"Unbroken" Review

Title: Unbroken

Director: Angelina Jolie

Screenplay by: Laura Hillenbrand, William Nicholson, Richard LaGravenese, Joel Coen, and Ethan Coen

Year: 2014


When I first saw the trailer for Unbroken, I thought it would be a very good movie. The trailer sold it well. But as soon as Angelina Jolie's name appeared as the director, my expectations immediately dropped. Nothing against Jolie, but I just couldn't picture her as a competent director. Does Jolie prove her potential as a director with Unbroken, or does the film break under the weight of the story it is trying to tell?

Unbroken is based on the true story of Lou Zamperini (Jack O'Connell). The film follows his life during World War II and all the horrible things he had to experience, such as being stranded at sea for several weeks and being imprisoned by the Japanese Navy. This is a story of strength, survival, and resilience.

I will start by addressing the directing in this movie. My God! Jolie's direction might just be one of the biggest surprises of the year. Unbroken is beautifully shot and sucks you in with its visuals. It feels like you can almost reach out and touch what's on screen. This film has a very distinctive look, a look that will hopefully become one of Jolie's trademarks as a director. Unbroken is pure candy for the eyes, a wonderful visual treat.

Jack O'Connell stars as Lou Zamperini and he plays the part very well. O'Connell proves that he is a rising actor with plenty of potential. He embodies the aspirations, fear, bravery, strength, and hope that Zamperini actually had. He is completely believable in the role and is definitely an actor to watch out for in future work. It's hardly worth mentioning the rest of the cast, as this is really O'Connell's show. The cast is good overall though, especially Domhnall Gleeson. I would like to bring attention to Miyavi however, the actor who portrays Mutsuhiro Watanabe, or the Bird. Miyavi's performance is alright, but there are quite a few instances where the Bird comes off as very cartoony. For these scenes, all he needs is a handlebar mustache and he'd make a decent animated villain. Whether or not this is an accurate portrayal of the real Bird is irrelevant. The Bird didn't come across as very believable at times. If this is how he really was, than a deviation from the true story would have been welcome. On the other hand, if this wasn't accurate, then what were they going for?

As for the plot, it is very hit and miss. The true story is unbelievable. We cannot help but sympathize with Zamperini for all that he has gone through. This film adaptation does the actual story justice in some regards. The movie excels when showing the dogfights and the days in the raft. Though the air battle is only a relatively short sequence at the beginning of the movie, it is effective and displays some inventive cinematography. The highlight of the movie however, is of course the days spent on the raft. These scenes have a perfect contrast between wide shots and close-ups. The close-ups allow the audience to get intimate with the characters and grow more attached to them, while the wide-angle shots illustrate how vast the ocean is and small the rafts are, illustrating pure isolation. The acting, the writing, the direction, it all culminates in this act. There is one flaw with this sequence however. One of the three men dies. The problem is that he had no character development. He barely had any lines compared to other two and thus his death didn't have the emotional weight it should have. We got to learn quite a bit about the surviving man, but there was no real payoff to it by the end. If the former had a little more screen time, his death would have had a greater impact.

The other two aspects of the plot, Zamperini's time in the Olympics and the two years he spent in the Japanese prison camp, are not as strong. The flashbacks to his childhood are very poorly done, as they provide very little information about his character and what he wants. The moments that actually take place in the Olympics however, are very well done. The audience feels the adrenaline and passion that drives him, which makes for some great uplifting moments. But that's all they are; moments. There are only two or three flashbacks to this time of his life within the entire film and they are all at the beginning. This really underplays his athletic accomplishments and passion. It does not give the audience time to admire and embrace what he did. The majority of the film follows Zamperini at the prison camp. There are definitely some great moments here and the audience certainly feels the cruelty and brutality this man had to endure...at first. Because the prison camp is such a large portion of the film, we get to see plenty of punishment and savagery, a little too much. As a result, the audience becomes numb to it all, and each punishment becomes just another punishment, an average day in the life of Lou Zamperini. The audience loses a sense of shock and emotional attachment. Sadly, this diminishes the final result. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to like during the imprisonment act, but had it been cut shorter and that time given to Zamperini's flashbacks, and even character development on the rafts, it would have made the movie much more powerful.

One of the weakest aspects of the film though is its familiarity. For such a singular real-life experience, the movie is rather run-of-the-mill and predictable as a result. Many visual cues have been done many times before and have been done better. Even the musical cues and transitions sound familiar. You do not need to know anything about the true story to be able to predict what is about to happen on many occasions. A few examples are when Zamperini is falling behind at the Olympic race and when he is forced to hold the bar above is head. The entire payoff is not predictable, but the general idea of what will happen is foreseeable. When the audience is aware of what is going to happen before it actually does, it detracts from the experience.

Overall, Unbroken is split down the middle in terms of quality. This is a perfect example of a mixed bag. Perhaps this could be attributed to the fact that five people wrote the script...five people wrote this script. On the one hand, Unbroken is a gorgeous looking movie, with good performances, impressive and inventive direction from Jolie, some very good sequences, and quite a number of uplifting moments. On the other hand, Unbroken suffers from a lack of character development, an unpolished script, predictability, and scenes that either overstay their welcome (even though the film is wonderfully paced) or have little to no payoff. Unfortunately for this film, it follows many of the same beats that other movies in the same genre have already done. I wouldn't call Unbroken underwhelming, but it could have been more. It is difficult to come to a consensus on this film. It isn't really a bad movie, but it isn't a very good one either. It has qualities of both in even quantities. I will say that this film has put Jolie and O'Connell on the road to great careers as a director and an actor, respectively. Unbroken is worth watching for those curious, but I really cannot say much more than that.

Grade: C+