GJ: Imagine the most realistic version of a comic book superhero-origin story and you will have a complete understanding of “Unbreakable.” This is the latest thriller from M. Night Shyamalan, the director who brought the world “The Sixth Sense.” In a very real way, he has brought us “The Sixth Sense” again.

Bruce Willis plays David Dunn, a security guard with marital problems who becomes the sole survivor of a train wreck en route from New York to Philadelphia. He does more than survive the catastrophe; he walks away completely unscathed.

Enter Elijah Prince (Samuel L. Jackson), an eccentric gallery owner with a brittle bone disorder who is obsessed with the notion that for every person born into the world who breaks too easily, there must be an opposite — someone who does not break, who never gets sick and cannot be harmed. As Dunn struggles with the idea that he might be one of these people, he also struggles with his son who thinks of him as Superman.

Besides the heavy atmosphere, there is the signature surprise ending that Shyamalan is going to have a hard time keeping up.

KM: It’s obvious that writer/director/producer Shyamalan is doing his best to follow his blockbuster hit “The Sixth Sense.” He uses the same type of formula: gloomy cinematography, intense acting, an unbelievable yet believable storyline, a slightly-off little boy, Bruce Willis and of course the surprise ending.

The story becomes fun to follow, and what happens next is up in the air. Besides going a bit too slow, the formula actually works again.

That is until the surprise ending.

Hardly ever does an ending actually ruin a movie the way this one does. It has a couple different aspects about it and one is pretty cool, but the other spawns a “what the hell?” kind of reaction.

GJ: This is right on point. If a director comes up with one crackerjack ending in his career, he should be satisfied with that. Even if a director manages to come up with a really good surprise ending every time, he becomes a hack. But the fact is, a really good twist is hard to come by, and Shyamalan just barely squeaked by this time.

KM: Shyamalan is very impressive in how much character and story background he reveals in such a short amount of time. For example, the rough relationship between David Dunn and his wife is clear within the first few minutes of the film, without any direct mention of it. This is definitely a sign of why Shyamalan, at age 29, could be one of the best filmmakers in the business. All he needs is some new formulas for each movie.

GJ: Bruce Willis should also be concerned about doing the same thing too many times in a row.

KM: Willis’ acting is much like “The Sixth Sense,” where he always has that confused look on his face and he is constantly pondering what’s going on in his life. Besides that similarity, he is pretty much flawless at playing this part.

GJ: True, Willis plays Willis well, and this new phase of his career is refreshing when it looked like he was going to be condemned to action hero status forever. He managed to escape that horror better than Stallone or Schwarzenegger.

KM: Jackson’s character is really interesting, and he plays it quite well. It’s definitely not his best work, but the uniqueness of the character is something that definitely takes a high-quality actor.

GJ: Samuel L. Jackson is the kind of quality actor who could take a TV movie role on Lifetime and make it look like Shakespeare. He has a glow that one does and seems to be incapable of doing any wrong.

KM: “Unbreakable” is one of those movies that could go either way, depending on how the ending hits you. But if you’ve heard that this ending is just as cool or better than “The Sixth Sense,” don’t believe the hype.

GJ: This movie is the kind of film Kevin Smith should be doing by this point in his career. It takes the comic book genre and makes it grow up by stripping away the primary colors and commercialism, leaving the splendor of myth intact. In many ways, this movie might be too much for the comic book crowd and not enough for the mainstream audience. Its themes are presented in a very dry, cerebral manner. This isn’t Stan Lee. It’s Umberto Eco.

KM: If Shyamalan lets go of the formula that made him a successful filmmaker and tries out some new ideas, he could be great. But “Unbreakable” is a lame movie for the fact that it’s supposed to have the same attraction as a movie that’s already been huge.

GJ: Exactly. This film is formulaic and the appeal is pretty narrow. The portion of the audience that might accept a discussion of comic book mythology without cracking a smile just does not exist.