Skip to main content

You are famous Olympic athlete.

Unbroken
(2014)

(SPOILERS) It’s easy to see why the life of Louis “Louie” Zamperini was snapped up as a movie property, since it sounds on the “too eventful a yarn to possibly be true” side. Competing (and winning bronze) in the 1938 Olympics, adrift for 45 days after his plane crashed and enduring hell in Japanese prison camps, surviving, marrying, suffering PTSD and financial woes before devoting his life to God as he promised he would, making peace with (most of) his oppressors and then at age 80 running with the Olympic torch in Tokyo. Except Angelina Jolie’s film Unbroken, from a screenplay by the Coen Brothers, Richard LaGravensese and William Nicholson, adapted from Laura Hillenbrand’s Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption, covers only the first three of these, and gets bogged down in the final one to such an extent that rather than exploring the man we only experience a surface reflection through his repeated tribulations.


Unbroken covers the other details in a couple of sentences over the end credits, showing footage of the actual Louie with the torch. It rather begs the question, with a title like this, why the makers think they’ve done enough with his story. This is a long film, but it feels limited and constrained once it pitches into the prison camps before the halfway mark, where it remains.


We have little idea of who Zampa is as a person, other than flashbacks showing him as a tearaway who could tearaway (there’s something pseudo-Forrest Gump about the sequence; “Run, Zampa run”, and what ten-year-old exclaims “I’m nothing, let me be nothing!”; talk about existential crisis). The flashbacks generally are inserted in the de rigueur manner that announces this will succumb to the problems most biopics do. In a sense, it stops short by finishing with the end of the war, whereas many a biopic will carry on regardless in a linear array of prosthetics, but there’s a balancing act necessary here that Unbroken can’t get right.


Jack O’Connell’s crowning moment as Louie is designed as his raising, defiant, an unconvincing bit of prop wood over his head while malicious Japanese warden The Bird threatens to have him shot if he drops it. The music swells up at this Louie’s bravery and indomitability, but all one takes away from the scene is corniness. There’s a great deal of difference between a scene being factually correct (although this makes it look like he held the timber for half a day, rather than half an hour) and whether or not it translates to screen effectively.


Perhaps Unbroken would have worked better as a mini-series? It bears the structural imprint of Nicholson, who provided determinedly un-mould breaking screenplays for Sir Dickie (king of the traditional – or dull, if you prefer – biopic). One can discern nothing of the Coens at all, which would be a triumphant disappearing act if the script’s quality were assured.


The thing is, there’s half a good movie here. I found the adrift sequence – complete with machine-gunned shark – compelling in a way the Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence-lite internment ordeal wholly isn’t. Maybe part of this is that Louie isn’t a man in isolation; the absence is really felt when he is separated from Domhnall Gleeson’s Phil, the latter never to return. It feels like a clueless snub to audience investment in the character when we are told in the coda that Phil survived the war too and he and Louie became lifelong friends, as if the makers were oblivious to what was working and what wasn’t in the picture.


Jolie as director has taken some hits, but her basic handling of the material is solid and sensitive, aided admirably by Roger Deakins’ cinematography (there is a bit too much gorgeous framing for something intended to be so arduous, perhaps). Alexandre Desplat, possibly the most variable composer winning Oscars today, lays it on with a trowel, and this is very much in the ill-advised war score category of Monuments Men. But he’s also responding to Jolie’s inability to hang back, her urge to over-varnish.


I don’t know how many prisoners actually lined up to punch Louie in the face, but if it’s as many as depicted it’s a wonder he had any face left. During the aforementioned plank scene, Louie flashes to wondrous moments of running, and one can only think unintentional parody. Likewise, the unnecessary cut to the actual guy in 1998 is a Spielberg Saving Private Ryan move (albeit that was fictional), and as ill advised without the tissue that comes in between. Louie may not have wanted his conversion to be part of the picture, so as not to put unbelievers off, but what we end up with is this suffering being all the man is, without even much insight into him during that experience.


It’s the one-note nature of the brutality endured by Louie at the behest of Miyavi’s “The Bird” Watanabe that sinks the picture. As noted, it’s not whether the essentials are true or not; it’s how they work dramatically. Miyavi is suitably unnerving, but he’s basically just a movie monster. No one else during this sequence makes much impression; Garrett Hedlund gives a decent enough showing in an underwritten role. As great as O’Connell has been in most things, he’s only ever okay here, and so glaringly not Italian looking you wonder why they even bothered trying to boot polish his hair and tan his skin. 


Jolie can definitely put an effective sequence together, as the first hour of the film shows, but she needs someone advising her against indulgence, the sort of indulgent that leads to Coldplay fogging over the closing credits. She shows considerable wisdom at times (Jai Courtney doesn’t make it beyond the plane landing in the drink) but Unbroken’s material required restraint, and more still a screenwriter who could inlay the man and not just his keynotes.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

I have discovered the great ray that first brought life into the world.

Frankenstein (1931)
(SPOILERS) To what extent do Universal’s horror classics deserved to be labelled classics? They’re from the classical Hollywood period, certainly, but they aren’t unassailable titans that can’t be bettered – well unless you were Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan trying to fashion a Dark Universe with zero ingenuity. And except maybe for the sequel to the second feature in their lexicon. Frankenstein is revered for several classic scenes, boasts two mesmerising performances, and looks terrific thanks to Arthur Edeson’s cinematography, but there’s also sizeable streak of stodginess within its seventy minutes.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…