life secret from David's wife, which is another nice touch.

Given Elijah's life and state of mind, it is very reasonable to understand his motives for wanting to find someone like David. That he used such reprehensible methods for doing so makes the ending that much more shocking.

Most people, especially moviegoers, are easily bored. They are addicted to the quick fix, where something dramatic or exciting has to happen every five minutes or they lose interest. That is why "Unbreakable" has elicited such negative praise from some critics. But I am of the opinion that if the view at the top is spectacular enough, it's doesn't matter how long it takes to get up the mountain.

My score: 10.

Could have been good, but...

[meesh1009 · 6/10 · 9 May 2022]

Just excruciatingly slow. Almost unwatchable. All of M Night Shyamalan's movies seem like this. But for a superhero movie, it's was just inappropriate l.

On one hand, the actors and the directing sucked. On the other, so did the script.

[faube · 1/10 · 9 December 2000]

***spoiler alert*** I've seen worse movies. Or let's say I've seen one worse movie. But I didn't detest it as much as I hated 'Unbreakable'. The director puts so much time and effort in these 'Kubrick' long shots, with cameras twirling and all, that the viewer just has to feel sorry for the actors. Or at least for Jackson, since Willis seems to be lost in some kind of a drug-induced world. By the way, what's with the stupidest superhero ever ("350 pounds? let's add some more.") and the feeblest supervillain ever ("I've had 54 fractures") clashing in a survival of the least fit? Not that I was so much anxious to see the wild ending twist, but let's just say that the writer managed to make this boring, slow-developing film into one that has no point at all. On an unrelated note, say your 10-year-old gets a gun, and aims it at you, do you picture your wife saying "aw, come on, don't do that", and yourself threatening to move away forever if your child does shoot you? "But he's unbreakable, you idiot" Oh OK. You know a movie is more about style than substance when a camera is showing us two people seen through the space between two train seats. One at a time. Panning from one to the other. For about 6 minutes. All in one shot. And they're talking about this guy who runs 40 yards in 4.2 seconds. Believe it or not, we actually end up seeing this guy. For 2 seconds. Yippee. I was also surprised how fast Bruce went from a stupid security guard to an all-powerful Jesus/Superman type who saves the widow and the orphans, while managing to draw a little tear from his oh-so-cute son's eye. Was Night trying to do a movie about emotions? or superheroes? or both? That sensible-giant thing is getting on my nerves.

Don't see this movie. It blows. Real bad. For a long time. "Don't you see the connection? we're both vulnerable to water!" ouch!

A different take on a superhero

[simonrossphotography · 7 February 2011]

Few films split movie goers like this one, you either love it or hate it. OK, i will come out early and say it is one of my all time fav films. It can be slow, heavy going in places but it has moments of light you rarely see in cinema.

I think what frustrates many people with the film is that it's not about Spiderman, The Hulk or anything like a comic book hero, just an ordinary man coming to terms with the fact he is anything but ordinary. He cannot fly, shoot webs, he's just... unbreakable.

Willis as David Dunn gives just about the best performance he will ever give, understated, restrained yet just right as a man still trying to deny what he has always known he is. He walks away from it early in his life and enters middle age lonely, his marriage failing and stuck in a menial job as a security guard. He still loves his wife, his son but nothing is working for him any more, he is isolated and alone.

To me, this is where the film works best, as David finds his true self again, he once again finds the people who love him, and he can love back leading to some of the most beautiful, touching scenes I have ever seen in a movie...

The weightlifting scene, David's son putting more and more weight on

David carrying his wife back to their bed, ' I had a bad dream', 'It's over now'

David showing his son the newspaper report of his actions at breakfast.

Nothing dramatic, just played with a wonderful subtleness missing in many films today, played with the eyes and all the better for it.

Not a perfect film, but I love it, oh, and don't forget a wonderful soundtrack

Simon