Affecting war drama in the tradition of great war dramas

Rating: 8/10 (13 June 2015)

I just finished watching "Unbroken" on DVD, moved and shaken by the film, primarily due to the captivating performance of Miyavi who comes across as the epitome of evil. Miyavi's performance as "The Bird" is restrained but reeks of loathing due to jealousy and there is also the presence of fanatical nationalism contrasted with O'Connell's nationalism. Hey, they were both soldiers, right? Miyavi's "The Bird", however, takes it to a personal level and couples it with emotion.O'Connell is believable and, as he should be, one-sidedly heroic. Further, as is frequently the case with heroes and villains, the latter is the more interesting, complicated role. Maybe that's why actors like to play villains and not heroes! So, the latter just may be more challenging by that standard, but that's a whole other story. What I was amazed by was when I came to IMDb and saw the preponderance of negative reviews. I don't like to compare films to their sources. I try to view films independently as films, but I do make the comparisons when I know the source (which in this case I did not) and let it go at that. But what got me was how people reacted to the lack of character development, for example, in this movie. I immediately thought back to all of the WWII films I've seen out of Hollywood, and I think this one is *just like the rest*. Main characters are heroes, and villains are villains. We get very little character development in the WWII classics out of Hollywood that were made throughout the 40s and 50s. Perhaps the only exceptions to this rule, as I see it, are "The Best Years of Our Lives" and *maybe* "From Here to Eternity". There are probably others, but these immediately come to mind. So, as far as "Unbroken" is concerned, I thought it was an interesting and entertaining film with a vivid performance by Miyavi and a presentable one by O'Connell.