Unbroken (Movie)

cloud493

I saw this today, and honestly... it was pretty bad. I had hopes this would be a good one, since it's a setting I'm usually interested in, and Jack O'Conell is a real actor to keep an eye on, but the movie is really bad. To give some specific points

- some really poor actors in there
- The whole movie is basically seeing how much punishment Jack O'Conell's character could take. Which starts off pretty shocking, but ends up real tedious.
- The setting is under-utilised
- it ends really abruptly.

One to miss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrjJbl7kRrI

Dirty Steve

It seems like a vehicle for Angelina Jolie to movie into directing, everything about the promotion of the film has centered around her.
Shame, Jack O'Connell has some real talent and is better than this sort of stuff.
Starred Up was decent and '71 is getting good reviews so he's taking chances anyway.
Hope it works out for him; hope Angelina Jolie just goes away now.

CatFromHue

It looks very formulaic

AMKC

I had five different writers write the script that can never be good for a film. Maybe in a series yes you can have five different writers but to write a film really the less people writing it the better. A pity as I hoped this was going to be a good film and might have went to see it but I think I will just wait till its out on dvd now.

That_Guy

Just back from this. All very 'meh'. There were some interesting moments in it but I really wanted them to focus more on Louie's life after the Olympics and what made him join the army in the first place.

Jack O' Connell is fast becoming a huge star and I'm glad he'll be subjected to a large audience maybe because of Angelina's Jolie name attached to it.

The scenes

in the raft when they're stranded are genuinely quite tense and I almost wished they'd have focused longer on it.

Even before that, the moments when he starts training for the track and field team are great. I just wish Jolie had indulged on these parts more.

It quickly descends into seeing how much punishment O'Connell's character can take.
It gets a bit nauseating and slightly boring to watch all of this play out.

The film could have been easily snipped or at least a lot of the punishment shifted to make way for pre-war stuff.

Certainly could have been a lot worse but there was a film certainly worth salvaging somewhere in there. It's just a shame that this is the final print we were given.

rodge68

After reading the book this was such a disappointment, actually it was terrible !!:mad:

Looper007

CatFromHue wrote: »

It looks very formulaic

that perfectly sums it up for me, poor Domhnall Gleeson and Garrett Hedlund must have had a gun held to their heads to star in this. They were given such nothing roles that you didn't miss them or feel for their characters when they weren't on screen. Takamasa Ishihara was the stereotypical bad guy. Jack O'Connell really was very good in this and didn't put the memory of Louis Zamperini to shame, its the one reason to really catch this film. But they could have made us care more about a guy who lead a interesting life, but they skimp over his time to get to more violence in the prison camp.

The scenes set on sea are by far the films most interesting bits by a country mile, a bit like The Railway Man, a interesting subject that couldn't have been messed up and somehow ends up been very meh. Plus that Chris martin song in the end wasn't needed.

Go check out Merry Christmas Mr Lawerence instead.

_Whimsical_

A great shame as the book was stellar quality. This should have made an epic film.

IvaBigWun

"Oscar contender" my arsé. I havent seen it and I wont be watching it.

The only reason it might be getting nominated is pure politics. Her husband is one of the most linked in actors and producers working today.

FortuneChip

It's pretty bland by all accounts, no new ground and as started the most interesting section is before the capture. Jack O'Connell puts in a good shift; I expect to see him associated with a lot of the movies Colin Farrell would have been when he was younger.

IvaBigWun wrote: »

"Oscar contender" my arsé. I havent seen it and I wont be watching it.

Ah come on, would you not give the first 20 minutes a watch?

IvaBigWun

FortuneChip wrote: »

Ah come on, would you not give the first 20 minutes a watch?

I would. But Im not in Dallas today

Kilkenny14

Cutting out the parts where Louis returns home and turns his life around ruined the film for me. I'll just re-read the book.

.ak

Yeah watched it last night, it's okay. It does grasp the harshness as a POW without any frills, in that regards it does it's job. You do feel for the character atleast, and as a true story you can't really embellish that.

But outside that it was pretty meh. I would say it's a good movie, but no more.