Connect with us

Editorials

M. Night Shyamalan’s ‘Unbreakable’: The Original (and Arguably Best) Grounded in Reality Superhero Movie

Published

on

“You know what the scariest thing is? To not know your place in this world. To not know why you’re here. That’s… That’s just an awful feeling.”

Five years before Christopher Nolan popularized the “grounded in reality” superhero movie with his critically acclaimed Batman trilogy, and nearly twenty years before James Mangold’s Logan stripped the superhero back to such an extent that the title character never even donned his iconic costume, M. Night Shyamalan beat the entirety of the superhero movie trend to the punch with Unbreakable. Released in 2000, Shyamalan’s follow up to mind-blowing debut thriller The Sixth Sense came along at a time before Hollywood had really started mining comic books and superhero tales for all they’re worth, introducing the world to a hero and villain of the filmmaker’s own creation: David Dunn and Elijah Price.

Shyamalan’s Unbreakable was so far ahead of its time, in fact, that it was Disney’s insistence to keep the film’s superhero storyline out of the marketing entirely. Rather ironically, given the fact that Disney has been making a killing off superhero movies in recent years, the studio’s executives felt that it would be box office poison to present the film as a superhero origin story. But that is, of course, precisely what Unbreakable is. The twist? As Quentin Tarantino, who lists Unbreakable among his favorite movies, once perfectly described the clever plot: “What if Superman was here on Earth… and didn’t know he was Superman?”

Movies often have a way of making the ordinary seem larger than life and quite extraordinary, but Shyamalan took the complete opposite approach with his superhero movie. Unbreakable, rather boldly at the time, brought a highly extraordinary story down to the most ordinary level possible, centered on a man (Bruce Willis’ David Dunn) who is only just discovering that he’s something more. With the help (moreso than we initially realize) of Samuel L. Jackson’s Elijah Price, who suffers from a disorder that makes his bones as weak as glass, Dunn comes to discover that he’s actually, well, a superhero. But not in the cape-wearing, flying around town sort of way. Rather, in such a subtle way that he made it through a good portion of his life thinking that his superpower was merely learned intuition.

Dunn discovers that he has the ability to spot evil-doers and literally see their crimes play out in his mind, and he’s also capable of surviving things that ordinary humans cannot. The main catalyst for Dunn’s life-altering discovery comes when he impossibly survives a train crash that kills everyone else on board, and he soon realizes that yup, he’s got his very own Kryptonite. It’s not a glowing alien mineral, of course, but something much more grounded in the real world: water. (Fittingly, a rain slicker serves as his “superhero costume.”)

Shyamalan plays with all the main superhero tropes in Unbreakable – not unlike Wes Craven did with the horror genre years prior in meta masterpiece New Nightmare – grounding common superhero mythology in such a level of reality that it’s not immediately clear, watching the film for the first time, that it’s even a comic book movie at all. With Unbreakable, Shyamalan imagines a comic book storyline that’s been stripped free of all the colorful, cartoonish commercialization of the artform, leaving only a very human story that damn near makes you believe that superheros can (and perhaps do) exist in our world.

Of course, that’d mean that supervillains do as well, and Shyamalan contrasts David’s origin story with the story of Elijah “Mr. Glass” Price, who is a bit more self-aware about precisely who/what he is. The big twist in the final moments of Unbreakable is that Price, essentially, is Dunn’s main adversary, the man behind not just the train crash but two previous tragedies that took the lives of countless innocent people. Price spent many years, we learn, trying to find a man whose heroism could match his villainy, ultimately finding a reason for his own existence through “creating” Dunn. After all, a villain is nothing without a hero.

But it’s the very mundane, ordinary humanity of Unbreakable that makes it such a great movie, as both David and Elijah are characterized well beyond their “hero” and “villain” trappings. David’s story is that of a man who is unfulfilled but isn’t sure why, his marriage and relationship with his young son crumbling under the weight of an emptiness that he has no idea how to fill. As David notes to Elijah, he has woken up most days of his adult life with a sadness he cannot even explain, and he ultimately comes to realize that it’s the hero inside of him who has been crying to get out. When David finally fulfills his destiny and “comes out” to his son and is even able to make an effort to fix his marriage for the first time in many years, the moments hit with an emotional impact not often found in effects-happy superhero cinema.

