Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Unbreakable

This is topic Unbreakable in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000912

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-06-2010, 07:23 AM:

***

If there is a movie by M. Night Shyamalan that deserves The Criterion Treatment, than this is it. I don't remember a film with so my camera shots that start in different rooms, pan up/down back/forth side/side....also there are so many long shots. Distracting or not, it deserves some mention.

Bruce Willis is good. So is Jackson and Penn. According to IMDB, the budget of this movie was 75million, not sure where they spent it. Oh I know where, Willis, Shyamalan, Wright Penn and Jackson were paid a combined $39.5 million for this movie. That leaves just over $35 million for production.

I didn't like the last few minutes all that much. It would of been better if they remained friends and Willis never knew.

Also, the beginning of the credits with the a M. Night Shyamalan kinds of spoiled the mood, I now know why there so many long, long, long takes that start in different rooms an such..

Sound was solid.

THX DVD
DTS Sound (the more I watch movies with DTS, the more I like it over DD)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-06-2010, 11:40 AM:

I didn't care for this movie at all. A lot of people praise it and I just don't have the mental ability to understand why. One guy, Bruce Willis, can survive a train wreck without a scratch. The other guy, Samuel L. Jackson, breaks every bone in his body when he wipes his own ass. For whatever reason that I don't care to remember, Samuel really wants to ruin Bruce's life. How Samuel is still alive when he could be crippled by a small breeze just baffles me. He also needs to calm the hell down and lose his hard-on for Bruce.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-28-2010, 11:01 AM:

So, Tom, you trash Armageddon but you think this boring, pretentious piece is worthy of a full-blown Criterion treatment? You can have lots of camera angles on a turd but it's still a turd. M. Night Shama-lama-ding-dong should have given up after Sixth Sense. He hasn't made a great movie since and only made one that was pretty good...Signs. Why Hollywood keeps financing his films...and worse yet marketing HIM when they do...is beyond my comprehension.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-28-2010, 12:08 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
Why Hollywood keeps financing his films...and worse yet marketing HIM when they do...is beyond my comprehension.

The reason why is because M Night films make A LOT of money. Regardless if they are good, you like them or I they do really well at the box office.

Also, consider the budgets

The Last Airbender $318m worldwide while costing #150m
The Happenning make $148 worldwide while costing $49

and since you mentioned Signs, that made $408m worldwide...

His worldwide grosses are the single reason why they keep financing him.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-28-2010, 12:44 PM:

What I don't understand is why the public keeps giving him more chances.

M. Night should really stick to just making trailers for everyone else's movies. His movies may end up sucking, but the trailers for them are usually GREAT.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-28-2010, 12:47 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
So, Tom, you trash Armageddon

I know I need new glasses and all, but I saw him say that Armageddon was better than he remembered and rated it higher than this movie, giving it 3 1/2 (out of 4 I assume) stars.

Posted by Carey Barber (Member # 1586) on 12-29-2010, 09:24 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
I know I need new glasses and all, but I saw him say that Armageddon was better than he remembered and rated it higher than this movie, giving it 3 1/2 (out of 4 I assume) stars.

I was thinking the same thing, but am far too lazy to actually check. If anything, I recall that Tom was one of the only people kinda-sorta defending this movie. There were several others who were really trashing it.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-29-2010, 10:05 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
I know I need new glasses and all, but I saw him say that Armageddon was better than he remembered and rated it higher than this movie, giving it 3 1/2 (out of 4 I assume) stars.

I said Unbreakable should possible be a Criterion Movie simply for the way it was made. There are so many long shots that do not cut. Yes there is editing but there also long extended scenes where camera is one continuous shot. If you are a film student, then watch this movie for simply the way it was filmed. Then you have whole budget thing, $40m to four key principles and $35m to production. Abosolutely out of this world budgeting.

And the fact that Unbreakable is somewhat of comic book movie that came out before the wave of comic books movies.

I just didnt like the ending.

In contrast to Armageddon. Armageddon looks like it has a million dollars spent on every since minute of production. Add its the size and scope of the movie, and the most rediculous plot, and Billboard Chart Soundtrack, incredible sound and you have a film that is important somewhat. Yes it is a long music video, but there isn't much like this out there.

A movie that according to New Scientist: "NASA shows the film as part of its management training program. Prospective managers are asked to find as many inaccuracies in the movie as they can. At least 168 impossible things have been found during these screenings of the film."

Add in 4 Oscar Noms,
Add in 1/2 Billion dollars in worldwide sales
NASA screening the movie
The sheer size and scope of the movie
A 70mm blow up

Also, it should be mentioned that Armageddon opened with a $36 million opening on its way to a $200m domestic gross. The film had some legs.

Yes, Armageddon is trash, but it is trash that people paid to see. Getting people to go see your movie is the hardest thing about movie making.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-29-2010, 10:16 PM:

quote:
I said Unbreakable should possible be a Criterion Movie simply for the way it was made. There are so many long shots that do not cut. Yes there is editing but there also long extended scenes where camera is one continuous shot. If you are a film student, then watch this movie for simply the way it was filmed. Then you have whole budget thing, $40m to four key principles and $35m to production. Abosolutely out of this world budgeting.

And the fact that Unbreakable is somewhat of comic book movie that came out before the wave of comic books movies.

I just didnt like the ending.

In contrast to Armageddon. Armageddon looks like it has a million dollars spent on every since minute of production. Add its the size and scope of the movie, and the most rediculous plot, and Billboard Chart Soundtrack, incredible sound and you have a film that is important somewhat.

A movie that according to New Scientist: "NASA shows the film as part of its management training program. Prospective managers are asked to find as many inaccuracies in the movie as they can. At least 168 impossible things have been found during these screenings of the film."

Add in 4 Oscar Noms,
Add in 1/2 Billion dollars in worldwide sales
NASA screening the movie
The sheer size and scope of the movie
A 70mm blow up

Also, it should be mentioned that Armageddon opened with a $36 million opening on its way to a $200m domestic gross. The film had some legs.

Sometimes I wonder if you just "talk" to hear yourself "talk" Your just rambling on and on.

Unbreakable and Signs were M. Nights last ok movies, not great but not horrible. He is a horrible director, great writer sure but not a great director. He killed himself for me with Lady in the water where he gave himeself a full on role. I liked his cameo's and was fine with that, but when he gave himself one of the main characters I was done.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-29-2010, 10:20 PM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
Sometimes I wonder if you just "talk" to hear yourself "talk" Your just rambling on and on.

No need to make this persosal. For a moment there I thought you might not of been old enough to see these films in the theatre without your mommy around. Armageddon was PG-13