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

Rating: 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!