This is one of the films that college students flip out over, and any “true film buff” needs to have in their top ten. We’ll see about that.
Tarantino is perhaps held in too high of regard, but this is early days, and a good example of his talent. I’m prepared for the non-Euclidean timeline, which is usually considered good, unorthodox storytelling.
Because of the way it’s formatted, the large cast shouldn’t be as indicative of an over-reaching, complicated plot. Or it may be more indicative than most. Or both at the same time.
M. Night Shyamalan’s works have had a wide range of quality. It originally seemed as though his output just got worse over time, but in the light of not only the glaring plot holes in The Sixth Sense, but also the fact that some have noted a similarity to an episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark, it may be considered that Unbreakable is Shyamalan’s real zenith of quality.
So why is it the movie I’m the least familiar with? My guess is that while “6th Sense” has a lasting buzz, and I was paying attention to the ad campaigns of the later films, Unbreakable stands in my blind spot. Too old for me to notice, too average to remark on. Here I go remarking on it.
From what I understand, it’s a deconstruction of superhero stories. Not terribly original and not well-timed. (Superhero movies were about to have a classical comeback after America went into security blanket mode, but nobody could have predicted that.) All the same, I hear good things about this film, and I expect good things.