Taken 3

This should not take too long. This is a perfunctory sequel to a sequel to a terrific movie. It has little to offer on it's own, except for standard action sequences and interminable car chases and crashes. The story is convoluted nonsense that  fits into many of today's thrillers where criminals lurk around every corner and there is a convenient betrayal behind every door. All the actors do their jobs but it is mostly going through the motions rather than creating something memorable or essential. None of this is a surprise after the lackluster second entry, also directed by Olivier Megaton. When I looked back, I was more enthusiastic than I remember, and I know I must have been somewhat blinded because I have never revisited the sequel.

There are three things that make this movie worth a visit. Forrest Whitaker does a nice job playing a sharp LAPD Detective. At some point in his career, someone decides that he would make a good cop. I think he has been an FBI agent or a cop in the last two or three things I saw him in. The part is not especially well written but he adds some thoughtfulness to it through his performance and especially his voice. The second element that makes this somewhat worthy is the use of Bryan Mills team of buddies. That actually get to do something in this movie and they show they are pretty clever also. They still could have been utilized more but at least they don't just show up and drop something off for him.

The third thing that makes this somewhat worth seeing is the star himself. Liam Neeson can now play these parts without breaking much of a sweat. Whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on your view of Neeson. I have always liked him as an actor, my family jokes a little that I have a mancrush on him. I'm a fan, and I will probably always be available if Liam wants to show up on screen and kill a bunch of people. I do think it is interesting that he became an action star at the point in life when other action stars who have been doing these kinds of movies much longer, are sometimes mocked for being geriatric. He did star as "Darkman" in 1990, but his career did not really become littered with action roles until maybe ten years ago. I suppose he still feels fresh enough to the audience that we can still go with it.

Now the other things that made this movie a problem for me. I already mentioned the frequency of car chase sequences but they are problematic for some other reasons as well. The director shoots the car scenes in such frequent close ups that at times you might forget that the characters are in cars. The action of the cars is also so tight that you can't really get a sense of what is happening to whom, except that there is a lot of mayhem in most of these parts. The ubiquitous shaky cam is present in all of these scenes as well, and once again instead of creating tension or a feeling of being in the action, it creates a sense of vertigo that made at least one member of our part nauseous enough that they had to leave the theater. The action sequences also have that problem, but they suffer from a bigger deficiency, "sanitized brutality". There is a minimum of blood, the broken bones and cracked skulls don't jump out and make you winch they way they did in the first film. There is something too "PG-13" in the way the material is being put together. I did however appreciate Bryan's impromptu waterboarding sequence. It can't hold a candle to the electric shock scene in the original "Taken", but it does show what a nasty customer Bryan can be.


I liked the movie a little more than the second film, but neither will be very memorable. If you are a connoisseur of Liam Neeson action films, than you can't really skip this one. It is a part of a Neeson Franchise and so it is necessary for you. If you are interested in an average action thriller for a date night, this will suffice. If you wanted a good movie, move along, this will not give you what you need. The fact that i enjoyed it probably says more about my faults than it does about the quality of the film.

The Interview

The most controversial movie of the year. Yep, I said it and as hard as it is to believe it is true. This stupid, vulgar, lazy excuse for killing two hours and a tub of popcorn became the focus of international tension, craven corporate decision making, and judgement by movie fans around the world. All of you who read anything on line already know what the battle lines are. Now it is to to discover what we are fighting over.

"The Interview" is basically a comedy in the vein of "Spies Like Us". It pairs two well known comic figures in an outrageous espionage story that no one would mistake as a James Bond movie, much less a piece of political propaganda. The Soviets were not as thin skinned as the North Koreans, or perhaps they were more worried about their citizens living conditions and so ignored drivel that is not a real affront to any state or sovereign. This movie is arrested development, adolescent, shart humor, financed by money grubbing studios and narcissistic performers.  I don't think it is anyone's patriotic duty to see it simply because you support free speech, but it is a good example of why we have  protection from the government for free expression, so that the stupidest ideas in the world can be expressed.

