There’s, undoubtedly, a great cinematic tale to be taken from late Olympian and WWII prisoner of war Louis Zamperini’s life. The man’s strength through great turmoil is harrowing and inspiring, and holds the marks of a wonderful, feel-good movie.
Unbroken, the second directorial effort from Angelina Jolie, is not that great movie. Its self-congratulatory and rushed storytelling only touches the surface of what makes Zamperini’s story so memorizing. But Jolie’s sensitive attention to character and history also eliminates the movie from being just your average over-bloated Oscar bait.
Based on Laura Hillenbrand’s best-selling biography of the same name, Jolie’s film recounts Zamperini’s story from early childhood through his treacherous ordeals in the face of war. It’s more a hodgepodge of his endeavors, with his imprisonment by the Japanese government taking up most of the film’s focus. But within the walls of these struggles, Unbroken gets a majority of its best segments, as the film slows down to focus, if just briefly, on these characters instead of rushing to get from plot point B to C.
For as disappointingly sped-up as the first act is —despite an appropriately rousing plane battle in the first couple minutes —and as disengaging and ultimately navel-gazing as the second and third ones can be, Jolie asserts an ongoing validity and tenderness to her protagonist’s plight. A level of authenticity found in brief flickers throughout Unbroken offers a thoughtful remorse typically unseen in these big-budget Hollywood blockbusters.
If only Unbroken could separate itself out, neglecting the trappings of partial storytelling and detail-jumping hindering Jolie’s movie from becoming the good movie it so desperately want to be. In a day-and-age where movies pride themselves stretching their narratives to two-or-three features whether needed or not Unbroken is the kind of story actually warranting this extension. There’s simply too much at play here to condense into a singular film, and its two-hour plus running time leaves its audience feeling both tired and wanting more. The best course of action was likely the mini-series route here, much like Olive Kittredge did just a few months ago on HBO, but there’s no sense wondering what could have been now.
Unbroken does display moments of downplayed poignancy that demonstrates the good film it could have been. But its screenplay, credited under some fantastic screenwriters like Joel an Ethan Coen, Richard LaGravenese and William Nicholson, can’t help but fall victim to painfully obvious dialogue and foreshadowing with the sensitivity of a bull in a china shop. Seriously, the writers behind The Big Lebowski, Fargo and No Country for Old Men couldn’t let lines as blandly on-the-nose as “If you can take it, you can make it,” to pass under their draft, right? What happened here is that there is one giant question mark throughout the film.
As per usual, cinematographer Roger Deakins does astounding work here. He gives each image a rich depth, adding a great visual weight and technical flourish throughout, with even the ugliest moments in Zamperini’s story carrying a captivating allure. Equally poised are William Goldenberg and Tim Squyres’ editing, providing even the roughest narrative transitions with a sense of pose and levity. It’s often these features helping to keep Jolie’s movie watchable through its narrative sloppiness.
An accomplished, sternly mature filmmaker lies within Jolie, as evident throughout here and her directorial debut, 2011’s In the Land of Blood and Honey. It’s a shame, then, she must subsume herself to trite narrative storytelling and overly simplistic supporting characters. Her well-casted film, with rising star Jack O’Connell as Zamperini and Domhnall Gleeson as Phil, one of Louis’ companions also trapped at sea and war, being the stand-outs, make even the most mundane and overplayed attempts at sincerity carry nuance.
As an actress herself, it’s not surprising she can direct fellow performers. But because their characters are so limited to basic motivations, there’s not enough meat for them in this script to create truly compelling work. A shame, really, for Unbroken’s cast is eager to push themselves through their physically and emotionally exhausting roles, but the noble-but-familiar, sometimes even simplistic, narrative only lets them touch the brink of their dramatic potential.
Unbroken is the kind of middle-ground, overly produced Oscar wannabe that balances itself between being great and a parody of itself. It doesn’t go down very easily, and not in the ways it intended. But Jolie’s passionate, sympathetic direction does bring some glossy affection from time to time, primarily in its little moments where she finally lets her characters and story breathe. Her closeness to the real-life subject makes her objectivity basically non-existent. But in that sincerity does come moments where its emotional openness creates some tenderly close drama.
It makes sense why Hollywood struggled to bring this movie to the screen for years; it’s a great story, but there’s just too much to juggle, especially for a director on her second film. Hopefully Hollywood will try this again —maybe even just exploring one aspect of Zamperini’s life, as even his Olympic years warrant an hour-and-a-half/two-hour film alone. A great movie lies within Zamperini, and so far we have only gotten a merely OK one.
Rating: 2.5/5 stars
