Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good 
>>
>>> Way, *way* too long. If they'd chopped out 40 minutes or so, it would
>>> have been excellent.
>>
>>   I disagree. If they had chopped 40 minutes then it would simply have
>> been a regular hollywood blockbuster.
> 
> Could be. And Bruce Willis is good enough you can actually get something
> out of it. I just thought the pace didn't fit the mood. I got bored
> waiting for the next bit. Maybe I was anticipating a twist and hence
> anxious to find out what it was.

	I had no complaints about Unbreakable. Of all his movies, I think this
was the most mature - he didn't seem to go for any sensationalism. I
didn't even care about the "twist". I liked it quite a bit till then anyway.

-- 
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message