If you have seen any of the comedies from Seth Rogan in the past, you know that the humor relies on stoner jokes and vulgar language. The frequency with which the f-word is bandied about in this film could be dangerous to the comics themselves. If people really used the term as frequently and with such reckless abandon as the characters in these films, it would lose any taboo status and stop being funny when inserted into conventional conversation.

So far, I have probably given you the impression that I did not like the movie. far from it, I laughed hard at a number of things. The movie has random violence done for comic effect, I like that. It is full of stupid people being judged by others and by themselves in pretty harsh terms, that is funny also. It lampoons the most xenophobic and dangerous nation on the planet, and guess what, it's not the U.S., I like that too.  Are the characters engaged in racist and sexist stereotyping, uh duh. As is usual with these kinds of movies, we are supposed to see that they are morons and laugh at them for their stupidity, it is called satire, a concept that the politically correct in this world seem to be unable to comprehend.
When Katy Perry's "Fireworks" becomes an anthem for revolution, it is not hard to guess that sarcasm is part of the mix. Not everything works in the movie, but there are enough but jokes and penis references to make the average college fraternity laugh a dozen times in the movie. One brief shot of nudity is included to be titillating, unless you are thinking of the longer shots of Seth Rogan's naked character or Kim Jung Un's backside.


For me the real political controversy is over the use of streaming services to deliver movies. On a Sunday night, my network slowed down enough to stop the film three or four times. Until the delivery is seamless, theaters should not be too worried about day and date VOD releases. Plus, this way, all the pot smokers will be at home watching instead of on the road driving to the movie in a highly lit condition. This movie is exactly what you think it is, and if that appeals to you, as it did to me, you will enjoy it well enough.

Back to the Future Trilogy

OK, this is a good way to start the New Year on a movie blog. Last night I had the chance to see the three films from Robert Zemekis that cemented his position as the most commercial director of the 1980s outside of Steven Spielberg, who of course was a producer on all three films himself. This was a digital presentation at the Egyptian Theater and the house was packed. I saw several attendees wearing down vests and one guy with Griff's hat on from the second movie. It is now 2015 and that was the year in the future that Marty and Doc went to to try and straighten out Marty's kids. Unfortunately we don't have the Hoverboards, Flying cars and self tying shoes predicted in the film, but we do have skype, flatscreen TVs, Google Glass, and more channel choices that someone could watch at the same time than anyone should find necessary.
This will not be a full review on each film but rather just a quick recap and a few comments. These movies are pretty well known and are beloved by millions. The first in the series is one of the great pop entertainment surprises ever. While the follow ups struggle to achieve the same kind of magic as the original, they manage to do the one thing that every consumer of films wants, entertain us.
The original film roared out of no where in 1985 to incredible popular success and made Michael J. Fox an entertainment icon rather than simply a good character on a successful TV show. The cleverness of the concept and it's execution are hard to match. This film is funny, exciting and it manages to raise our awareness of family history and it's significance along the way. While Fox is clearly the star, the secret weapon in this film is Christopher Lloyd, who got laughs from an intake of breath and a bug eyed scream. He manages to make some of the slapstick work where so often it does not in modern films. I will also mention that Lea Thompson is best used in this film and she does the "good girl with a bad side" 50s character just perfectly. She is also strikingly attractive in the film.
Four years later, the second film was released at the Thanksgiving holidays. It was a success but came nowhere close to matching the original box office draw of it's predecessor. Maybe too much time had elapsed or maybe it is the sour tone of the movie. Fox is still great, but the complicated movement between time periods and the inconsistency of some of the rules make it a little sloppy. Having to invent a character fault in Marty, in order to justify the story line is also a bit frustrating. Thomas Wilson as Biff/Griff does a great job in building his malignant character, but because the movie uses him in such cartoony ways and so frequently, the movie feels shrill. Doc Brown gets short shrift in this chapter of the story and Elizabeth Shue, as the new Jennifer, is put to sleep a third of the way into the movie and does not return until the coda of the third film. When I first saw this thirty years ago, it was a bit of a letdown. Last night however, it was pure joy. The future sequences play even more effectively now that we are in 2015 and the suspense bits still work. While I feel as if this is the weakest of the three films, that does not mean it is not a success. There is plenty here to enjoy.
The third chapter was awkwardly set up in the second film, but once it gets started it works just fine and it feels seamless rather than forced. The historical context is fun and the western tropes that are lampooned were amusing. Marty adopts the "Man with No Name" persona, and gives him a name, Clint Eastwood. The fact that Clint was a big star at the time but also the only star who tried to keep Westerns alive during the 80s was a big whoop for film fans. Familiar Western character actors are sprinkled through the film and the gulf between the real west and the movie west is explored just a bit. The addition of Mary Steenburgen to the cast was a nice touch and gives Doc a great conclusion to his story. Watch Wilson copy Lee Marvin from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance" in his portrayal of "Mad Dog Tannen". He gets the walk, swagger and body movement just right, and in case you missed it, he carries a riding crop in his non-shooting hand. This was a simpler version of the time travel story and it effectively wrapped up the story lines they had created in the second movie. The fact that the two sequels were shot simultaneously saved some money and allowed this film to be released just seven months after the second installment.
A pleasant evening was had by all and I am much more ready to come back to these films than I have been for a while. They really were terrific entertainment even when there are some issues in the time story sequences.

