Totenkindly
@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 52,160
- MBTI Type
- BELF
- Enneagram
- 594
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
Basically, the final installment of Shyamalan's unexpected trilogy airs this coming weekend I think (reviews so far are mixed, unfortunately... I was kinda not sure what to make of the trailers this past fall, honestly), so.... Discussion thread for people who want to talk about it after they see it plus the earlier movies.
i rewatched Unbreakable (2000) yesterday, and I am rewatching Split (2017) currently.
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...6377-shyamalans-split.html?86377=#post2727566
I think in general that "Unbreakable" is my second favorite Shyamalan film... not that there seems to be many to choose from, I'd only about 4-5 of his films could even aspire to a list like that. (The others would obviously be "The Sixth Sense," much of "Signs" and probably "The Village" depending on how you respond to the mid-movie reveal. His first four movies. Usually people have more fun arguing about which is his worst -- The Happening or Lady in the Water, although After Earth and Avatar: The Last Airbender don't get much love either.)
My general comments on Unbreakable are here:
‘Unbreakable’ review by Totenkindly • Letterboxd
But I think Shyamalan showed a lot of directorial skill in his first two films. I think people weren't sure what to make of Unbreakable, but aside from the exposition on comic books, it's quite a decent film from a director and acting POV. The first 15 minutes are really strong and some of the best scenes I've seen in any film -- the scene with David Dunn on the train through his release from the ward is so understated -- and this is Shyamalan at his best, when he lets the film explain all the subtext without adding useless words. Robin Wright also stuns in this movie, she pushes the whole thing up a level; and this is one of Bruce Willis' better roles because it runs against type and he's forced to act without words.
Its real weaknesses to me (aside from the title card ending, it's almost never a great idea) are mainly things like Shyamalan putting himself in his own movie (it's too distracting, and he's only an adequate, not good, actor), and getting a little weird with the superhero commentary.
Still, what he seems to be saying as far as comics go is that there's some underlying truth to the "comic book hero" story that our ideas are forming around, we just accentuate and blow them up into something larger than life. But in reality, superheroes could exist, just with more subtle nuanced powers... and this is the underlying theme of Unbreakable, that maybe there are people who are assigned to be protectors of humanity. It also is suggested that if you have a yin, then you have a yang. I don't really want to say a ton if you haven't seen the film, since there's a really great angle on the ending (which is hinted at elsewhere in the film,) so we're watching an origin story here but whose story is it? But it's the kind of thing that you don't see often in a film like this.
Anyway, more thoughts on all this.... I'm not sure about the angle Shyamalan chose for "Glass" -- starting in the Asylum. I thought it would go elsewhere / start elsewhere.
i rewatched Unbreakable (2000) yesterday, and I am rewatching Split (2017) currently.
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...6377-shyamalans-split.html?86377=#post2727566
I think in general that "Unbreakable" is my second favorite Shyamalan film... not that there seems to be many to choose from, I'd only about 4-5 of his films could even aspire to a list like that. (The others would obviously be "The Sixth Sense," much of "Signs" and probably "The Village" depending on how you respond to the mid-movie reveal. His first four movies. Usually people have more fun arguing about which is his worst -- The Happening or Lady in the Water, although After Earth and Avatar: The Last Airbender don't get much love either.)
My general comments on Unbreakable are here:
‘Unbreakable’ review by Totenkindly • Letterboxd
But I think Shyamalan showed a lot of directorial skill in his first two films. I think people weren't sure what to make of Unbreakable, but aside from the exposition on comic books, it's quite a decent film from a director and acting POV. The first 15 minutes are really strong and some of the best scenes I've seen in any film -- the scene with David Dunn on the train through his release from the ward is so understated -- and this is Shyamalan at his best, when he lets the film explain all the subtext without adding useless words. Robin Wright also stuns in this movie, she pushes the whole thing up a level; and this is one of Bruce Willis' better roles because it runs against type and he's forced to act without words.
Its real weaknesses to me (aside from the title card ending, it's almost never a great idea) are mainly things like Shyamalan putting himself in his own movie (it's too distracting, and he's only an adequate, not good, actor), and getting a little weird with the superhero commentary.
Still, what he seems to be saying as far as comics go is that there's some underlying truth to the "comic book hero" story that our ideas are forming around, we just accentuate and blow them up into something larger than life. But in reality, superheroes could exist, just with more subtle nuanced powers... and this is the underlying theme of Unbreakable, that maybe there are people who are assigned to be protectors of humanity. It also is suggested that if you have a yin, then you have a yang. I don't really want to say a ton if you haven't seen the film, since there's a really great angle on the ending (which is hinted at elsewhere in the film,) so we're watching an origin story here but whose story is it? But it's the kind of thing that you don't see often in a film like this.
I like that you can have a villainous character with a positive upbringing, using all the tropes that a "good hero" would have, except this one is embracing more pragmatic means and goals. Elijah is a broken man who rises above it esp with the positive affirmation of his mother, but you get the sense that both are aware of who he has become and both embrace it. Elijah's speech at the end is also so sincere and heartfelt, he like David is a man who did not know who he was but NOW he knows, in the process of helping David. It's quite the juxtaposition, you're seeing one framing but for a "bad" character that normally is used for good characters.
There's a "horror" movie coming out in May called Brightburn that James Gunn produced, which is essentially the superman story with affirming Kent-like parents... but what if Superman actually just chose to "go bad" anyway? Not sure how it will pan out but it looks like it could be really great.
There's a "horror" movie coming out in May called Brightburn that James Gunn produced, which is essentially the superman story with affirming Kent-like parents... but what if Superman actually just chose to "go bad" anyway? Not sure how it will pan out but it looks like it could be really great.
Anyway, more thoughts on all this.... I'm not sure about the angle Shyamalan chose for "Glass" -- starting in the Asylum. I thought it would go elsewhere / start elsewhere.