• Top 5 "Family-Friendly" Movies that Aren't Lame
• Top 5 Movies I Found in the $5 Bin
• Top Five B-Movies Ever
• Close Encounters: Top 5 Cinematic Touches That Are Just Plain Wrong
• Top 10 Movie Clichés
• Most Overrated Movies of All Time

Paul, I think adventure or fantasy films can be more than mere entertainmentlook at Lord of the Rings, for example, which has much to say about heroism, sacrifice, and friendship--but when a filmmaker tries to blend fantasy with realism, he does so at his peril. The concept behind Unbreakable could possiblyand I say this tentativelyhave worked in the hands of a different director, but Shyamalan, in my opinion, doesn't pull it off. If a film provokes unintentional laughter at the very moments you're supposed to take it the most seriously (I'm thinking of Samuel L. Jackson intoning, "It has begun," here, which cracked both me and Kevin up), it's the director's problem and not the audience's.

What if, instead of bothering with the superhero trappings, Shyamalan had made a straightforward film about, say, a strong but otherwise un-super man whose childhood dream was to become a firefighter? He abandons this dream upon his early marriage, but, later down the road, feels like God is calling him to serve humanity by fighting fires. He's conflicted as to whether to remain in his safe office job, which provides well for his wife and children, or take on the considerably more dangerous work of becoming a firefighter. Couldn't such a film make the same points as Unbreakable, without running the risk of becoming hopelessly silly?

And remember, lots and lots of little kids want to be firemen, too . . .

I agree with you that the last 30 seconds of Unbreakable are unfortunately corny, Courtney, but I really think the rest of the movie is pretty effectively rendered. But that's just me.

As to whether a fireman movie could accomplish the same effect, I suppose Oliver Stone's movie about 9-11 movie with Nicholas Cage may provide some evidence one way or the other.

I do think there's something about fantasy that captures the enormity of our hopes and struggles in a way that more realistic fare does not . . .

Two points:

First of all, while it is possible for fantasy to express "the struggles of [our] lives in effective, truthful metaphors," the genre usually ends up distracting me from whatever theme it wants to get across. If a director really wanted to dig deep into an aspect of the human condition, then he/she generally would be better served by a genre that more closely mimics that condition (at least in a material sense). For the most part, I am not as moved by artifacts of sci-fi/fantasy as I am by more "realistic" fare.

Second, as I mentioned in my review, I did find the first two-thirds of Unbreakable quite compelling. I did not "decline to admit" or "consciously evade" Shymalan's ideas; rather, I paid strict attention. However, when the director ventured from his brooding into superhero sloppiness, everything fell apart. Courtney is right: superhero movies generally succeed when they are campy enterprises and when their messages are simple and short (lasting only as long as the multiplex's bucket of popcorn). If Shymalan had stayed just a little closer to "reality," then he would have made a better film (and I even might have acknowledged him as the serious director he so desperately wants to be).

As your first point makes clear, sci-fi and fantasy just doesn't "do it" for everyone. If the genre itself is a distraction, then it's an uphill race from the get-go.

You almost sound defensive in your second paragraph, Kevin. Remember that I wrote my essay well before I published it, and before I had read your own :)

Hey, what do you mean by "superhero sloppiness"? From the sentence which follows, seems you're suggesting that fantasy that doesn't poke fun at itself is sloppy. In other words, only parodic sci-fi or fantasy will do.

Pretty sneaky, Paul. You know as well as I do that you had watched Unbreakable with me, Courtney, et al. -- thus, even though you had written your review before reading the others', you were responding (albeit subconsciously) to the verbal criticism of that evening. As such, I merely was responding to your (again, subconscious) defense of Shyamalan =) !

Actually, when I used the term "superhero sloppiness," I was referring to Shymalan's awful directing in the last 15 minutes, when the movie went from a philosophical brooding to a...well, sloppy fight scene.

My comments, of course, are generalizations. Fantasy doesn't have to be parodic in order to be "legit" in my book. However, as you said, producers of sci-fi/fantasy already have an uphill battle with people like me, so if they are going to produce "serious" work, then it had better be good. I hate to keep picking on the guy, but Shymalan simply is not a good writer-director.

This is fun! And it keeps going and going . . .

I know a number of folk who have a fundamental dislike for sci-fi and fantasy. They were indeed in mind as I wrote this essay and, yes, you were one of them. However, my point is directed not at a single individual but the many out there who dismiss fantasy as irrelevant. This includes all the literary folk unwilling to attend pop-culture conferences, film critics who avoid sci-fi and fantasy films unless absolutely forced to partake, and any others who feel themselves *above* such fare. I don't think one has to be a comic book fiend (like myself) or a lover of fantasy (like some who write for this site) to really appreciate fantastic tales. I'll admit that I'll likely always have a knee-jerk reaction to those who dismiss sci-fi and fantasy out of hand. I don't think you would count yourself a member of such a party, but I can think of a few professors at UNC and some poor, unenlightened friends of mine who would. They are all poorer for it, I think. I think everyone should be brought up on fantasy and legend, whether it be the stuff of Harry Potter and Narnia, Greek myths, or modern superheroes. And I think we do ourselves a great wrong if we consider such stuff as mere fluff. I've quoted Samuel Taylor Coleridge on this issue, and I'll do it again. He addresses yet another reason (unaddressed in the above essay) as to why sci-fi and fantasy are valuable.

"' . . .from my early reading of fairy tales and genii etc. etc. my mind had been habituated to the Vast and I never regarded my senses in any way
as the criteria of my belief. I regulated all my creeds by my conceptions, not by my sight, even at that age. Should children be permitted to read
romances, and relations of giants and magicians and genii? I know all that has been said against it; but I have formed my faith in the affirmative. I know no other way of giving the mind a love of the Great and the Whole'" [from a letter to Thomas Poole of October 1797)

As to the fight scene, it's definitely not out of the Bourne Identity or some classic kung-fu movie, but then, that's the point. Our hero basically takes that criminal down with a single choke hold. He has no training in fighting, whatsoever. What would *you* do if you were trying to defeat someone and you had no skills to speak of? I think I'd do the same as this guy. Grab him from behind when he's not looking and hold on for dear life, even if he banged me up against the walls and such. What else could I do? Yes, it's sloppy compared with Chuck Norris or Jet Lee.

As to your last sentence, I defy it. He simply IS a WONDERFUL writer-director. So there! :)

Forgive me for coming late (ok, very, very late) to this interesting debate. Paul M makes a very good point in his essay and in his comments.

Kevin O'D. writes, "If a director really wanted to dig deep into an aspect of the human condition, then he/she generally would be better served by a genre that more closely mimics that condition (at least in a material sense)."

I would argue that Star Wars had a far greater impact on people's lives, for which few give it credit, than almost any other film released in 1977. I would bet that more families saw something of their lives in the trials and tribulations of The Incredibles then in the "realistic" family in Ordinary People.

Daniel, you have a good point. There are some movies in the sci-fi/fantasy realm that have a great impact on people, more so than "serious" fare. However, for the most part, the genre doesn't do it for me -- I am constantly distracted by how unrealistic it is (or, in the case of Shymalan, how mediocre it is).

I completely acknowledge that I simply am presenting a subjective preference. I am not arguing that sci-fi/fantasy is a lesser genre in any objective sense. However, as a movie consumer, my subjective preferences are vitally important: I want to enjoy my 90 to 120 minutes in front of the screen, and I generally don't find sci-fi/fantasy to be as enjoyable as more "realistic" work. That's just where my aesthetic chips fall.