Movie Related Events of 2014

Here at KAMAD, I focus on movie reviews of films I have seen in theaters.  Reviews however are not the only thing that takes up space on this blog page. Movie related events come up on a regular basis in my world and they get some on-line love from me as well.

In case you are not a regular at Kirkham A Movie A Day, here are some items you may enjoy but may have missed in the last year. Click on the picture to be magically transported to the post.

A visit with the makers of the film version of the Musical Jesus Christ Superstar

My first trip to the TCM Film Festival and my first meeting with one of my blogging colleagues.

Another opportunity to meet Drew Struzan, my favorite poster artist and the subject of a documentary screened at the exhibit of his work.

A chance to meet and get a signature from the screenwriter of the greatest adventure film ever made.

A few hours spent in the company of the friends of the claymation giant. GUMBYFEST

Rock and Roll Night at the Egyptian Theater

The Costume Exhibit at the future Academy Museum site.

A personal appearance by the Man in Black (no, not Johnny Cash)

The Traditional Top Ten for 2014

There is something satisfying about closing out the past year and starting the new year with an inventory of favorites. Almost everyone enjoys making and reading lists, and I think it's because it reminds us of what is out there and it allows a quick form of social comparison to everyone else inventory. I don't know how other bloggers feel about their work, but all of us are narcissistic enough to hope that others will enjoy reading what we have to say. Frankly, when I look back I appreciate the tone of what I have written and my own enthusiasm or disdain.

My list is not an attempt to thoroughly evaluate the films of the last year, there are too many quality pictures that I have yet to see. "Birdman", "The Theory of Everything", "Boyhood", "The Imitation Game" are all films that are mentioned during awards season here that I have yet to experience. I know that I will be seeing some of these at the upcoming "Best Picture Showcase" put on by AMC Theaters, so I am not in a panic, but I am limited to ranking those films that I did see.

I have varied tastes and limited resources. I pay for everything I see in a theater, and on a weekly basis I have to decide based on mood and release patterns what it is I will see. Of the 54 new films released in 2014 that I paid to see in a theater, these are my favorites, click on the poster image for the original review.

10. Jodorowsky's Dune  

Film makers are craftsmen, artists, businessmen and sometimes they are visionaries.  Alejandro Jodorowsky is one of those directors with a vision. It was grandiose, wondrous,  and completely over the top. The ideas for his version of "Dune", the Frank Herbert novel that he had never even read were impractical but also spectacular for the time period he was working in. When you hear him tell the story, you will know why the film did not come together, and you will mourn this lost opportunity.

9. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Marvel Film Studios have been providing solid comic book action for more than a decade now. They don't control all of the crown jewels in their own stable of heroes but they have made many of the less well known figures into icons. Of the Avenger's, Captain America has been my favorite. His traditional sense of right and wrong often conflicts with the murky world of the spies he ends up working with. This film is a terrific concoction of political intrigue and super hero conflict. A thinking man's comic story in a great piece of pop entertainment.

8. Gone Girl

Gillian Flynn adapted her own book to screenplay form and the great David Fincher put it together to give us a pretty nasty piece of crime drama. The marriage of two well to do, gorgeous and promising people starts to come apart when the promise does not pay off. Each character has their own failings that make the story compelling but it is the monster Amazing Amy, that will always be the person you will remember the most. Rosamund Pike delivered the best female performance I saw this year in this worthy thriller.  

7. A Walk Among the Tombstones

I have not seen much love for this film at the end of the year. When it was released, a number of other bloggers found it to be average and classified it with the other Liam Neeson action pictures of the last few years. I beg to differ. This somber and depressing story about an alcoholic ex-cop seeking redemption through work as an unlicensed private investigator gives Neeson a chance to stretch those acting chops and the story frankly gives me nightmares. When a shot of someone eating a bowl of cereal is a frightening prospect, you know someone created a real story of horror.

6. Guardians of the Galaxy

I did not enjoy any other movie this year more than this second Marvel entry of the list. Not being a comic book aficionado, I had never heard of this storyline or these characters. After two hours in their company, I loved them in the same way I love Luke, Leia and Han. I think that the film makers in this project have created a set of characters and a world of imagination, that has the potential to last decades, the way the original Star Wars story did. It remains to be seen if they can sustain it in a superior sequel, but if they manage it, the next generation has a new touchstone childhood legacy to sustain them.

5. The Lego Movie

I usually end up with an animated film on my list because I love that medium and there is usually a Pixar, Disney, or Dreamworks product to fit the slot. Not this year, the animated movie of the year and one of the best movies of any type is this Warner Brothers release of a movie based on a toyline. Chris Pratt and Liam Neeson make back to back appearances on my list. The voice talent is this movie is amazingly diverse and at times hysterical. Will Arnett's Batman will entertain you for hours. The look of this movie is like something you have never seen before. The pinnacle of boisterous fun in the film is the theme song that says it all, "Everything is Awesome."  

4. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson films are an acquired taste.  I can't say I have seen everything he has made, but I can say that I am always impressed when I have seen his films. This movie could almost qualify as a live action version of the "Fantastic Mr. Fox". The diversity of characters, the caper elements to the plot and the quirkiness in the action are all repeated in a slightly different story. Ralph Fiennes gives a performance of comic genius proportions and the movie is marvelous to look at. This is a rich meal to be savored rather than junk food to be consumed. I look forward to stumbling upon this film over the years and becoming caught up in it's elegant weirdness.

3. Nightcrawler

The central performance that drives this movie is one of the main reasons to see it. Jake Gyllenhall is creepy magnetic and scary, in the most passive ways you can imagine. The movie also has something to say about our culture and the news media, and it does so in a stunningly honest way. It is amazing that the local media here in L.A. allowed themselves to be examined in this way while participating so much in the films production. The nightmare of uncontrolled ambition and manipulation that fills all of the characters but especially Lou Bloom, an entrepreneur in the worst case imaginable example, will haunt you well past the film's conclusion.

