Mediocre people will think this is mediocre

Rating: 8/10 (30 November 2000)

The last time I walked out of a screening almost in tears was about four or five years ago. Back in a film theory class. The film? "Searching For Bobby Fischer." A tale about a seemingly ordinary kid who realizes that -- though the help of a mentor -- he might be blessed with some sort of hidden talent.
Sort of along the same lines, this film is kinda what you'd get if you crossed "Fearless" with an "X-Files" episode and "Searching ...". A guy survives a train wreck and slowly --with the help of a "mentor" (quotes deliberate) -- suspects that he might have a "gift" that allowed him to walk away unscathed. (I say no more).
This is a beautiful, slowly unraveling gem of a film about the true potential each and everyone has -- but usually squanders by becoming part of mainstream society. As one character says: "These are mediocre times," so maybe there's a socio-economic reason behind why this film is being coolly received by some. Mediocre people will not like this film. (And there's a lot of you out there.)
There are some interesting similarities between this and the director's previous film, "The Sixth Sense": Bruce Willis, the twist ending, the symbolism of glass (broken or not), the emotionally frigid wife, the messed-up kid, and so on.
Comparisons end there. In actual fact, I think this is a better movie than "The Sixth Sense" as the tone of this movie is a little bit more consistent. (It's also darker, but without quite as much bloodletting.)

So, were there any problems with "Unbreakable"? Three, to my tastes:

1) There shouldn't have been credits over the *brilliant* opening scene -- not counting the prologue. The identity of the camera's point-of-view during that long, back-and-forth shot between David Dunn (Bruce Willis) and the woman on the train is a subtle touch
2) There's a scene half-way through the movie involving Dunn's son that's a little over-the-top and perhaps out of place, character-wise. Actually, the scene (along with a trim to one just after it) could have been taken out and it wouldn't really affect the plot. I think if people are getting lost -- this scene in question is the one that's causing people to scratch their heads a bit.
3) The "twist" comic-book-like ending. Really unnecessary and it feels like a gimmick than something which adds to the story. And, upon thinking about it, it rather cheapens the entire movie.
Two or three minor trims (that would taken maybe five to seven minutes out of the film) and this would have been a master-stroke. But what remains is still an intensely beautiful movie. Don't believe the negative criticisms -- this is a great film, and it's probably better than 95 per cent of the stuff unspooling in cinemas at the moment.