OVP: Unbroken (2014)

Film: Unbroken (2014)
Stars: Jack O'Connell, Dohnall Gleeson, Miyavi, Garrett Hedlund, Finn Wittrock
Director: Angelina Jolie
Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Arguably the most shocking downfall of this past Oscar season was the fall of Angelina Jolie's Unbroken.  Every year there's at least one film that manages to be drowned by its own expectations, faltering because people expect it to be a natural Best Picture frontrunner.  In the defense of pundits, a World War II epic based on a critically-acclaimed biography directed by an Oscar winner and lensed by one of the most acclaimed cinematographers of all-time...well, it's the sort of stuff that the Oscars salivate over.  And yet, I agree with the critical consensus here-Jolie may know how to create all of the right elements, but Unbroken lacks passion and nuance enough to make it an interesting picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) The story of Louie Zamperini, a World War II veteran and Olympic runner, was destined for the screen.  By all accounts Zamperini was a truly extraordinary human being-overcoming bullying in school to become an Olympic athlete (who, according to some reports, was ballsy enough to steal Hitler's personal flag from him in 1936) and then became an incredible hero in World War II, followed by a long career as a Christian inspirational speaker.  His story feels like it was lived by three different people, and his biography, particularly his compelling overcoming the odds in Berlin and later in Japan, is the stuff that biopic-fans salivate over.

The problem for Jolie, of course, is that it's difficult to frame Zamperini in an actual film setting without making him larger-than-life, because quite-frankly he was.  This was a person who doesn't appear believable and would be mocked at by critics if he weren't non-fiction, as he seems too good to be true.  The character in the film, it should be stated, may well have been what Zamperini was (he genuinely seems like an extraordinary human being), but the film itself doesn't know how to find angles to sort of test his endurance.  Perhaps this is a situation where a plot on paper doesn't work in actuality-Zamperini doesn't have the shades of grey as a protagonist that would make for a more compelling film.  Instead, his story may be better suited for a biographical documentary, where you can stagger his story a bit more ferociously and have less need for cohesiveness.

This isn't the only problem that Jolie runs into with her film, though.  For starters, while the film is immaculately shot with beautiful aerial views (it's Roger Deakins behind that camera, y'all), the actual cast may be a bit too, well, pretty to be believable as a unit.  Unless Tom Ford had a hand in casting World War II, it's ridiculous to watch, with gorgeous Finn Wittrock, Jack O'Connell, Luke Treadaway, Jai Courtney, and Garrett Hedlund all somehow ending in the same orbit.  I know that an army uniform helps pretty much any guy in this regard, but this is ridiculous.  Additionally, aside from the scenes on the raft, they manage to stay gorgeous throughout the film.  Somehow in a war camp where they are deprived of human dignity and hope, they still have regular access to hair gel.

The performances are all over the board.  Jack O'Connell clearly has a magnetism that's going to serve him well in future roles, but I have to admit that he was just okay here-he doesn't know how to crescendo his performance, as his big moments end up appearing less big and more out-of-character.  Not to criticize Jolie too much, but I feel like he needed more direction here and to be pushed a little harder.  Garrett Hedlund is always wonderful, but we know next to nothing about his Fitzgerald (the same can be said for Domhnall Gleeson's Phil and Finn Wittrock's Mac, both strong actors who are given roles that don't demand much and they don't push them enough to be very memorable).  Miyavi, playing the "Bird," a famed prison guard, gets the plummest of roles but thoroughly disappoints.  He doesn't find any sort of internal aspects of the character-we're left with him being awful, but little indication of what sets him off in Louie, or why he is such a sadist.  I normally blame the screenplay in these situations, but I have to admit that the script is there, but Miyavi holds back, perhaps because he's more a practiced singer than an actor, and as a result this aspect, crucial to the film's success, left me completely cold.  This result is the ending being less capable than it could have been; when you don't ever think that Louie won't succeed, you don't really have any uplift when he does.

The combination of an unbelievable main character and an underwhelming villain make this film pretty much the disappointment it's described as, though I will say they chose correctly on the nominations.  Particularly with the Sound Editing, there's a ferocious crispness to the air scenes that make them easily the best aspect of the film (the way that dialogue is still audible but feels drowned-that's strong sound mixing in this critic's opinion).  And of course Roger Deakins is superb, though I will say that there were sequences of the movie where it felt like he was just leading up to the next terrific shot (the scenes in the camp, for example, where he isn't showing the same care that Lubezki did with Birdman or Dick Pope does with Mr. Turner).

Those are my thoughts on this film-how about yours?  Were you with myself (and critical consensus) or were you a closet cheerleader for this film?  Where do you see Jolie taking her career as a director and O'Connell taking his career as an actor?  And what are your thoughts on the nominations that the film did pull (should it win any of them)?  Share in the comments!