'Unbreakable 2' on the Horizon?


Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Cast: Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Robin Wright Penn, Spencer Treat Clark, Charlayne Woodard
MPAA rating: R
Studio: Touchstone
First date: 2000

During a recent junket interview for his upcoming buddy comedy Cop Out, Bruce Willis gave film geeks like yours truly a real reason to rejoice. No, he didn't announce yet another return to John McClane territory (though that MAY be happening) or a sequel to Surrogates (Shut up! Some of us liked it…). No, amid the hoopla and questions over director Kevin Smith's window seat size, Willis told those willing to listen that M. Night Shyamalan might be ready to revisit his brilliant follow-up to the mainstream megahit, The Sixth Sense. Dealing realistically with comic book heroes and villains, Unbreakable was the first film in a proposed trilogy dealing with reluctant superman David Dunn and his physically fragile arch-nemesis Elijah Price.

With Samuel L. Jackson supposedly onboard and the once reluctant directing wunderkind desperate to rekindle some of his former commercial cache, it's not hard to see how an Unbreakable sequel would be in the offing. Cop Out might be a hit for the former box office draw, but Willis hasn't had a real financial success since his anemic PG-13 installment of his famous Die Hard franchise. Sure, he works a lot, but like Jackson (who's still nursing the wounds from such big screen duds as The Spirit and Soul Men), a return to glory appears complicated. No one knows this better than Mr. Village. His recent resume has so many cinematic stumbles that, if his Summer 2010 entry The Last Airbender doesn't hit with its Nickelodeon amped demo, he too will need a major career resurrection, pronto.

Oddly enough, Unbreakable might just be the movie that turned M. Night Shyamalan into the raging egomaniac he appeared to be circa Signs. While the film was not initially a success (at least, not in comparison to the Oscar-nominated bounty of Sense), it found a devoted audience on DVD. Touchstone, the Disney-based production company which backed Unbreakable, even approached the director about doing a follow-up. But when the bean counters got involved and looked at the potential cost (Willis and Jackson don't come cheap) versus the still questionable audience appeal for the project, those plans were shuttled. Since then, the ups and downs of the business find all three men mired in situations that a movie like Unbreakable 2 might correct - that is, if it's any good.

History would seem to indicate that it would be. The original remains a dazzling reimagining of the comic book origin story, a realistic depiction of ordinary human beings suddenly blessed/cursed with extraordinary abilities. Shyamalan indulged his visual excesses to great effect in bringing his story to life: Willis standing in the pouring rain, his dark figure in a hoodie poncho silhouetted against the darkened home he's about to enter; the opening train wreck; the introduction of Jackson's Elijah as a boy; the stadium sequence were Dunn tracks what he believes is a drug dealer; the moment during a workout where our hero realizes that he may be more powerful than any human being has a right; the awe-inspired sense of wonder and fear on his son's face when he discovers the same.

As he does with most of his movies, Shyamalan uses color and repeating technical tricks to stay within a set thematic approach. He was never out to make a broad-based spectacle, F/X sweeping away any trace of character or deep psychological personality. Of course, this was the main criticism of Unbreakable. The film spent nearly two hours setting up the confrontation between Dunn and Price, making it out to be a clash of undeniable titans…and then, nothing. That's right. Due to budgetary limits (and a sneaky desire to undermine expectations at every level in the narrative), Shyamalan authored the cosmic clash with a series of subtitles. As Willis stares in amazement at what Jackson has done to "prove" his theories, the film gives us a weak "and then this happened" honorarium before rolling the credits.

In his recent Q&A, Willis seems to suggest that Unbreakable 2 will be the all out good vs. evil beat down that the first film meticulously laid the foundation for. Even after the passage of ten years (and the same decade in addition to the actor's age), it seems that action, not angst, will be the operative term for this potential return. Naturally, that begs the question - is that what made the original film so endearing? Would audiences have embraced it like they did had Shyamala simply shot a 20 minute stunt sequence, loaded the fisticuffs with as much burgeoning CGI as possible, and delivered the sturm and drang denouement the narrative implied? Or was the already unconventional nature of the story setting viewers up for a letdown, with the director never really ready to let fantasy mar his fact-based conceit?

This is the burden a sequel to Unbreakable carries into pre-production. We fans of the first film relish its desire to avoid eye candy and stick with telling an honest and wholly believable story. Part of the appeal is that both Willis and Jackson fail to come across as larger than life figures. Instead, they are firmly grounded in a kind of realism that a part two showboating slamfest would clearly undermine. Similarly, as intriguing as the prospect is of seeing Dunn and Price finally "realize" their purpose, where do things go from here? One of the great things about an origin story is it gets to fill in all the details and provide insight. Once we've had that, all that's left is supercrimes and supercrimefighting - and once you've seen on man of steel stop a crumbling dam or an out of control airplane, you've made your point.

Still, if someone can find a new and inventive way to take an already intriguing post-modern comic book movie in new and novel directions, it's Shyamalan. Sure, smirk all you want about his Lady with the Water ways, or his Nature gone nutzoid Happening. Back before he let hubris hinder his creativity, he was turning all manner of genres (the suspense thriller, the alien invasion) into creepy and wholly satisfying character studies. As long as he sticks with what made David Dunn and Elijah Price memorable in the first place, we are all in for Unbreakable 2. Just remember, it needs to remain unconventional. If not, it will probably be unbearable.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.