2. Interstellar

The last film I saw in the year, despite being one of my most anticipated. I found much to admire in "Inception" from a few years ago, but I did not drink the Kool Aid at the time. I still thought Christopher Nolan was one of the best film makers of our current crop but that film felt constantly like it was trying to dazzle us rather than say something. I feel the exact opposite about "Interstellar". It has something to say while dazzling us with the visual story telling. This is an intelligent and thoughtful script with much to say about humanity and love. If "Guardians of the Galaxy" is the new generation "Star Wars" than "Interstellar" is the new generation "2001".  It may not be a film for everyone, but it is a film everyone should see.

1. Whiplash

As "Nightcrawler" was a film about unbridled ambition, "Whiplash" treads the same territory from the point of view of two characters rather than just the one. Andrew Neiman, the student drummer with ambition as big as the sky, is as self centered as they come. He manages his relationships but is most satisfied only when he achieves greatness at his vocation. Terrance Fletcher is the teacher that will never tell him he is great. In Fletcher's mind, that would ruin the clay he is trying to mold. This story could have been another in a long line of inspirational teacher films, instead it plays like a thriller with a high amount of tension and a monster lurking in every scene. J.K. Simmons may be evil incarnate or he may be the greatest mentor in music history. Whichever it turns out to be, you will not forget this performance. This is a movie so completely realized that I can't think of anything about it that I would want to change. Beware of what you wish for has never been more true a warning.


A few movies just missing my top ten list include: Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, X-Men Days of Future Past and Muppets Most Wanted.

Interstellar

For seven weeks now I have avoided reading any reviews of this film because I wanted to experience it with a clear and open mind. This would usually have been a film that would have been an opening night must for me, but circumstances have put it off for a substantial period. I can now add my two cents to the discussion, although at this point most of you will have formed your own opinions. "Interstellar" is maybe the most ambitious, intelligent and creative science fiction films made in the last fifty years. It has no fantasy elements to it, and it is deeply seated in the hard science realm of quantum physics, but it is more than anything a story about human beings rather than technology.

The Nolan brothers have a pretty clear opinion on how our science dollars are spent. The idea that short term objectives should take precedence over long term goals is an anathema to them. An early scene at young Murphy Cooper's school tells us exactly what foolishness comes from being narrow focused. It also shows how dangerous the conspiracy theories that thrive on the internet are. There is also a healthy bit of skepticism concerning federalization of the education process. Almost none of this is important to the plot but it is essential to the sensibilities of the film maker. This is a "can do" civilization and we need to keep that belief in something greater alive.

A seemingly terminal malaise has settled over the Earth as blight is decimating agriculture and the population of the planet has been diminished by a variety of  circumstances. Matthew McConaughey is Cooper, an engineer and former NASA pilot who has been relegated to the role of farmer, as has most of the world in trying to cope with massive famine. He and his ten year old daughter Murph, discover an anomaly with gravity that leads them to a secret plan to save civilization in one form or another. The team is lead by another father/daughter combination physicist Professor Brand, Nolan regular Michael Caine, and his daughter played by Anne Hathaway. They need Cooper to lead an expedition to a different star system that is being explored for habitable planets. Of the dozen scout ships sent forth only three appear to have survived and found somewhere promising. Because travel through a worm hole in space allows them to reach those destinations in relatively short times on a human scale, the passage of time on Earth will be longer and Cooper's family will grow old before he will ever make it back. This is the point where most of us who have only a passing knowledge of science need to have some exposition. The pacing of the first act is leisurely with a building sense of dread. Once the mission starts, there are some pauses in the action to bring everyone up to speed on the physics. This becomes a time travel story in the sense that different groups will be experiencing time in different ways during the course of the story. I'm sure there are experts out there who will nit pick the science here the way that was done for "Gravity" last year.  As a viewer of the film, I felt sufficiently informed to be able to follow the ideas up through the climax of the film. Once we arrive at the final explanation, I did feel a little lost, even though I could follow the story line. The pace of the movie picks up and with that urgency, the exposition becomes more visual in nature and as a consequence more abstract.

