Solid, Fun, But Lacking

Rating: 6/10 (19 January 2019)

You know, I had heard so much about this film, a couple of years ago, I was excited to finally watch it. I didn't remember loving it, when I finally did see it, but I remembered thinking it was just fine, for the most part. Well-made. Interesting. Engaging.
For Christmas, I bought my mother the film on DVD, because she adored "Split" (as did I, mostly). We just watched the film today, and we both enjoyed it, but I think we both agreed that even though the filmmaking was very, VERY solid, the ending is immensely unsatisfying, due to the lack of a real climax. Many people, I believe, try to argue that the lack of a real, more mainstream climax is due to the arthouse-y vibe "Unbreakable" carries throughout its runtime; meaning that it's supposed to be more unique than other superhero films. I understand that argument, but I do not agree with it making the film more special. That's like arguing that the sequel trilogy in the "Star Wars" franchise is exceptional because it has Kylo Ren's crossguard lightsaber, which we hadn't seen in any of the films up until "The Force Awakens" was released. It's an odd argument for uniqueness.
The cinematography and score are exceptional, here. Very impactful.
The writing, in total-dialogue, scenes, showing-instead-of-telling-is wonderfully unique, and really gets a thumbs-up from me, outside of its lacking finale. There's some quality work put into every angle of this film. Again: that random twist in the finale is good, but to just end it immediately after the reveal is lame, and I think it ruins the tone of the whole flick, overall. I'm not much into fan fiction, but I can't help but to wonder what I myself could've done to make a more profound, impactful ending. I have a few ideas, frankly, but I won't give them here, because I don't discuss spoilers, in my reviews.
The performances from everyone-even Willis, whom seems like he could care less, nowadays, no matter what he's a part of-are exceptional, too, even though I think some things are a little too much for me, when it comes to Sam Jackson's character, whose bones break easily, due to a disease he was born with. The opening to the film, revolving around his birth, is truly horrifying, even for someone like myself, who's not a parent, at the moment. I also would like to give a special mention to the young man who played Willis' son, in the flick. That kid can act, and I'm very excited to see him again in "Glass", which my mother and I plan to see, tomorrow evening.
Say what you will about Shyamalan and his career's more up-and-drastically-down bumps, but the man KNOWS how to tell a story, most of the time-no matter how unsatisfying it can potentially end-up being.
I'm glad I had the chance to see this again before the newest film. It's a fun watch, and I'd recommend it to you, if you haven't seen it, due to the uniqueness it has, but don't rush into this, excited about the many things you've heard, or it will probably be more than guaranteed to disappoint you. At least, that's how I've felt after seeing it both times, with so many years apart for myself to grow, in my love for movies.