Unbroken Review

Starring: Jack O'Connell, Domhnall Gleeson, Miyavi, Garrett Hedlund, Jai Courtney

Six months ago, I decided I would make a stab at the Oscars, which were about another eight months away. I'd seen only one movie that could be considered: Boyhood, and almost all of the others had no trailers out, so I was going in blind. I picked that Unbroken would win Best Picture, Best Director, and be nominated in almost every single category eligible. I mean, Angelina Jolie is directing a movie written by the Coen Brothers (directors of Fargo, True Grit, and No Country for Old Men) and based off of a great story. It tells the incredible true story of Louie Zamperini, an Olympic athlete who fought in WWII, until his plane crashed in the ocean and he spent 47 days on a life raft with two other men. They were discovered by the Japanese, and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp brutally tortured. The movie is based off of Laura Hillenbrand's biography of the same name, which is one of the most profound books I've ever read. So now that I've seen it, what do I think? Can it win big? Absolutely not. This movie will be lucky to get nominated for any Oscars outside of technology achievements. It's not bad, but it's not great either, and that's due to some major problems.

First, what did I like about Unbroken? Not much to be honest. The visual effects are really great. The movie opens with Zamperini and his crew in a plane, and that was the highlight of the whole movie for me. The plane's mechanics were great to watch, and the whole thing was very visually pleasing. And I would say that's the best part because there's no real story at that part. The team behind the film is what really gets in the way. I would also say the acting is fine. Jack O'Connell, who plays Zamperini is okay. I think he was very stiff for a lot of his big scenes. Whenever he shouted it just sounded fake and strained. But throughout most of the movie he did well. Miyavi was good also. He plays The Bird, the relentless leader of the POW camp. While reading the book, he was described as much older and much more brutal. This depiction looked about 18 years old, and instead of brutal he was just pretty creepy. He got the point across, and was good in his role, but it was very different from the book's version of The Bird, which is, of course, the true version.

I'm surprised I've gone this far without revealing who was really the problem here. Angelina Jolie. First off, in a year where I've seen such great directorial skills displayed in Boyhood, Birdman, and Gone Girl to name a few, everyone displayed immense talent and you could actually feel the director's presence. I think Unbroken directed itself for the most part. Second, I have an extreme issue with the movie's PG-13 rating. This was a harrowing story with mature themes. I think a lot of Jolie's choices were based off of money alone. She wants to make money, and the movie has, but it loses so much in the process. The only reason it's PG-13 is because Jolie wants everyone to see it, foolishly thinking that people won't see an R rated movie if it's actually good quality. Without the R rating it loses a lot of the great themes. For one, religion is an extreme theme in Zamperini's life. He was incredibly religious, and spoke to God throughout his ordeals. He lost sight of his faith in the POW camp and actually rediscovered religion in his method of recovering from PTSD and forgiving his captors. That was also the best part of the book. But Jolie scrapped that, and the movie hints at religion maybe twice, in a very vague fashion, and never even goes to the second half of Zamperini's story where the real meat is. No PTSD, no religion, just the incredibly clichéd story she creates, that's actually far from the truth, and cringeworthy at times.

I'll explain how clichéd this movie is. First off, I hate clichés. I'd rather a movie show the realism of life, than become a Lifetime movie full off fluff that gives people false expectations. And Unbroken is so full of fluff sometimes it's laughable. People around me and behind me in the theater were actually laughing at some of the scenes because they were just so ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, some of teh scenes are executed well, it's just not consistent. Louie sets his head down, and then he has this vision of just his naked upper body in a white world running in slow motion to the tune of some organ music. That was a "what the heck?" moment for me, which is never a good thing in a movie trying to be serious. I was also never once immersed in Zamperini's story. Yes, it's incredible that this actually happened to this man, but this was not a worthy adaptation of his life. My mind wandered constantly. Technologically it's great, and the story is good at some parts but it's not consistent. The pace is also painfully slow. The POW camp is interesting, even if not realistic at all, but they spent too long on the raft. I've seen Life of Pi, so I know that being alone at sea on a raft is not a boring premise, they just failed to execute it well. I cannot recommend this to anyone unless they like sappy movies. Because there's a whole lot of sap here. And liking sappy movies is not a bad thing, it's just not the kind of movie I would ever want to see. Which is why I have to give it the rating I believe it deserves.

Rating: