I've seen this film before but was looking through my DVD collection to find a film my kid brother could watch with me, without it being a kids film or a comedy. And I found this. In fact, I think M. Night Shyamalan are great for films to watch with people of all ages, as although they explore fairly gritty and dark ideas they are fairly family friendly.
On second viewing, I liked this film about as much I did the first time round - I like it, but it holds itself back. A lot.
Firstly, the setup is ridiculous, as a 'comic book' film set in reality the concept of Bruce Willis's invincible character seems a little too far fetched to ever be used a relatable figure to the audience, through whom the audience's perceptions are questioned. Unlike Night's other films where the hero's tend to be everyday sorta people (such as Gibson in Signs), Willis is a character totally out of place in the viewer's universe.
The climax of the film is under-developed, with the kidnap plot thrown into the film far too late, and so as the 'actiony' finale lacks any really weight or significance which it craves.
However, this film is not all about special powers or Willis's character, if you look carefully it's a film about perception. Using the directive (is that a word? I doubt it) masterfully, Night subtly sprinkles the film with ideas and shots in which the viewer's perception is brought into play. For example in the final scene of reconciliation between Willis and his wife, their son is shown in full shot filling a glass up midway of of orange juice, the camera then focuses in on this glass next to the newspaper with Willis on the headline, a metaphor surely for the films objective of asking is the glass ever really half empty? This is further emphasised by the decent twist (c'mon on its a Night film, of course it has a twist), in which the viewer is left wondering whether the set villain is actually the hero of the film.
I like this film, mainly due to it's direction and thought provoking message, however as a blockbuster or an entertainment flick I can understand why people think it doesn't stand-up compared to the rest of the blockbusters filling up the local odeons.
On second viewing, I liked this film about as much I did the first time round - I like it, but it holds itself back. A lot.
Firstly, the setup is ridiculous, as a 'comic book' film set in reality the concept of Bruce Willis's invincible character seems a little too far fetched to ever be used a relatable figure to the audience, through whom the audience's perceptions are questioned. Unlike Night's other films where the hero's tend to be everyday sorta people (such as Gibson in Signs), Willis is a character totally out of place in the viewer's universe.
The climax of the film is under-developed, with the kidnap plot thrown into the film far too late, and so as the 'actiony' finale lacks any really weight or significance which it craves.
However, this film is not all about special powers or Willis's character, if you look carefully it's a film about perception. Using the directive (is that a word? I doubt it) masterfully, Night subtly sprinkles the film with ideas and shots in which the viewer's perception is brought into play. For example in the final scene of reconciliation between Willis and his wife, their son is shown in full shot filling a glass up midway of of orange juice, the camera then focuses in on this glass next to the newspaper with Willis on the headline, a metaphor surely for the films objective of asking is the glass ever really half empty? This is further emphasised by the decent twist (c'mon on its a Night film, of course it has a twist), in which the viewer is left wondering whether the set villain is actually the hero of the film.
I like this film, mainly due to it's direction and thought provoking message, however as a blockbuster or an entertainment flick I can understand why people think it doesn't stand-up compared to the rest of the blockbusters filling up the local odeons.