We are told early on that love is the only thing other than time and gravity that transcends space. The purpose of this movie is to show that this is true. Cooper undertakes this mission reluctantly because he sees it is the only possibility of saving his family. Saving humanity matters of course but it is the survival instinct and the love of one's children that drive us to reach a little further. It is a theory that is expounded upon by a late arriving character in the story. It is also told under harrowing and unpleasant circumstances, but it is nevertheless true as Cooper will reveal. The complexity of love and the ability of that emotions to drive our actions is front and center in the story and it usually makes sense. There are some places where the story telling depends on withholding love and then letting love solve a puzzle that don't always work but they still seem to be honest ideas.

In many ways this film is a counter weight to "2001: A Space Odyssey". Kubrick's view of space travel and human evolution is cold and calculating. In that story we seek knowledge because of our intellect, here we are doing the same thing out of desperation. In "2001" it is the machine that betrays us, in "Interstellar" the betrayals are human in nature. The Discovery travels through space without contact on another planet, The Endurance travels through time and space, encountering planets and other explorers in attempting to seed another galaxy. "Space Odyssey" begins at the dawn of man, "Interstellar" begins at what appears to be man's sunset. The psychedelic trip though time in 1968 was a metaphysical journey without any clear explanations, a similar event in the current film is all explanation (although admittedly not well understood). Human evolution in the Arthur C. Clarke story is a result of extraterrestrial intelligence intervening to make it possible, the Nolan brothers have the audacity to believe that human beings might be the ones who are responsible for our own advances. Both stories feature artificial intelligence in the form of on board computer systems, but "Interstellar" makes those characters, mobile and warm. The idea of sacrificing a computer is objectionable to Brand when faced with the need, because of the personification of TARS. Dave and Frank pay lip service (get it?) to HAL being a member of the team, but TARS and CASE participate in the actions and behave as team members, even to the point of making a "2001" joke.

Christopher Nolan is nothing if not ambitious. This is a story with creativity grounded in science. A fantasy writer can invent any kind of planet and populate it with whatever creatures they choose. "Avatar" is a good example. James Cameron makes dragons and tigers and bears of a different sort. Nolan has to conceptualize two worlds  for the explorers to visit that need to seem realistic and dangerous. Neither of the two planets is very hospitable to humans but not because the indigenous life forms are going to eat us. The ecosystems of the two worlds just are not going to work for human habitation. The water laden planet that absorbs so much of the time for our team is actually spectacular to look at and to contemplate. The frozen world that hides a secret is equally well conceived and  even more believable. Neither one will take us out of the science based story that we are in, they reflect the realities of our choices much more.

The human dangers are the one place where there might be some questions about the story telling. There are two different acts of humans that are questionable from a moral standpoint. I don't want to give away anything that could be a reason for suspense or emotional surprise to the audience but I will say that both of these choices seemed questionable to me. in a longer film, the ideas might be the basis for discussion and the central focus or theme of the picture, in this context they feel a little too much like plot bridges to create drama. They work, but they may do so at the expense of the heart of the real story here.

Cooper frequently jokes with the mechanical members of the crew over their honesty and humor settings. He turns them up or down as necessity dictates. Using a similar measurement, this film is near a ninety-five percent on the creativity and thoughtfulness scale and only slightly lower, say ninety percent on a story telling standard. The actors are all excellent and the cast is really filled with people who know what they are doing. A couple of the performers play against type and do well. Hathaway and McConaughey are the show and I thought they were both effective at conveying the characters, especially at moments of emotional depth. Jessica Chastain is usually excellent, here she was merely satisfactory, having been cast in the most thankless role in the film. Young Mackenzie Foy is the brightest spark in the movie although her character's truculence is a bit off putting, you can easily believe her intelligence. "Interstellar" was a wonderful experience and a great intellectual challenge that is carried off with authority.

