A Soulless Film Devoid Of Any Meaning (And That's Really A Shame)

Rating: 2/10 (4 March 2017)

When I read Laura Hillenbrand's "Unbroken" novel, it was a visceral experience...perhaps the most power non-fiction book I've read in my entire life. I'll never forget the name Louis Zamperini because of it. Sadly, this film adaptation of Louis' story tells only the most generic form of the story possible. All the real emotion and raw power of the story is excised.
For a basic plot summary, "Unbroken" is the story of Louis Zamperini (Jack O'Connell), an Olympic runner who joins the military (eventually becoming a bombardier) to serve his country during World War II. While on a rescue mission, Louis' plane is shot down, forcing he and two fellow soldiers to spend over a month on a floating life-raft. They are finally rescued...by the Japanese military, who bring them to a camp occupied by a sadistic leader known as "The Bird" (Takamasa Ishihara). A trip through the coal mines also ensues, and Louis has multiple occasions where he could be nearing his mental and physical breaking point.
The reason "Unbroken" fails so miserably, however, is that my brief description above is actually more exciting than anything that happens in the film itself. Basically, it is just a "collection of events" in a general sense. One thing happens, then another thing happens, and so on and so forth. The emotional underpinnings that tie all the events together in the novel are completely absent. I'm not exactly sure why this is (especially with a screenplay written by the usually-solid Coen Brothers), but it likely comes from the direction of second-time director Angelina Jolie. Either Jolie cut out the meat of the story due to her own personal biases, or she just isn't polished enough yet behind the camera to know exactly what she is doing. Either way, the result is a film without a soul.
Also not helping this effort is that there is not a single truly great acting performance to be found. O'Connell as Louis is "just okay", but even then there doesn't seem to be much brewing underneath the surface of the performance. None of the supporting cast stick out whatsoever.
One final glaring mistake: Jolie chooses to not cover (besides a few captions at the end) the end of Zamperini's life which, to me, is the most emotional hard-hitting part of the whole story. In case you haven't read the novel, this is where Louis struggles with terrible post-traumatic stress and basically hits rock bottom in alcoholism. After joining a Billy Graham crusade and giving his life to Christianity, he then makes a journey back to Japan to try and find "The Bird" and come to terms with his wartime experiences. To not show this in the film is a crime, IMHO.
Viewing this movie was actually quite sad to me, as I know how much better it could have been made. If this version of the story is the only time you hear about Louis Zamperini, it will fade from your memory rather quickly, a shame considering how truly inspiring the man's story is. Instead of diving headfirst into the gritty, visceral issues that shape Louis' story, Jolie pulls too many punches and tries to create almost a family-film environment (released over the holidays, very little actual war violence compared to actual events, etc). This creates the most general movie experience possible, I have no respect for that approach to film-making.