An Elegant Misfire

Rating: 8/10 (28 November 2000)

I saw this movie close to a week ago now, and I'm still sorting through my impressions of it. Part of the problem is the inevitable comparison to Night's stunning 1999 breakthrough "The Sixth Sense". I've read a number of comments that urge viewers not to make such comparisons, but that's neither sensible nor realistic. It's the same director, the same star, the same genre (supernatural mystery) and both are built around an unexpected ending. To suggest that one shouldn't compare the two is like a car manufacturer asking the public not to compare its '99 models to its '00's. The second difficulty in honestly evaluating it has to do with how so many film-goers, including myself, really admire Night's sensitive, understated, almost religious approach to his craft. The man is really trying to enrich the medium, to elevate the art form (okay, I'm sounding pretentious) in a Hollywood climate of stale formula, empty commercialism and happy brainlessness. I like to think of him as the little guy valiantly standing up to all the Jerry Bruckheimers of the world.
So I went into the theatre in a state of great anticipation, tempered perhaps a smidgen by the somewhat uncertain buzz that hovered around the film in the days leading up to its release. And it had me in its grip all the way through its taut, hyper-observant opening on the train, where Night is meticulously extracting the drama and suspense from the everyday (sad, hapless Willis flirting with an attractive young sports agent who has had the misfortune to take the seat next to him) and on through the early passages where Willis is coming to terms with the shocking reality of having survived a train wreck which should have killed him. There is in these scenes the wonderful sense that so many great movies share of seemingly ordinary events slowly building towards something EXTRAordinary.
But then the film runs into some problems that are very difficult to discuss without giving things away. The first mis-step (or series of mis-steps) is the repetitiveness of the scenes involving Sam Jackson's memorably obsessive Elijah character explaining to Willis his incredible theories on what he might be and represent. There must be four or five of them and they all pretty much cover the same territory, ending similarly with Willis thinking it over then unconvincingly brushing him off with something to the effect of "YOU have issues. Now stay away from me." Another flaw, that has been pointed out in many other comments, is the superfluous presence of Willis' wife played by Robin Wright Penn. There is nothing wrong with her performance at all, and she does figure in a major way in Willis' history and the direction his life took. But as far as the present is concerned, she needs to be pulling the story in some direction, creating some kind of tension or conflict and she never does. I understand that Night conceived this as a trilogy and I'm sure she will play a much bigger role in the sequels (should there be any) but in the self-contained universe of this picture, she is a classic example of under-development.
There are other scenes that just don't ring true or are just too "much". The gun-wielding scene with Willis' son was wildly unbelievable. (Though some others thought it was laughable, I did find the weight-lifting sequence to be charming.) The flashback where the camera closes in and lingers on Willis as a young man as he is about to make his big, life-altering decision, was mawkishly overdone. And the whole bravura climax where Willis finally accepts his "destiny" made me squirm. It held my interest, of course, and I wanted very much to go along with it, but it all seemed wrong and ill-considered.
Still, I find myself being very protective when others lash out against it. Mainly because the ending, the famous twist, is flat out brilliant. Not only does it cast everything you've seen up to that point in a whole new light, I LOVE the idea of stopping films abruptly and at an unlikely place, rather than wrapping everything up nice and neat. It makes the film live on in your mind afterwards and, to be truthful, despite its flaws (which I'm inclined to forgive considering all the things it does well) this is a movie that I very much look forward to seeing again. For the all the clues, the symbolism, the exquisite technique, and the rare opportunity to witness the work of a director whose mind is not dead, like so many others, but wide awake.
After all, a Night misfire is quite a bit better than a Michael Bay direct hit.