Unbroken

When I first saw the trailer/interview preview for this movie almost a year ago, I made a bold prediction that it would be the Oscar winner for Best picture this year. I can't withdraw that prediction completely because the story of Louis Zamperini is still as inspiring as ever and the movie is very competently put together. There is however something missing from the film and as a result it does not live up to my lofty expectations. While it remains one of the few films this year to attempt to tell an adult story with an inspiring message, it is only in the last few minutes of the movie, when the coda of Zamerini's life is given to us that the emotions match the story.

The film touches on many of the key moments that make the story extraordinarily, but it misses a few moments that are also important in tone and spirit of the subject's life. The first thing I noticed was the lack of background on his friendship with fellow survivor and pilot Phil Phillips. Their earlier close call is shown but the relationship between them is hinted at rather than featured. The sequence by which they ended up in the plane they eventually crashed in does little to show how the flyers felt about the weapons that were being produced and the sense of fate that often accompanied their flights. The decision to tell the story as a series of flashbacks in the first half of the movie makes sense. An hour on the two rafts in the ocean without some relief would make the story feel slow. The structure robs the narrative of the drive and promise that Louis had as he climbed the ladder of track and field royalty and as the intervention of service in the military changed all of that. Not to mention that it left out entirely his time at U.S.C. where he encountered a Japanese student who would later come back into the story. All of the cuts are made to keep focus on the endurance of the survival story but it leaves that story without the emotional context it needs. The childhood thuggery was displaced by the sports enthusiasm but even that could not suppress the mischievous nature that Louis had, a nature that lead to a confrontation during the Olympics with his theft of a Nazi flag. 

The most successful sequence in the film concerns the crash of the plane and the extraordinary survival story on the rafts. The forty five days depicted here are replete with harrowing moments of physical threat from man and nature as well as the despair that anyone in those circumstances is likely to face. The crash itself is a piece of technical film making that rivals the special effects in large action pictures but is so much more meaningful because it depicts a reality rather than the fanciful. It does not involves elves and orcs dancing across a chasm over a collapsing tower. That fanciful image can be put together in a number of ways because it is a fiction. The B-24 crash that killed eight of the eleven crew members has to ring true and it does. The unpleasant six weeks that followed is visualized with accuracy, probably a combination of make-up special effects and acting talent. The interaction of the men as they cope with mind numbing tedium and spirit crushing fear was nicely detailed in small exchanges and moments. Those who have read the book know how they trio wondered at their ability to survive after breaking the 24 day record for being adrift at sea set by Eddie Rickenbacker and crew the year before. The degree of exposure, dehydration and malnutrition is had to imagine. All of this ends up being a prelude to the elements of the movie that Director Angelina Jolie, and the screen writers choose to focus on, the internment in the Japanese prison camps.

The malicious nature of the captors is well portrayed by Japanese musician/actor Takamasa Ishihara. "The Bird" as he was known by the P.O.W.s , had a sadistic nature that made him a sought after war criminal once the hostilities ended. The suffering that Zamperini especially endured at his hands makes the later story of Louis forgiveness and redemption more meaningful. The film however summarizes all of that in  some post script title cards rather than taking time to show us that transformation. Actor Jack O'Connell has to portray the physical strength and power of endurance that Zamperini displays but never gets much of a chance to connect with the spiritual. Emaciated, tortured, worked to near extinction, the body work is evident but the spirit is only shown in those contexts where abuse provokes it. The result is that the movie feels like a more brutal version of "Bridge on the River Kwai" or "King Rat" rather than the spiritual journey that the history really reflects. Domhnall Gleeson's Phil disappears from the story and the religious seeds that he plants are not show to sprout much in the duration of the war.

I suspect that the movie will be criticized by others for the same reasons I've made, regarding the film that it is not rather than the one that is given to us. There is so much promise in the way the movie is visualized and acted that it feels a shame that the ultimate emotional point only occurs when we see the real Louis Zamperini in some clips at the end . As a matter of heroism, "Unbroken" feels rich and well developed. The circumstances are set up and depicted with real honesty, it simply does not connect the way that the real historical figure managed to do with his own words and deeds.