MovieChat Forums > Unbroken (2014) Discussion > I don't get it

I don't get it

posted 10 years ago by bethany-ellen-22
60 replies | jump to latest

I saw this movie at the cinema a while back, and thought it was an incredible story, surprisingly well-executed by Angelina Jolie, especially for her directing debut. But so many of the reviews I've seen have either trashed Unbroken, or dubbed it average and cliché.

One of the arguments was about how the way it was put together was too trite, and I'm confused because it's supposed to be a true story, set within a real time with real people, so can I ask what everyone was expecting? The entire film to be a dreamy haze of a distorted, surreal reality with Lana Del Rey songs playing in the background like some sort of Baz Luhrmann project? My theory is that it's being boycotted simply because Angelina directed it.

I'm surprised O'Connell or Miyavi weren't even up for Oscar nominations, even after the film was snubbed in many other categories; the reviews I've seen have criticised the film, but the feedback on the performances are all positive. It just seems kind of unfair.

Is there anyone else who actually thought Unbroken was well done?

[–] knight-in-black-leather 10 years ago

I thought it was very well done and was pleasantly surprised by Jolie's talent.

This is a faithful saying...Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

[–] JeanieK3873 10 years ago

Ditto

[–] sudiniup 10 years ago

Yes, ditto.

[–] drastic83 10 years ago

Compared to the book, the movie just fell flat.

[–] supravs 10 years ago

you dont compare books to movies... of course the book is going to have more detail. ITS A BOOK........

[–] crockett_john 9 years ago

A lot of people do compare movies to the books they're based on. I don't think it's a fair comparison. They're really different and serve different audiences. I hate it when I see something that makes no sense in a movie and I see someone make a comment asking about that thing and then the response they get is, "It would make sense if you read the book," or "Go and read the book." I disagree with that approach, too. If I wanted to read a book, I would read a book. Instead, I watched a movie.

It's also funny to me when someone acts like they're superior to everyone because he/she read the book a movie was based on. It never struck me as being ridiculous until I saw "Mulan" in the theater. At the end of the movie (a cartoon), this girl stood up in front of me and said, "Pfft! That's NOTHING like the real Mulan!" I actually laughed out loud.

---
I'm just expressing my opinion.

You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.

[–] mingo59-241-858761 9 years ago

Exactly how I felt ... flat! Read the book which was enthralling. Hesitant to watch the movie, when I did found it disjointed and lacking depth. Throughout the movie I found myself explaining to the non-book people a lot of back story. I'm putting the blame on the Director ... Just my 2 cents. I also didn't feel a connection with the "Louie" actor ... But Gleeson stole every scene he was in!

[–] footballdeb 10 years ago

I just watched this movie tonight, and was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I had heard that it wasn't very good, etc..., but I found it emotional and very well done.

Debbie

[–] artistathome 9 years ago

When a book is great and exciting it is because you can put yourself in the place of the characters. You create those people in your mind.
And you go to the movie expecting it to match what you imagined.

Can't ever happen.

[–] chkaycom 10 years ago

The story of triumph beyond one's normal expectation of man/woman is a typical meme. This story had the unique attribute of the protagonist being an Olympian. The plane wreck survival story was fairly typical, and the prisoner of war story has been done many times. The film brought nothing new to the audience. Was it a bad film? No, but it was not that great either.

I know nothing about film making/directing. I can only tell you that the film that I saw on my 65" screen at home looked and felt like a Hallmark movie instead of a AAA theatrical production. None of the characters were brought to life for me, and I really was not brought into the story at all.

[–] wardiego 10 years ago

The plane wreck survival story was fairly typical

What exactly would you have added/changed ?

What I saw was initially typical it's true (but I can't really blame them for applying rules of survival), but then we got shark-eating, and finally saved by a plane...whoops that's actually a plane that's shooting at us. There was some religious talk (no that I'm too much into that) which set up the conclusion of the movie. To me this is not that typical overall.

the prisoner of war story has been done many times

Ok nothing against you because you're not the only one to say things like "the bank robbery movie has already been done", but personally I really don't see the problem. Because some situation has already been used in another movie, then you shouldn't use it for the movie you want to make ? To me that's completely false, because if that was the case, then we shouldn't EVER again see another romance movie, another horror movie with ghosts or zombies, another movie about a hero saving the world, another movie about someone trying to catch a murderer, another movie about a man taking his revenge upon an evil guy, etc... I think you get my point.

Now yes, some things have been done so much in a certain way that when they're done in this way again they really sound cliché, but for the most part I don't think we should take into account the big lines of the movie when we're talking about its actual quality. Maybe you don't like prisoner camp stories and that's fine, or maybe you didn't like this particular one, but in any case we can't say it's bad simply because there is a prisoner camp sequence, which in this case was in my opinion an interesting one, it was much more about the main character's moral and physical struggle than the actual misery of being in a prisoner camp.

Well that's what I think anyway, now I get your point that you think that the movie doesn't create something memorable because it uses two situations that aren't unique, and it's true it doesn't create something memorable structurally speaking, but I think the movie ends up being more about being immersed and empathizing with the protagonists than watching exciting things happen.

[–] xaviertjones68 10 years ago

"doesn't bring anything new"
you..... do realize.... this was a true story of a man's life right??? There's nothing "new" to bring.... its what happened

[–] waterbaby-84748 9 years ago

Still, ore movies about people's real life stories were so much better than this. "Ray" is a good example.

[–] waterbaby-84748 9 years ago

Still, ore movies about people's real life stories were so much better than this. "Ray" is a good example.

[–] Howlin Wolf 9 years ago

Of course you can have a 'fresh' way of looking at real events - otherwise all biopics would be made in the same style... and they aren't!



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] teamknights 10 years ago

It was a brilliant movie. It's a shame because I really think Angelina put everything into this, I can only imagine the toll the bad reviews would have taken on her when she was so emotionally invested in the film.

[–] xtrmfury 10 years ago

lol "snubbed by gutless left wing libtards" .
Take it easy Megyn Kelly, save the attack for a Foxnews hour of programming. haha. The WW2 generation isn't entitled to all the nominations and oscars if that's what you'd rather have. Chkaycom already pointed out how we've seen lost at sea movies, seen p.o.w. movies... Makes for a better book than it does a movie, get over it.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chrissso 9 years ago

nobody watches CNN ... left or right