Shyamalan may just be a one-trick pony...

Rating: 5/10 (19 October 2001)

"The Sixth Sense" was a great movie; and while "Unbreakable" is not truly awful, it does perhaps suggest that we should reserve judgement for a few more films before hailing its director as the new 'wunderkind' of his generation.
The main problem with the film for me was that almost every aspect of its style was familiar after watching the "Sixth Sense". Sure, they have different plots, but there are a number of striking similarities. Bruce Willis playing a reserved 'everyman' type, both movies being bookended with set-pieces or twists, and the slow pacing. Don't get me wrong, it was very good when he used these things the first time round, but I wanted something a little different from his second outing.
The film still managed to hold my attention though, and the plot was more unusual and complex than may seem apparent at first glance. No complaints about Willis' performance again, and Jackson is also good in a different type of role to that he usually plays. Even Robin Wright-Penn is good as Dunn's wife, despite the fact that her character plays little more than a bit-part in the main thrust of the story.
So there IS a lot to like here, and if you haven't seen "The Sixth Sense" then my gripes won't make any difference to how you view the film. I personally got tired by what I saw as a basic retread by Shyamalan of his earlier effort, with a few plot points re jigged for good measure. Also, the ending - which I won't reveal here - lacks punch when compared to the surprise at the end of "The Sixth Sense".
At the time of writing, Shyamalan is reportedly planning an "Unbreakable" trilogy. This doesn't bode well for me; because like I said, it WAS an innovative style when it first appeared, but it has the potential to lose its appeal when repeated over three or four movies.