Unbroken screaming, "Give me Oscars!" Uh, no.

Rating: 1/10 (6 November 2015)

Why was Unbroken snubbed at the Oscars? It's beautifully shot, the acting is decent, it's an epic WWII movie. Yeah, but it's been done before in other movies and a thousand times better. Do we really need another WWII movie? Not really, but if you're going to do it anyway, at least tell a different story with a brilliant storyline that peaks your interest and have characters you care about (ex: The Imitation Game). You don't feel anything for Louis nor the other captives. The only character we feel anything for is The Bird, and he doesn't show up till halfway into the film. Louis' back story is quickly flashed back, so you don't get any sense of his family or why he chose to run in the Olympics or did he choose to enlist in the armed services or if he was drafted. Instead of showing you his life after he was rescued, like suffering from PTSD and finding God, we just get a quick rundown at the end of the movie. And for a bunch of captured Americans, they're still nicely groomed. A goatee here, a mustache there, but their hair still looked terrific. The movie Castaway did a much better job with unruly hair. Also there was no timelines. If one of the soldiers didn't announce the death of FDR, I wouldn't have figured that it was 1945. And the constant torture scenes. We get it; the war was brutal but enough already! And am I the only one bothered that an Irishman was cast to play the Italian American Louis? Are we short on Italian-American actors or did The Sopranos steal them all? Also how do FOUR screenwriters, all Oscar winners and nominees, come up with THIS terrible adaptation of a best-selling book? This was a story badly done. The real Louis (R.I.P) deserves better.