IMDb reviews are always perplexing, hence why I don't really come here all that often. After watching this movie, however, I had to jump in to clarify what a great movie this is and how to differentiate it from the negative reviews - based on your familiarity with the story. I had never heard of Zamperini's story prior to seeing this. With that in mind, I didn't have nearly a high enough standard to hold the film up to as fans of the book did. That standard is plenty high though, as far as war films go. Would absolutely recommend seeing it if you're not familiar - Zamperini's struggle almost doesn't seem real it's so epic in scope.
I've seen quite a few naysayers on here complaining about the lack of character development and overly brutal torture scenes that go on and on. Although I agree the character development could be more dynamic at parts, WAR is WAR! The director Angelina Jolie did not sugarcoat life as a POW - it is quite literally suffering, torture, and death 24/7, particularly in Japanese camps. Anyone asking for "less torture" is doing a serious injustice to the pain our armed forces endured. You SHOULD know their pain, and know it well.
Others also said the movie felt "heavily routine" and bland. Again, having never heard of Zamperini, I find it hard to understand what's routine and bland about going to the Olympics, falling out of the sky into shark infested waters for 45 days on a single life boat, surviving not one but two POW camps, and in the end, forgiving your own captors that tortured you. I kept thinking the movie was going to randomly end at any point and Zamperini rescued, but this was delayed in a fantastic way. I get that the book had a lot more aspects of the struggle going for it, but this is 2 hours people. Lots of audiences already find that too long, sadly. Jolie condensed what she could as best she could with the Coen brothers imho.
I also liked to trying comparing this to Hacksaw Ridge, another excellent competitor in the selfless war movie genre. Both have fantastic stories and harrowing moments, but HR seemed weirdly more cliché than Unbroken did, to me. HR didn't have enough slow moments to breathe, subtle character moments that show you things off-camera that help set the scene (wide expanse of the Pacific Ocean in unbroken, Macks foreshadowing nervous demeanor). The dialogue at times also seemed heavily Hollywood-ized instead of the more realistic soldier dialogue from Unbroken. There was something more haunting about seeing every one of Zamperinis' friends fall victim to their circumstances than the expected-to- die soldier companions in HR.
There are truly some remarkable things in Unbroken that make it an absolute worthwhile film to watch. Anyone saying otherwise is looking a little too deep.
1 out of 1 found this helpful