As for Elijah, Shyamalan smartly keeps us off the scent of his twist by making Jackson’s character a likable and sympathetic one. Watching the film today, it seems incredibly obvious that Price is the Lex Luthor to Dunn’s Superman – he’s even got his own super-villain name, told to us early on in the movie! – but I’m surely not alone in having been genuinely surprised the first time I saw Unbreakable. That’s a testament to both the script and Jackson’s performance, which come together to present a deeply compelling villain whose motive is crystal clear and almost scarily relatable: he’ll stop at nothing not to hurt people, but to find a sort of polar opposite soulmate who will give meaning to his own existence.

On all fronts, Unbreakable saw M. Night Shyamalan in top form, bringing to the table a brilliant script and clever, inventive direction that at times makes the film feel like a comic book come to life and at others just plain reminds how masterful his early work truly was. At the time, Unbreakable was another home run for Shyamalan in the thriller arena at his second at bat, but one could make an argument that it’s an even better movie today. At a time when superhero cinema is dominating the landscape, with the tropes and mythologies known even to those who never actually picked up a comic book, Unbreakable‘s brilliance somehow seems even more clear. It broke the mold. And arguably created another one.

Whereas a film like Scream came along to deconstruct a sub-genre as its popularity had waned, Unbreakable is perhaps most impressive in that it preceded the Hollywood movement that its sequel, this year’s Glass, now fits comfortably inside of. Unbreakable is the sort of movie you’d expect a clever filmmaker to conjure up in 2019, perhaps, but the truest testament to M. Night Shyamalan’s brilliance is that he did it so long ago.

Nearly 20 years later, Unbreakable remains one of the all-time great superhero movies.

Writer in the horror community since 2008. Editor in Chief of Bloody Disgusting. Owns Eli Roth's prop corpse from Piranha 3D. Has four awesome cats. Still plays with toys.

Editorials

‘Amityville Karen’ Is a Weak Update on ‘Serial Mom’ [Amityville IP]

Published

on

Amityville Karen horror

Twice a month Joe Lipsett will dissect a new Amityville Horror film to explore how the “franchise” has evolved in increasingly ludicrous directions. This is “The Amityville IP.”

A bizarre recurring issue with the Amityville “franchise” is that the films tend to be needlessly complicated. Back in the day, the first sequels moved away from the original film’s religious-themed haunted house storyline in favor of streamlined, easily digestible concepts such as “haunted lamp” or “haunted mirror.”

As the budgets plummeted and indie filmmakers capitalized on the brand’s notoriety, it seems the wrong lessons were learned. Runtimes have ballooned past the 90-minute mark and the narratives are often saggy and unfocused.

Both issues are clearly on display in Amityville Karen (2022), a film that starts off rough, but promising, and ends with a confused whimper.

The promise is embodied by the tinge of self-awareness in Julie Anne Prescott (The Amityville Harvest)’s screenplay, namely the nods to John Waters’ classic 1994 satire, Serial Mom. In that film, Beverly Sutphin (an iconic Kathleen Turner) is a bored, white suburban woman who punished individuals who didn’t adhere to her rigid definition of social norms. What is “Karen” but a contemporary equivalent?

In director/actor Shawn C. Phillips’ film, Karen (Lauren Francesca) is perpetually outraged. In her introductory scenes, she makes derogatory comments about immigrants, calls a female neighbor a whore, and nearly runs over a family blocking her driveway. She’s a broad, albeit familiar persona; in many ways, she’s less of a character than a caricature (the living embodiment of the name/meme).

These early scenes also establish a fairly straightforward plot. Karen is a code enforcement officer with plans to shut down a local winery she has deemed disgusting. They’re preparing for a big wine tasting event, which Karen plans to ruin, but when she steals a bottle of cursed Amityville wine, it activates her murderous rage and goes on a killing spree.

Simple enough, right?

Unfortunately, Amityville Karen spins out of control almost immediately. At nearly every opportunity, Prescott’s screenplay eschews narrative cohesion and simplicity in favour of overly complicated developments and extraneous characters.

Take, for example, the wine tasting event. The film spends an entire day at the winery: first during the day as a band plays, then at a beer tasting (???) that night. Neither of these events are the much touted wine-tasting, however; that is actually a private party happening later at server Troy (James Duval)’s house.

Weirdly though, following Troy’s death, the party’s location is inexplicably moved to Karen’s house for the climax of the film, but the whole event plays like an afterthought and features a litany of characters we have never met before.

This is a recurring issue throughout Amityville Karen, which frequently introduces random characters for a scene or two. Karen is typically absent from these scenes, which makes them feel superfluous and unimportant. When the actress is on screen, the film has an anchor and a narrative drive. The scenes without her, on the other hand, feel bloated and directionless (blame editor Will Collazo Jr., who allows these moments to play out interminably).

Compounding the issue is that the majority of the actors are non-professionals and these scenes play like poorly performed improv. The result is long, dull stretches that features bad actors talking over each other, repeating the same dialogue, and generally doing nothing to advance the narrative or develop the characters.

While Karen is one-note and histrionic throughout the film, at least there’s a game willingness to Francesca’s performance. It feels appropriately campy, though as the film progresses, it becomes less and less clear if Amityville Karen is actually in on the joke.

Like Amityville Cop before it, there are legit moments of self-awareness (the Serial Mom references), but it’s never certain how much of this is intentional. Take, for example, Karen’s glaringly obvious wig: it unconvincingly fails to conceal Francesca’s dark hair in the back, but is that on purpose or is it a technical error?

Ultimately there’s very little to recommend about Amityville Karen. Despite the game performance by its lead and the gentle homages to Serial Mom’s prank call and white shoes after Labor Day jokes, the never-ending improv scenes by non-professional actors, the bloated screenplay, and the jittery direction by Phillips doom the production.

Clocking in at an insufferable 100 minutes, Amityville Karen ranks among the worst of the “franchise,” coming in just above Phillips’ other entry, Amityville Hex.

Amityville Karen

The Amityville IP Awards go to…

  • Favorite Subplot: In the afternoon event, there’s a self-proclaimed “hot boy summer” band consisting of burly, bare-chested men who play instruments that don’t make sound (for real, there’s no audio of their music). There’s also a scheming manager who is skimming money off the top, but that’s not as funny.
  • Least Favorite Subplot: For reasons that don’t make any sense, the winery is also hosting a beer tasting which means there are multiple scenes of bartender Alex (Phillips) hoping to bring in women, mistakenly conflating a pint of beer with a “flight,” and goading never before seen characters to chug. One of them describes the beer as such: “It looks like a vampire menstruating in a cup” (it’s a gold-colored IPA for the record, so…no).
  • Amityville Connection: The rationale for Karen’s killing spree is attributed to Amityville wine, whose crop was planted on cursed land. This is explained by vino groupie Annie (Jennifer Nangle) to band groupie Bianca (Lilith Stabs). It’s a lot of nonsense, but it is kind of fun when Annie claims to “taste the damnation in every sip.”
  • Neverending Story: The film ends with an exhaustive FIVE MINUTE montage of Phillips’ friends posing as reporters in front of terrible green screen discussing the “killer Karen” story. My kingdom for Amityville’s regular reporter Peter Sommers (John R. Walker) to return!
  • Best Line 1: Winery owner Dallas (Derek K. Long), describing Karen: “She’s like a walking constipation with a hemorrhoid”
  • Best Line 2: Karen, when a half-naked, bleeding woman emerges from her closet: “Is this a dream? This dream is offensive! Stop being naked!”
  • Best Line 3: Troy, upset that Karen may cancel the wine tasting at his house: “I sanded that deck for days. You don’t just sand a deck for days and then let someone shit on it!”
  • Worst Death: Karen kills a Pool Boy (Dustin Clingan) after pushing his head under water for literally 1 second, then screeches “This is for putting leaves on my plants!”
  • Least Clear Death(s): The bodies of a phone salesman and a barista are seen in Karen’s closet and bathroom, though how she killed them are completely unclear
  • Best Death: Troy is stabbed in the back of the neck with a bottle opener, which Karen proceeds to crank
  • Wannabe Lynch: After drinking the wine, Karen is confronted in her home by Barnaby (Carl Solomon) who makes her sign a crude, hand drawn blood contract and informs her that her belly is “pregnant from the juices of his grapes.” Phillips films Barnaby like a cross between the unhoused man in Mulholland Drive and the Mystery Man in Lost Highway. It’s interesting, even if the character makes absolutely no sense.
  • Single Image Summary: At one point, a random man emerges from the shower in a towel and excitedly poops himself. This sequence perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching Amityville Karen.
  • Pray for Joe: Many of these folks will be back in Amityville Shark House and Amityville Webcam, so we’re not out of the woods yet…

Next time: let’s hope Christmas comes early with 2022’s Amityville Christmas Vacation. It was the winner of Fangoria’s Best Amityville award, after all!

Amityville Karen movie

Continue Reading