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…

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…